HARBOUR BRIDGE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 237, 6 October 1932, Page 11

HARBOUR BRIDGE.

LOCAL BODY CONFERENCE.

POSITION OF COMPANY. TRANSFER OF CHARTER MOOTED. "The general opinion at the present time is that the bridge will never be built by the Harbour Bridge Company, and the most feasible way to bring it about is for the local bodies to form a board of control," said Mr. J. Guiniven, Mayor of Takapuna, who presided at a meeting yesterday of about 30 representatives of local bodies which he convened. The meeting was called to consider the advisability of approaching the Government to vest the charter, which was granted to the company, in the local authorities.

Mr. Guiniven said that though he did not desire to disclose anything of a confidential nature, he was of the opinion that if fresh money was not available within a month the Harbour Bridge Company would go into liquidation; He thought, the bridge scheme should be regarded as a metropolitan,, if not a national, matter. It was part of the national highway from one end of the island to the otlier, and just as important as any bridge on the Main Trunk railway. It should not be looked upon in a parochial light. "After the donnybrook at the company meeting the other night I don't think they are going to get far with the scheme," he added.

Mr. C. _H. M.. Wills, said that while not speaking on behalf of the company, the 400 odd people who took up shares did so purely with the object of advancing the project and not with the idea of making money out of it. He knew they were not concerned with who built the bridge, but pnly desired to see it done as quickly as possible. "Fizzling Out." Mr. Guiniven then said that the Harbour Bridge Empowering Act provided that in the event of the company failing to complete the bridge, or going into liquidation, the charter conferring authority to build the structure should be transferred to whatever authority the City Council or the Northcote Borough Council should determine. He was firmly of the opinion that the company was "fizzling out," and it was either a question of letting the charter go or getting it transferred to a board of control.

Mr. R. H. Grcvillc, who was chairman of the Harbour Bridge Association for two years prior to the formation of the company, contended that the bridge was part of the main highways system, and the Main Highways Board should contribute to its cost. He submitted a scheme for financing the project and also proposed a bridge scheme which he estimated to cost £750,000, as against the commission's estimate of nearly £2,000,000. Security. Essential. Mr. T. Bloodworth, the City Council representative, pointed out that he could not vote on any new proposal. The attitude of the City Council was that it would give moral but not financial support. Personally, he held the opinion that had beeii expressed, that the bridge could not be built without some guaranteed security. It seemed unthinkable that any company would guarantee to find the money to build the bridge without any security. In the last analysis it meant a public body rate, and, as had been pointed out, there was only a remote chance of it being collected, but, nevertheless, it was there to be collected if the occasion arose.

Mr. Guiniven: I don't think there is any chance of a special rate being colled .'(I.

His idea was that the meeting should appo.nt representatives to approach the company, for he was sure many of the shareholders were anxious to get rid of their responsibilities.

After further discussion, a committee, comprised of the Mayors of the North Shore boroughs and Messrs. Bishop and J. C. Rennie, of the Waitemata County Council, was appointed to confer with the directors of the company in a friendly spirit to see what could be done to further the project.