The Daily News. FRIDAY, JUNE 25. BOROUGH WORKS.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LII, Issue 16, 25 June 1909, Page 2

The Daily News. FRIDAY, JUNE 25. BOROUGH WORKS.

Ratepayers will lie deeply interested in the indication given, by the Borough Council at its last meeting of its intention to ask the ratepayers' to sanction a loan for the erection of a new I bridge in Powderham street, and the extension of Gill street, westward over the Huatoki (o> an alternative scheme to meet the same purpose). The question of further borrowing at the present moment is one that nmst he approached with caution, and in view particularly of the comprehensive undertakings that must claim the Council's attention ■within the next few years it would he wise, before coming to any decision, to thorough consider, the whole question of the future requirements. For this reason we are opposed to further piece-meal borrowing. We reeoguise the urgency of dealing with the l'owderham street bridge, and also the absolute necessity of securing an additional outlet into Uill street, in order to relieve the main thoroughfare of much heavy traffic, provided it can be secured at a price commensurate with the results. l!ut we also know that the electric light department is almost at the end of its resources, and cannot undertake to supply any considerable extra current without costly additions to the generating and transit plants. The straightening and reducing of the gradient on Carrington road out of Courtenay street is another question that must be considered ere long. Electric tramways are looming in the near future. The extension -of the drainage of the town and assisting propertyUrtvners to connect cannot much longer be allowed to proceed at snail's pace. The making of asphalt, footpaths to supersede the apologies for footways that exist on the great majority of the residential streets of the town claims attention. Likewise the filling in of the railway cutting in Liardet street, and the improvement of the streets in general. It should the apparent, therefore, that within the next few years the Council must make provision for a considerable outlay for works that cannot ,bc carried out out of revenue. Is it .therefore a wise policy to proceed with the raising of a comparatively small loan now, when the Council will before long have to again go on the market? The I'oiwderham street bridge is computed to cost nearly £31)00. This we say at once is an altogether excessive price to pay for the benelits to he derived. While wo should like to sec the street widened to its full nvidth at this point, if it cannot 'be done tori less than the sum mentioned, then a less ambitious alternative should be provided. But we are of opinion that a tilling and culvert could be carried out for much less than for a large bridge practically 150 ieet ju length. It would also be permanent; and represent some saving in cost of upkeep. The J slight encroachment on the adjoining

properties, at present' owned by the Railway Department, necessary to permit of the requisite batter, would, wc believe, he easily arranged. These adjoining iproperties would be largo gainers by the provision of a permanent road as compared with a bridge, which would debar them from approaches from Powdcrkam street. The sites are admirable ones for warehouses or similar purposes, the first floor of which would be on a level with the street, the portion below the street providing excellent basement accommodation. We therefore should not anticipate serious objection from adjoining property-own-ers to the blight encroachment necessary for the .fillings. To our mind, therefore, all that is required is a culvert similar to that which spans' the Uuatoki .stream in 'Devon street, the rest of the work being by filling. Provided the necessary arrangements can, be made with property owners, we fail to sec the necessity for expensive retaining walls. The Council possesses plenty of material necessary for the filling close at hand, and we are certain the whole work could be carried out in this way fo r a sum very much lielow the elaborate and costly structure recommended by the engineer. Further, we believe this work could be done out ofi ordinary revenue. Indeed, bad the Council expended the .17(10 appropriated fo r this work on la.it vear's estimates, instead of undertaking new works, such as the unless Pcwderhaiii street cutting, it could have been complefed this year by another nppropriulion of a similar amount. Eve n now however, it seems to us .that by postponing further concrete kci-bing am j channelling work in the borouHi and blowing the llohtun street culvert lo remain over till a more favorable time "«d by the exerci,e of a general „ean-' omy, at least i.700 can be providej ~■„,„ this year's revenue for the work The balance we believe, could W „ i ,, 111 , c . (1 on Hank overdraft. The scheme .we biggest would have the ullvillltaS( , of providing wo rk for a greater number of unskilled laborer, than would the croctiQJi of u bridge. However, whether the work is provided for out of Joan or «ot, we have , 10 hesitation i„ savill , that an expenditure of approximately xm> on work i s altogether out of ~,. ,:. ;. 1C Cil! Blrcct scheme cannot be dealt with until the Mayors proposal is before the Council «>"! Hs cost available. W e admit necessity, but it might be procured at too excessive a cost. Our contention, however, ,' s t | lilt if llu , ratepayers are to be asked to sanction a loan 'let pr; posals- be put before them coveri,,,- tl„. mam requirements of the b0m,,,,!," . llu | not, by asking for small loans" every two or three years, joopardi,,; the sane- i t.oning of loans f,„. really urgent work, "' *, Mvl '''""• " "Mbe understood we are not finding fault with the :

engineers proposals or estimates, but l'«t we consider they are too „ D , W . t'OUs. and that a le,s costly, if iess imP°*'»*r, ■work will s „/li,, ;„ Po wdcrhain street. \\ e a S ree with hi,,,' that reI'"»•'■•'« ('"• present structure is out of the question.

■ No one would doubt fo'r a moment the fairness of our contemporary's report, but clearly a mistake was unwittingly made in this instance. Anticipating comment by members of tlic Jloard on this very question, two puembers 06, our staff were present when Mr. Wilkinson made his remarks, and they are agreed that he never even hinted a doubt respecting the practicability 01 dredging right inshore. Our contemporary, therefore, is misleading when It claims that Mr. Wilkinson " practical! f endorses their chief objection to Mr. Marchaiit's new proposal."