COBDEN AFFAIRS.
[TO THE EDITOR.] Sir, —A correspondent has written you advocating buses running in Ward Street. Before such is encouraged, I think it would be well to pause. The Town Board for years has requested residents to clear their frontages to the middle of the street. Many have done so, and put down green plots. Are we to have these ploughed in furrows for the winter? That is what will happen if buses make regular runs| along Ward Street, which, being onarrow metalled width, is suitable only for one way traffic. Judging the state of the regular route to the beach, that matter of fees, attended to by other local bodies, should first bo,i settled. Then the Board would be in a better position to save Ward Street frontages by increasing the width, to cope . with the anticipated traffic. Yours etc., RATEPAYER, Cobden, April 10.
[to THE EDITOR.] Sir, —Just a few lines to ask if the Cobden Town Board has become defunct and has the roadman been dismissed. To try and drive a car or ride a bicycle along the main street of this populous suburb at the present time, is to suffer torture, the road being nothing, but pot holes from Gobden Bridge to the Beach. Surely, Mr ■Editor, it is up to the Town Board members to see that the roadman is not taken off. his job for weeks, at a time to watch over a few unemployed men getting work for a few days with the Board. Some other, arrangements should be made in a. case of this kind. The roadman cannot or. should not be taken off his work, even if. the weather is wet. Potholes still require filling up, and judging by the weather lately, the roadman should be on the job all the time. —Yours etc., DISGUSTED MOTORIST.
[TO THE EDITOR.] Sir, —In support of “Disgusted’s” letter in to-niglit’s issue might I add that the Cobden Town Board appears to be deceased as far as Bright Street is concerned. Some time ago the same question was dealt with in. your columns with the result that the Town Board procured the services of the Grey County’s road-niaking plant to tear up and re-make Bright Street. I have been informed that this work cost the ratepayers £9O. Money well spent as a good job was done at an exceedingly low cost. A good road was made and kept in excellent order by the roadman until a few weeks ago. For some reason or other the roadman was told to put on his coat and go and supervise the unemployed chip grass off the side, streets. Through what obviously appears to be a lack of. common sense Bright Street was neglected; with the result of its present condition. The Town Board, in removing the roadman and. neglecting Bright Street have wasted the £9O previously spent on the street, and will have to spend something like that amount again to put the street in order, as it is now in a worse condition than previously. I wonder what the Board’s idea is in adopting a policy that is wasting all the mopey that is being paid to the unemployed. When all the blackberry comes up again in a few months does the Board expedt that it will have a gang of unemployed to re-cut it. Would it npt show a proportion of common sense to put the unemployed on work that' would be a benefit to the ratepayers. What is the idea of grubbing up lawn grass plots in front of ratepayers’ houses and leaving the bare slippery clay. Why could not the unemployed be given a job widening Bright Street in the vicinity of Richmond Street. The formation of'Fox Street has not been completed. Both these jobs will have to be done sooner or later, and why not do it with the unemployed. What bee got into the Board’s bonnet when it was decided that the grass in front of a property in Bright Street had to be grubbed up. Would it not have been more reasonable to have the unemployed filling up pot holes ip the same street and thereby save the ratepayers another £9O to put the street in order. In reference to “Disgusted’s” suggestion of joining up with the Grey Borough, I say “Bide a wee.” Have a. tr?b over Greymouth’s streets in a bus or car, and then, compare them with Cobden or the Grey County. Speaking about buses there are at times seven different buses travelling over Bright Street. Has the Town Board collected seven licensing fees to help the ratepayers keep the road in order? —Yours etc., RESIDENT.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/GEST19310410.2.45.1
Bibliographic details
Greymouth Evening Star, 10 April 1931, Page 6
Word Count
779COBDEN AFFAIRS. Greymouth Evening Star, 10 April 1931, Page 6
Using This Item
The Greymouth Evening Star Co Ltd is the copyright owner for the Greymouth Evening Star. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of the Greymouth Evening Star Co Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.