COUNTY V. ROAD BOARD
TO THE EDITOR. Sin, Your llaiapipi coi respondent seems to have been in a fog lately us to county matters. I may give him some information on .sonic points which he appears to forget as regards the working (f local bodies. He should remember that where the County Act is in f •rec a Koutl Board must be run at a loss of revcuup. The Council has all the neccssary machinery and must strike a rate, and it costs the same to collect Id in the Gas n full rate. A petty Road IJjard to collect i«l in tho X. requires the same uiaclrnei')' anil is at the same expense as the Council. The Council then loses the subsidy on their rate, and Ids in the £ is no small loss in consequence of the cupidity of interested parties. I am pleased to learn that the I'irongii Hold Board is to he dissolved. 1 understand the petition is about complete. From what 1 have seen of the main road through Pirongia, from Te Bore to Kaui»h<imwin, it is in good order. This, I presume, is county work. Had your correspondent looked the matter up he would have found that the Raglan County is worked nio-e economically than* in •>.•«• counties, n-twithsti'mling the long distance members have to travel to attend tl.c meetings.— I am, etc.. WELL-WISHER. llaiapipi.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/WAIGUS18961024.2.22
Bibliographic details
Waikato Argus, Volume I, Issue 46, 24 October 1896, Page 2
Word Count
229COUNTY V. ROAD BOARD Waikato Argus, Volume I, Issue 46, 24 October 1896, Page 2
Using This Item
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.
Log in