ADVERTISING SIGNS.

Putaruru Press, Volume VIII, Issue 352, 21 August 1930, Page 4

ADVERTISING SIGNS.

TOWN BOARD v. RAILWAY.

Board Opposes Proposal.

The attitude of the Putaruru Town Board in reference to the matter of the erection of advertising signs by the Railway Department assumed two phases at the August meeting of the board.

The Railway Department, in reply to the board’s vigorous protest against the erection of a sign in the vicinity of the Lichfield crossing end of the town, stated that the Department regretted the hostile attitude of the board. The proposed sign would not interfere with the beautifying of the town. The Department stressed the need for them to use every byproduct of the railway in order to make the railway pay, and further pointed out that they had been generous in giving the board a portion of land for beautifying purposes. They would not take action until they again heard from the board. An endeavour by the board to elicit the exact position of the proposed sign failed, as the department could not give it. After the letter had been read by the clerk, members with one voice stated that the department had not conferred any favour by the giving of land.

The vice-chairman (Mr. W. Yandle), who was in the chair, said that there could be no objection to the sign being erected there.

Messrs. C. C. Neal and J. C. Tomalin agreed. Mr. K. McDermott said that the board had agreed to a policy, of keeping out the signs, and if the erection of this sign were agreed to it would mean the thin edge of the wedge. The clerk (Mr. A. H. Dukeson) pointed out that it was against the principle adopted by the board.

Mr. C. C Neal said that he could ■see no objection but thought that they should stipulate that no signs should be erected north of the proposed sign. Mr. McDermott disagreed. The board decided to defer further consideration of the letter until the arrival of Mr. G. G. Griffiths at the meeting. On arrival Mr. Griffiths stated the erection of the sign was against the by-laws. The department was flouting the wishes of the people. The Railway Department was immune from the by-laws. Regarding the department’s liberality, the position was that the Beautifying Society were improving the railway property. Personally, he still opposed the erection of the sign. The question of a reply to the department was left to Mr. Griffiths and the clerk.