The Bridges.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume IV, Issue 537, 27 November 1890, Page 2

The Bridges.

PAYING FOR EXPERIENCE! At the meeting of the Borough Council on Tuesday evening, the Mayor mentioned that a public meeting had been held in regard to the footbridge. Xu reference to a remark made by Mr Sigley, that the Borough received rates from tbe north side of the river without spending much in return, he said he had looked up the figures, and he found that the whole sum received from that aide of tbe river was £53 12s 3d, while £93 16s G 1 had been expended on the footbridge alone. At present the rates from that side of the river were only £6l6s lOd a year. The Mayor then related how he had been called out to see the trouble with the Rosina, which took from 11.30 on Saturday night to 2.30 to get through. He did not think such an accident would have occurred if there had been skilful handling, and at any rate it proved that a valuable property was subject to all kinds of risks if tbe bridges were to be opened any hour of the night. Tbe cost in thia instance was £3 12s. In reply to Cr Joyce, the Mayor said the vessel had gone to load at Messrs Common, Shelton and Co.’a new shed. Cr Jovce considered this very rough on the ratepayers, but tbe Mayor said the delay wu not the fault of the firm ; the rtuff could have been carted for half the cost. Cr Joyce thought the upshot would be that a toll would have to be collected from persons crossing the bridge. The Mayor said Government would not allow that. Cr Hepburn said that when persons gave notice to have the bridges open aud then did not use them, they ought to be made bear the coat. The Overeeer aaid thia had frequently occurred. Cr Taylor said it was manifeatly unfair that anyone could call out the Borough’s employee* at any hour of the day or night to open the bridges. Tbe Mayor said it vaa absolutely necessary there should be sotna restrictions. It was agreed that the matter should be submitted to the Conference, as also a suggestion from Cr Lewis that there should be a definite arrangement as to the control of the bridges.

THE CONFERENCE.

Tbe delegates met last evening:—The Mayor (in the chair), and Messrs Murphy, Chrisp, Dunlop, Hepburn, King, Joyce, and Ollivier. Ths Mayor said the questions were re-erection of bridge, cost of maintenance, and what public body should have centre!, The Borough Council's funds would not altos? them to spend much money on the wort. There was no doubt it was a great convenience, especially to those living in tbe county. It would require a large sum expended on it before it was fit for traffic Mr King thought the bridge was really tbe property of the Borough, and should be vested in that body. Alt he knew about the matter was what he had read in the papers, Mr Dunlop said, as there was no street op this side of the bridge, lie did not see bow the Council could take it over. He understood the Harbor Board could not take any responsibility in regard to bridges. Ila would oppose any further money being spent on tbe structure until it was properly vested in some public body, and ho suggested that the bridge should be removed to Carnarvon street, as that would be the best site for the bridge. He considered the present arrangement unfair to the Borough. Mr Joyce thought it would be beat simply to carry out tbe repairs, The Council could have a road gazetted alongside the recreation ground. The Mayor eaid Captain Winter estimated tbe cost of repairing the bridge at £B6. After a long discussion it was agreed io apply to the County and Borough Councils to see if they would contribute say £3O and £2O respectively. It was stated that Messrs Nelson Bros, would also contribute £25. It was decided to have the bridge vested in tbeßorough, and the meeting then adjourned till alter the next sitting of the County (loUlicil. - -: I