HIGHWAY PROGRAMME

Wairarapa Times-Age, 25 May 1939, Page 9

HIGHWAY PROGRAMME

POLICY OF MASTERTON COUNTY DISCUSSION AT YESTERDAY’S MEETING. REFERENCE TO MEDDLING. “We threw one man overboard last year because he meddled too much and now Mr Lee is following in his footsteps,” was the rather enigmatic statement made by Councillor P. R. Welch at yesterday’s meeting of the Masterton : County Council during a discussion on i the question of financing the council’s i future sealing and reconstruction pro- i gramme. The matter has been discuss- I ed at successive meetings and council- i lors have expressed divergent opinions on the subject. The following motion was moved by the chairman, Councillor R. E. Gordon Lee:—“That the council’s proportion of the cost of improving the existing alignment, reconstructing, metalling : and sealing such section or sections of the Main Highways within the county as the council may, from time to time by resolution determine, to so improve, reconstruct, metal and permanently surface, be charged against the General . Account, and for which purpose a sum not exceeding £2,500 be appropriated annually from that account and that all previous resolutions passed in respect of the work covered by the appropriation of £2,500 from the General Account be rescinded.” Mr Lee said he only wanted to bring the future work into line with what had been done in the past year or so. During the past two or three years a schedule had been adopted for Main Highway works, but at times that schedule had been broken. There was nothing drastic in his resolution and generally speaking' he thought that all the ridings and the ratepayers would benefit. Although, he said, he was not taken very much with the motion, Councillor Welch seconded it pro forma. They had been getting on all right before and he did not know why Mr Lee had brought his motion forward at this stage. They had already dropped one man overboard last year for meddling too much and now Mr Lee was following in hi&'footsteps. Councillor H. H. Mawley moved as an amendment: —“That the council’s proportion of the cost of all works performed on Main Highways within the county (excepting bridges exceeding 20 feet in span and charged against the bridge rate) and financed from ordinary revenue or special loan shall be paid out of the general rates for the whole county and that in addition to the cost of any such work or works, a sum of £2,500 be appropriated annually from the General Account for the express purpose of providing the council’s proportion of the cost of improving the existing alignment, reconstruction, metalling and permanently surfacing such Main Highways, within the county, as the council may, from time to time by resolution determine, and that all previous resolutions passed in respect of the work covered by the appropriation of the sum of £2,500 from the general account, be rescinded.” Councillor Mawley said that the effect of his amendment was much the same as the motion, with the important exception that he proposed that all work done on Main Highways be a charge on the general rate. His strong point was that if all the ridings had contributed towards the cost of reconstruction and sealing then they should all share in the reduction in costs as the result of the improvements carried out. . . _ “I think the amendment is on right lines,” remarked Councillor W. I. Armstrong, who seconded it. The backblock ridings needed some relief and they were justified in asking for it. They were penalised and the ratepayers were commenting on the position. The time had arrived when the method of apportioning the cost should be altered. Councillor Welch maintained that the inner ridings had paid their contribution towards the reconstruction and sealing of Main Highways, “and,” he added, “now that it is coming near the time for the outback ridings to do something they want to change the whole policy of the council. There is no merit in. wanting to cry off in the middle of the tar sealing programme.” Councillor J. W. Colquhoun: “In all fairness to Councillor Mawley I would say that this is only the thin edge of ihe wedge. After the abolition of highways will come the abolition of riding roads. This is only attacking the matter in piecemeal fashion. lam strongly opposed to the abolition of ridings. If the motion were carried it would be a definite injustice to the Opaki Riding.” Mr Lee said he resented Councillor Welch’s reference to meddling. He was not meddling and was not following in anyone else’s footsteps, but was merely trying to bring works into line with the highways schedule. If the amendmen were carried the Opaki Riding would contribute £577 13s 8d towards Main Highways as compared with £7 10s today; Rangitumau would pay £476 7s 8d as compared with £654; Upper Taueru £307 against £189; Te Whiti £406 against £294; Uriti £450 against. £910; and Wainuioru £399 as against £563 today. Councillor G. Moore said that if the council’s programme was adhered’ to and carried out, the Uriti Riding would get considerable relief in three or four years. He felt that the amendment would embarass the inner ridings as it would result in an increase in their rates. Councillor J. Donald said he could not see what benefit would arise out of the amendment. : Councillor Mawley: “I do not think ' anyone can see any benefit. I am not 'J asking you to measure it up in £ s d. ; All except Councillor Armstrong are • basing their objections on the cost to ! the ratepayers’ pockets. If all share in • the cost of the work, then all should ’ share in proportion in the benefits. I ■ am only considering the matter from 5 the point of view of a right or a wrong 5 policy.” On being put to the meeting the amendment was lost. “Councillor Welch accused someone of meddling,” observed Councillor Colquhoun. “Well, it seems to me that the cap fits in three places.” He said he wanted to get back to the original programme without causing hardship to any riding or penalising anyone. He wanted to see the matter settled on a fair and reasonable basis. He moved as an amendment: —“That the council’s . proportion of the cost of improving the existing alignment, reconstructing, metalling and sealing such section or ; sections of the Main Highways within i the county as the council may from time to time by resolution determine ' to so improve, reconstruct, metal and permanently surface be charged

against the General Account, with the exception that a sum equal to 5 per cent of the total cost of all earthwork be a direct charge against the riding or ridings in which such work is performed, and that the sum to be appropriated annually- shall not exceed £2,500, and that all previous resolutions passed in respect of the work covered by the appropriation of £2,500 from the General Account be rescinded.” The amendment was seconded by Councillor Armstrong and carried.