Paremata Bridge and Road

Dominion, Volume 28, Issue 114, 7 February 1935, Page 11

Paremata Bridge and Road

Sir, —In view of the fact that the ratepayers of the Taupo riding have been committed to a loan of £11,090 and will shortly be asked" to guarantee another £7OOO, will the chairman of the Hutt County Council kindly explain how the first liability is to be expunged? There is considerable diversity of opinion as to when as well as how this should be accomplished.—l am, etc.. RATEPAYER. Wellington, January 30. [The following statement has been supplied by the chairman of the Hutt County Council: — “The ratepayers of the Taupo Riding have not been committed to a loan of £ll,OOO. They have merely authorised the Council to borrow that sum. That authority is provisional, and cannot be exercised without an Order-in-Council. The Council has definitely abandoned the idea of a toll bridge, and it is unthinkable that the Governor-General in Council .would give the requisite authority to revive that proposal. There is no necessity to expunge a liability which has not yet been created.”]

Sir, —I trust ratepayers iwill read and re-read “Insured’s” letter on the Paremata Bridge. "Insured” has calculated •]d. in the pound for increased road maintenance, because of the increased traffic the bridge will bring to Plimmerton. First lie admits that Plimmerton is going to become very popular, and we know it will, but forgets that the rate on £7OOO is id. in the £l, and therefore his calculations mean that the extra halfpenny is equal to interest on £14,000, say at 3J per cent., which means £490. ■Surely “Insured” is not serious when he expects ratepayers to believe that the extra road traffic, because of the new bridge, is going to add another £5OO to road maintenance, especially when the Taupo riding has only to pay one-quarter of the annual maintenance of one mile of first-class roadway and a ferro-concrete bridge which doesn’t need to be painted? “Insured” describes the bridge as a luxury for a few motorists, but he does not admit that he is going to gain unearned increment as a result of the Government giving a subsidy of £3 to his £l, so is not the bridge being 'built mainly out of national money as it is? “Insured” should ask the Railways Board whether the new electric trains are going to give him a frequent service, from C a.m. to midnight. Then what about the advantages of getting speedy medical assistance and safe ambulance transport with the new bridge? In regard to a water scheme, ratepayers must remember that the Health Department will insist on a drainage scheme as well as a water supply scheme, and. can the present small population of Plimmerton township carry the rateing for such a scheme, probably costing £30,000, without counting the cost of each ratepayer connecting up with it? “Insured” should find out what water and sewerage has cost Eastbourne ratepayers. Reference to any personal gain by Cr. Button is a cowardly attack on a publicspirited gentleman, and if this continues, then the public will lose the public services of our better type of citizens. Politicians have to change their grounds of argument according to changing aspects of the questions they deal with, and they lose no respect through doing so. Neither will Mr. Hoggard nor Mr. R. L. Button. —I am, etc., FAIR PLAY. Wellington, February G. Sir, —Mr. Moller’s letter is something like a drowning man clutching at a straw. There are only about eighteen permanent residents in the Taupo riding that own ears, about three of these use the Plim-merton-Wellington run very frequently, the rest perhaps once in two or three weeks on this run. The proposed bridge will be a win for the three even if the rates are doubled, but it definitely will not pay the others, and. when the new railway system is with us only the wealthy will use a car on the Plimmer-ton-Wellington run, but the rates, whether they are doubled or trebled, will have to be paid. We were abundantly assured that the £ll,OOO loan raised for the toll bridge would be ample and to spare, but Mr. Moller says it was £4OOO shy even with the 10 per cent, added to the £ll,OOO. Well, we are now confronted with a proposal for £7OOO. This will perhaps grow to £ll,OOO or £12,000, notwithstanding abundant “assurances.” Many of us swallowed the toll bridge assurances—bait, hook, sinker and line —then woke up. It only requires a fraction over two-fifths of us to be still awake and this proposal will not be an anchor round the necks of ratepayers.—l am, etc., SANDY. Wellington, February 5.

Sir, —In reply to Mr. Moller, may I ask him why he supports a proposal to rate the residents .of the locality for highway improvement? If the first section to I’limmerton is so costly and unnecessary, then the final section to Paekakanikj is liable to be equally so, and logically the settlers of Paekakariki and Paraparaum it are going to get their rates considerably increased in the near future. I have shown that there is no need for unwarranted expenditure, and therefore sign my name in opposition to circumlocution. —I am, etc.. MARTIN CHUZZLEWIT. Paraparaumu, February C. Sir, —As one who has devoted a considerable amount of thought to the proposals now being considered in connection with the Paremata bridge, I feel that you are to be congratulated for your sensible sub-leader appearing in your journal of to-day’s date, and .your suggestion thatthe time has arrived when a conference would probably be helpful is the most valuable contribution so far put forward. There is no doubt whatever that the small population living within the Taupo riding of the Hutt County Council cannot carry the burden of 17090 as a contribution to a bridge and road which is part of a main north low level road., It is extraordinary how the original position has been reversed. In the first instance the ratepayer was induced to vote for a loan for a toll bridge, having been assured that the “user would pay.” and in paying the user would save considerable money in benzine and running costs, and no charge would fall upon the rates. Ratepayers have been denied information as to the lowest tender,, and the whole box of tricks is, in my opinion, unsatisfactory. Now the new proposal calls for the ratepayer to pay and the motorist is to bo immune from any cost. Naturally enough the motorist is interested in furthering the new scheme, and one cannot complain, but those who are not motorists, but who will be called upon to pay, should take this fact into consideration. Much has been made of the fact that the Main Highways will pay 75 per cent, of the maintenance of the new road (under one mile), but mention has been discreetly omitted as to the result of the free bridge and roads generally. The existing macadam roads in the riding are bad. and it stands to reason that with numbers of motorists using the free bridge, the maintenance cost of those roads will be trebled —this is not all—residents know now of the dust nuisance, and an influx of motors will eventually entail sealing, which cannot be done until new foundations are put in. The question of beach scavenging, in order to clear up the rubbish, and traffic supervision will call for attention in order to make this seaside resort safe for children. Expensive items, the money for which will be found by the ratepayer. Incidentally, rates are far higher than they should be, having regard that we have no water, sewerage, or drainage. These items are of more importance to ratepayers than providing a luxury bridge for affluent people. Ratepayers are reminded that the agitation for a bridge docs .not emanate from the residents, but is promoted primarily by a handful of motorists resident in the district who are apparently determined that the cost of this luxury should be diverted from the shoulders of a few to the many. Consideration of the consequential expenses following upon the erection of the bridge will convince all that the proposal is a most dangerous one.— I am, etc., OVERBURDENED RATEPAYER. Wellington, February G.