A FAIR PROPOSAL

Evening Post, Volume CXIX, Issue 35, 11 February 1935, Page 8

A FAIR PROPOSAL

There has been so much discussion on the Paremata Road Bridge that possibly some ratepayers may be a little confused and wonder why they are asked again to vote upon this issue. The need for, a bridge will not, we think, be contested. It is sheer waste of time, petrol, tires, and' money to maintain the long route round the harbour when a way can be made across. This has been recognised for many years, and the only, question- is: Who should pay? Of course, ratepayers in the Taupo riding would have been glad if the .whole cost1 could have been placed on the Main Highways Board; but the board could not see its way to assent to this. Therefore, the original proposal was made that the road approach should be constructed with relief .labour, and the bridge built by a loan with interest and sinking funds covered by a toll charge. This was fair. It would place the cost directly on users of the bridge and, in so far as residents were users, they would pay by toll instead of rates. But after this loan had been sanctioned it was found that the relief labour for the road could not be secured and that the bridge and road would have to be financed by tolls with the rate as a guarantee, Mth

the added cost for roading the rate, or part of it, would possibly have had to be collected. \

In view of these changed circumstances' the subject was further considered by the Hutt County Council and Main Highways Board, and the latter made a new offer to construct the bridge and road if the county would make a contribution of £7000. This certainly alters the method of collecting the cost, but it makes little difference in the incidence of the charges. The Highways Board, by making itself responsible for about £13,000 of the cost, pays for the use of the. road and bridge by motorists outside the county. Such motorists would otherwise have paid by tolls. Residents who would have paid the heaviest tolls will now pay a light rate. Owners of small properties will-not pay more than they would have had to meet in tolls, and bigi property owners will be making only-.:-a- reasonable contribution for the value which the bridge: will add to their holdings. They will be reimbursed when they subdivide and sell: We cannot see that injustice is done to anyone, and the people whose interest in the welfare' of the district has been-proved by their work for the bridge have no hesitation in commending the plan. Ratepayers will notj;>ve feel sure, be so short-sighted as to miss the opportunity now given to the Sbridge? at the lowest cost;MTie Minister* of Public Works has "declared definitelythat a better offer cannot be made. As costs' are rising, postponement would almost certainly lead to ratepayers having to pay more'instead .of less.