RESPONSIBILITY FOR BRIDGES.

Shannon News, 29 January 1929, Page 2

RESPONSIBILITY FOR BRIDGES.

OR, JENSEN SEEKS TRANSFER FROM RIDINGS TO COUNTY.

MOTION SUPPORTED BY. CHAIRMAN, BUT LOST.

Undeterred by the defeat of a similar motion which he brought forward last October, Cr. Jensen moved as follows, at the meeting of the Horowhenua County Council on Saturday:— "That the cost of constructing and maintaining bridges Within the CounI ty which exceed 20ft. be apportioned as provided by Section 131 of 'The Counties Act, 1920.' " On this occasion the mover was again unsuccessful. The purpose of the proposal was that the cost of constiucting or maintaining bridges of over 20ftspan should be a charge £• gainst the general account, and that-the cost should be apportioned to the ridings in aecoi dance with their respective capital values. On the former occasion Cr. motion contained the clause, "Thh provision is also to apply to boundary bridges," but this did not app«ar in the motion tabled on Saturday. Cr. Ryder was the seconder. Cr. Jensen said that when he first moved the motion the Council did not have the necessaiy information to show how many bridges the County had in each riding, not the length of them. He had since obtained the particulars. At the present time the traffic was spread over the whole county, whereas 20 years, ago it was only over a small portion of the county. In course of time the roads and bridges would be more and more used. He would like to go a step futher than he was now proposing and do away with all ridings, he thought it would have a better effect —it would be to thy benefit, perhaps, of the whola "county. Sometimes there was a great injustice done to certain ridings. Certain areas had been oponed up, and wherever such an area had been localised the expense fell on the riding in which it was situated. If the cost was borne over the county as a whole, it woul.d be a different matter,. Cr. Jensen read a statement as follows, showing the total lengths of bridges of under and over 20ft span in the respective ridings:— Riding 20ft and Under over 20ft.

The mover added that' he did not think that any injustice would be done in adopting his proposal. The Council never knew when they would have to replace a bridge, and they had to consider where they were to get the I money from to do that. Cr. Ryder expressed the opinion that I the proposal would not inflict any hardshit) oh the County as a whole. He did not, however, approve of Cr. Jenson 's suggestion to wipe out the ridings; it would not be in the interests of the Council. Each councillor had an intricate knowledge of the locality to which ho t belonged, and; the isystem now in vogue worked better than any merging of the ridings into the county would. As a riding representative he felt the duty devolving upon him to attend to the ratepayers in his district—a feeling which he would not experience to the same extent if the administration was spread over the ■ county as a whole. Cr. Whyte said that when the motion was previously introduced he had opposed it. Cr. Jensen was asking the Tokomaru riding to take the liability for 58 bridges, as against 14 of over 20ft. span, which they had at present. Of the latter, nine or ten were new bridges j five of them were under th.? Makerua Drainage Board, three belonged to the Public Wor.ks Department, and one was a County bridge. Cr. Kilsby: Have any of the other counties adopted this system? The Chairman: Quite a number. Many counties have a special bridge rate spread over the whole county. It is not new; it. tends to good working. If a smash comes in any riding, they have the county behind them. Cr. Jensen has touched on doing away with ridings. I think he meant that he would prefer to see the riding accounts done away with while still retaining the riding representation. Cr. Jensen: That is so.

The Chairman: From my experience of local bodies I am rather inclined to agree that it would help a good deal if the keeping of riding accounts were done away with. Many of our advanced local body men are of that opinion. The bridge proposal is accepted by a good many counties in New Zealand. It is felt that to place the whole risk of a big bridge on one riding often falls very hard. That may not apply so much in this where the burden of allocation of bridges is fairly even. That would happen in any county bounded by the sea-coast; and our ridings are cut up in the latitudinal direction. I support it because I do not think any hardship will be done to any riding if it is carried, but that there will be mutual benefit. It is perhaps unfortunate for Crv Jensen that at present bridge troubles are greater in Te Horo than usual. While Cr. Jensen looks as if he is trying to carry a baby to-day in his own arms, it might be in Cr. Whyte's arms to-morrow. Cr. Whyte: We have as many bridges, under 20ft. as over, iu, our riding.. If it were possible to put them all in the scheme, I would support it. A good many of the small bridges are in a bad way. I The motion was then put to the meeting and lost, the division being: For the motion—The Chairman and Crs. Ryder, Bryant and Jensen. Against the motion—Crs. Barber, Whyte, Kilsrby, Gimblett, and Catley. "They are pretty conservative,'? was the mover's comment.

■ "Consistent, " you should say," the chairman responded "Keep on, as f you said with the daylight saving." Cr. Jenaen: I will try again in a new Council.

Tc Horo (excluding * Tangata bridge) 661 ... ... 148 62 Wirokino 797 ... 237 ... 223