"Woes Added to Worry”

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 361, 23 May 1928, Page 1

"Woes Added to Worry”

GREATER AUCKLAND DREAMS City’s Transport Proposals IT seems to me that, in all, the City Council's dream of Greater Auckland by amalgamations amounts to an assertion that the whole difficulty would be overcome by adding to the worries of the present City Council all the woes of all the other local bodies in the area.” This is Mr. Tom Bloodworth's impression of the city's Greater Auckland scheme, and was given by him to the Transport Commission this morning.

Cross-examined yesterday Dr. E. P. Neale, secretary of the Chamber of Commerce, said he thought separate boards would be necessary in trading undertakings, thus enabling the election of specially suited representatives. He could not agree with other witnesses, including Air. A. G. Lunn, that the position should eventually develop into one Metropolitan Board, because of the unwieldiness. Some undertakings might, however, be co-ordinated. Reginald G. Clark, ex-chairman of the One Tree Hill Roard Board, supported the Transport Board proposal. Examined, witness said his board had always got on well with the city, and their services had been improved. He thought the city had had no option but to take over the tram undertaking, and that in some respects the Omnibus Act had been justified. MR. BLOODWORTH IN BOX The next witness was Mr. T. Bloodworth, ex-city councillor for eight years, member of the Power and Harbour Boards and Town Planning Association executive. Mr. Bloodworth said he had been a city councillor for eight years, and was intimately connected with the tramway position, having been one of the city representatives in support of the omnibus regulations. His contentions, having a full knowledge of the position, were: (1) That the present conditions were in part, but not wholly, due to circumstances outside the control of the City Council. (2) That it was impossible to get satisfaction and satisfactory results under the present control. (3) That the Greater Auckland proposed by the City Council did not provide a satisfactory solution of transport, and he doubted the possibility of the city scheme. (4) That a transport board as an integral part of the proposed Metropolitan Board offered the best means of solution. (5) That there was no need to set up an entirely new board, as the Power Board had the necessary facilities and area. PRIVATE OWNERSHIP RESULTS Explaining these points, witness said he was of opinion that one of the greatest factors in the present difficulties had been ' the original private ownership, and the position of the undertaking when it was taken over. At that time cars , and power were short, and when this position was remedied bus competition had developed to such an extent- that the council had to seek protection. He pointed out that early in 1920 the city engineer, after a tour abroad, had warned the City Council of its coming competition, hut. the council had done nothing. It did not seriously consider the report. It was too busy dealing with other things. A FATAL ERROR The suggestion that it was impossible to secure satisfaction under the present control was amply proved by the fact of the commission. Mr. Bloodworth asserted that the city made two very striking departures from its “Greater Auckland" policy when, in 1921, it rejected the amalgamation of Avondale Road District, and when, later, it agreed to the creation of the Auckland Power Board, a separate and entirely independent body. The first departure had since been remedied, but the second was fatal to the idea, and he did not think the slip could ever be retracted. In his opinion only financial embarrassment would cause some of the outside bodies to amalgamate, and he did not think the Government would ever force them. Complete amalgamation would only result in a mass of detail administration that would overwhelm the council. The best solution was the separation of regional functions from purely local ones, as proposed in the Citizens’ Committee scheme. The City Council did not approve, and a significant omission from its communications was the power board. “It is. I think, an indication that they entertain hope that they may be able to reabsorb that interest,” remarked witness. “I think that if such a hope

is entertained by the City Council it is indeed a vain hope.” The objection that difficult legislation would be required to form a Metropolitan Board held no weight with witness. Every move made had required it, and each one in the future would require it. CHANGE ESSENTIAL Suggesting that the Power Board could take over control, witness considered it essential that some change should be made for the financial safety of the undertaking. He pointed out that the tramways and the Power Board were running interwoven services, the areas were approximately the same, and the people the same. There would admittedly be difficulties and objections, but these could be more easily overcome than the objections to other schemes.