AGAIN?—NO, STILL

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 4, Issue 305, 14 May 1941, Page 5

AGAIN?—NO, STILL

OLD ARGUMENTS RARELY DIE NJuARLY A BREEZE AT OHOPE It would appear that! a meeting ■ of any meeting of two or more cannot take placdf at Oliope without that littlie question of "1 to 58" ' slinking in somewhere. Although the electioneering meeting on Mion- • clal was progressing placidly it was difficult to believe that "1 to 58" was not lurking nearby ready to pounce in and sweep all other matters of import away. It nearly did. Mr H*; C. McCready sitting member. on the County Council for the Taneatua Riding was addressing a number of ratepayers; and in the • course of his remarks said that he had been accused of wanting to destroy Mr Runnerstrum's garden. He stated that he had never advocated such a measiure, and lie favoured the understanding.-, which had been arrived at by/ - the Council that while a majority of ratepayers did not want the road then nothing would be done. On the..other hai\d he stated that if ever the majority wished to have 1 the road then Mr Runnerstrum would have to abide by the majority. He continued that in the meantime the council could spend noth- " ing on the road fronting 1 to 58 and the ratepayers were paying their rates to have the funds spent elsewhere in the area. Mr Runnerstrum did not like M* McCready referring to him as if he Was the only objector. In fact ho said the whole question to have the road was the result of one man and -80 per cent of the ratepayers; had been against. He asked Mr McCready how he voted on the subject. Mir McCreadji stated that the council had carried the non-intervention unanimously. He on democratic principles supported the majority. Mr McCready continued that h«. still held to the idea that if the ' men, concerned were considering fighting in court he would rather • nee the money necessary to do ?o spent to protect the- seafront and ' the matter settled amicably. Mr Runnerstrum said that it mat- ' tered not to him thati 1 to 58 would have nothing spent on it—let the other part of the beach have, the At this stage Mrs Clougher expressed amazement to learn that the troubl'e over the road had been, as ' it appeared to have been. "I. did not realise that it was a question of the differences of a few petty people, I but more a question of whether the beach deserved a boulevard or not." Mrs Clougher felt that' the question -should be one of whether a proper boulevard should front the whole of i the. beach or,whether the beach was not worthy of such! an asset. "We are, progressive at our end," she said, "and would like a boulevard ! ■right down to the, harbour,'* Mr McCready said that the people at the south end "had it on" those occupying 1 to 58 as the council t would spend only ,on the council's road. "We'll have anything progressive —even a fountain if you like," said .Mrs Clougher.