ONLY ONE BITE AT £25,000 CHERRY

Manawatu Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 3492, 30 October 1926, Page 10

ONLY ONE BITE AT £25,000 CHERRY

Councillors Discuss Poll for Sewerage

LARGE AREA TO BE RETICULATED

In opening a discussion on the -placing of a sewerage loan proposal before the ratepayers at the meeting of the Palmerston North Borough Council last evening, Or. A. J. Graham said the Mayor was verj anxious for the poll to be taken in December and it would lie necessary to decide, for advertising purposes, by The Sth or 9th of next month, on what scheme was to be submitted. Cr. Fitzherbcrt said the scheme drawn up by the engineer—an important one —had only boon placed before them that day and as ho intended to make some observations in committee, ho suggested that consideration of tiio report bo deferred till the next meeting of (he Works Committee. In the meantime, Councillors could make themselves -au fait with what was proposed.

The major scheme Involved an expenditure of £25.000, but a good deal of necessary drainage elut'd be provided for 115,000, Stated til ■ report.

Cr. Bilott expressed himself as in favour of the smaller scheme. The larger one would mean the drainage of streets I hat were scarcely habitat - od and which could very well wait for another ten years. It had been suggested that the programme involving an additional £IO,OOO had included as a re:;u!t of representations made by a small, obscure body of no standing—the Hokowhitu Ratepayers’ Association. He protested against this. The Council should bo able to decide what was best for the Borougn as a whole without outside promptings. It was a most absurd suggestion and the Council would be wrong in taking nolice of the opinions or such a body as the Association. The whole tendency in the growth of the Borough was to expand westward ana northward. They had had in hand ror a long time a sum deposited by the property-owner who had sub-divided Kongopai Street. Drainage for that area was a most important work, but the inclusion of wider details would, in the Councillor’s opinion, prejudice the whole scheme. He would strenuously oppose the larger issue. Cr Hodgens didn’t agree with the previous speaker when that gentleman said that the poll would be prejudiced by a proposed expenditure of £25,000. He held no brief for the Hokowhitu Association and he was not a member of that body, but if they could get a loan carried, “and you will if you don’t tear this! to pieces,” there was no need to proceed with the whole scheme at once; they simply held authoiity to go on when necessary. It wou-d be wise to have the expenditure sanctioned, so that the money could be used when occasion arose. “There’s nothing wild and woolly about that,” concluded the Councillor.

Cr. Oram was pleased that for once he was able to agree with Cr. Hudgens. 11.- thought Cr. Eliott had adopted a “dog in the manger” attiUido Cr. Kliott; "Thank you!”

It appeared, continued Cr. Oram, that all ratepayers were not aware that when a loan was carried, the money need not bo spent immediately. A coinoreh-msivc scheme had the advantage of economy, otherwise they would be reduced to asking a separate loan for the reticulation of each individual street. Halt-payers were entitled to the sewerage—that was incontrovertible. It was disgraceful that ratepayers enjoying drainage should deny similar benefits to others who had been paying rates for ?tears. He suggested that two separate proposals could be submitted at the same time.

Cr. Mel.navvy favoured the larger scheme .(bough h<- confessed he had originally been of Cr_ Kliott’s opinion. The motion of <,'r. Filzherbert, that the drainage report be referred to the Works Committee and subsequently considered a( a special meeting of ihe Council, was agreed to unanimously. Do tails of the engineer's report are given in this issue.