PAREMATA BRIDGE

Dominion, Volume 28, Issue 112, 5 February 1935, Page 10

PAREMATA BRIDGE

Objection to Cost From Taupo Riding

A meeting was held at Plimmerton the other evening to consider the I’aremata bridge proposal, arid a committee to be known as the Taupo Riding Vigilance Committee was set up. After a discussion on the bridge and the financial basis proposed for its erection, the following resolution was unanimously carried :—

“That this meeting of 'ratepayers of Plimmerton and Pukerua Bay, after considering the proposal to be placed before ratepayers of the Taupo riding on February 13, is definitely of the opinion that, as the work is said to be the first step towards a main north highway, the matter is a national one, the cost of which should be borne by the funds under the control of the Main Highways Board; this meeting cannot see any equitable reason why this small district should be called upon to provide £71)00 towards the cost thereof, and would urge ratepayers to reject the proposal at the poll on the 13th instant, thereby protecting their property from such a burdensome debt.” The Taupo riding of the Hutt county includes the-townships of Plimmerton, Karehana, and Pukerua Bay. MOTORISTS’ SUPPORT New Scheme Favoured The executive of the Automobile Association, Wellington, decided last night to. make a public statement expressing support of the proposal at present before the ratepayers of the Taupo Riding of the Hutt County. The decision was made after the chairman (Mr. E. A Batt), had drawn attention to the organisation of opposition to the proposal. Mr. Batt said that a new body was trying to influence ratepayers to vote against the proposal to raise £7OOO with which to* build the bridge, assisted by the Highways Board to the amount of £12,000. lie thought the executive should throw in its wegiht in support of the proposal now before the ratepayers. Iu doing that they did not relax their opposition to a toll gate. The new move was an attempt to revert to the. toll proposal .or to bring pressure to bear on the Highways Board so that it would undertake the work entirely at the cost of the highways fund. He emphasised that the association was not concerned in the domestic affairs of the riding—whether the ratepayers voted for or against_tbe proposal—but it was concerned whether the proposal was iu line with the Act. Mr. 11. W. Shortt did not support the chairman, saying that if the latest proposal were not carried the county would have to revert to the plan for a toll bridge, and if a poll for £7OOO could not be carried one for the greater amount necessary for the toll bridge could not be carried. Mr. E. I’alliser said that the most pleasing feature was that the new scheme was the one recommended at the outset by the association. He thought they should state their position plainly because they had been much misrepresented. Mr. A. J. Curtis agreed with Mr. Shortt, but Dr. 11. Graham Robertson and Mr. E. P. Hay supported the chairman. Dr. Robertson said that the new body was advocating a departure from (he principle.of a subsidy if it desired the bridge without, any payment by the ratepayers, and that was where the association came In.

Replying to a suggestion that his fears that the whole cost might be placed on the highways fund were groundless, Mr. Batt said that, since those who desired the bridge had been able to secure a variation of the principle that toll gates be not erected, they might be aide to have the £7OOO charged to the highways fund and place the whole cost of the bridge on the fund.

Mr. Hay agreed that the activities of the new body might defeat the poll.