PALMERSTON COUNCIL DECLINES TO PAY £500 FOR AORANGI BRIDGE

Manawatu Times, Volume LIV, Issue 6863, 19 March 1929, Page 8

PALMERSTON COUNCIL DECLINES TO PAY £SOO FOR AORANGI BRIDGE

Principle at Stake MIGHT BE SADDLED . WITH SIMILAR ITEMS I CE. FITZHERBERT STATES POSITION. The question of contributing towards the cost ofrebuilding the Aorangi bridge was before the Palmerston North Borough council last evening when a majority vote was recorded on a motion to refuse a request by the Oxoua County council for £SOO. The Oroua County council _ advised that a conference of contributing local bodies was held on Friday last to consider the allocation of the cost of the TC-erection of the bridge, when it was unanimously decided that should the Palmerston North borough agree to contribute the sum of £SOO, the balance would be found by the other interested bodies in the following proportions: Peilding borough 4-12ths, Oroua county 3-12ths, Kairanga- county 3-12ths, Manawatu county 2-12ths. Tho Mayor reminded the council that it had been' agreed to contribute £4OO if the Kiwitea council was also brought in and the Highways board granted an additional subsidy. “I think we all realise that Palmererston North derives some benefit from the bridge,” added the Mayor. - Councillors: No, No. Cr. Hodgens thought that it was absurd for Palmerston North to be called upon to contribute. It was really a matter for the Highways board solely. Cr. Eliott agreed tyith the Mayor that Palmerston North did benefit from the bridge. All bridges and roads that led to the town were a benefit to it. As a ipatter of equity, the borough should contribute.

.“I consider the matter is of faT graver importance to the Borough council than the £SOO contribution applied for, which taken by itself is not unreasonable,” stated Cr. W. L. Fitzherbert. “I have no objection >to offer so far as tho quantum which this council has been asked to undertake, is concerned, but I do not think that we should bo placed in the invidious position of being obliged to accept or decline the request. Surely the reconstruction or maintenance of the i Aorangi bridge has nothing to do with the Palmerston North Borough council and why should the unfortunate ratepayers of this borough be asked to saddlo any liability whatever in connection with tho matter? I don’t ♦think I would be wide of the mark when I say that there is more motor car and lorry traffic to and from Palmerston North over the Bulls bridge than over the Aorangi, and if we entertain this application then what is to prevent the Manawatu council applying for a commission to rate us for the Bulls bridge and all intervening bridges on the main high way in that local body’s area? _ And if the Manawatu County council, why should not every other county council within a radius of 30 to 40 miles of Palmerston North make similar demands? ' You will therefore readily realise that such eventualities, which are by no means improbable, would result in most unconscionable demands on the ratepayers of this borough.” Tie wholo situation, he thought, should be reviewed from the point of view dl the abnormal motor traffic that had now grown like a mushroom everywhere, particularly the motor lorry services. It was these vehicles which were endangering the stability of all the bridges in the country ana creating tho need for stronger bridges ■everywhere. Of course, it must be conceded that if every local body was obliged to undertake the alteration of every bridge under its control to meet the upeds of tho niotor lorry and car, it would mean an increase in expenditure to each local body far beyond its present Tating assessment, and individual ratepayers in each county district would not receive benefits commensurate with the increase of rates incurred. It. was partly, in view of this situation that the late government very rightly established the motor tax and constituted. the Highways .board and seeing tho very largo amount of money at the disposal of that board, Cr. Fitzherbert said ho considered that the cost of providing adequate bridges to meet thp requirements of the motor traffic was a matter that would ultimately have to fall on that body, as the improvement to the bridges was mainly for the benefit of the motor traffic and not for tho ratepayers of the councils affected. “I quite realise,” he added, ‘‘that the Highways board is contributing towards the erection of the new bridge at Aorangi, and the local bodies which control that bridge are of course under a certain amount of liability to contribute also, but for tho reasons above stated, I fail to see what possible claim can be substantiated to bring the Palmerston North Borough council in as a contributing body. Consequently I would prefer a commission being appointed to deal with tho matter, but would suggest that if a commission is appointed by the government, then it should be of sufficient scope to cover all the bridges in New Zealand which are subject to motor traffic, particularly motor lorries.” He moved that the request be refused., Cr. Hodgens seconded the motion. In answer to Cr. Clausen, the town clerk said the borough was liable for a portion of the maintenance of the Awahuri bridge but had not paid anything for a year or two. Cr. Tremaine thought the Aorangi bridge of equal importance to Palmerston North as the Awahuri bridge. Palmerston North should fall in line with the other bodies as a matter of principle. He didn’t think the Highways board could be expected to undertake the whole cost of the bridge, as the highway was not a main one.

He hoped the expense of a commission would bo avoided. Cr. Milverton asked if Feildipg and other local bodies would like to contribute towards the replacement of the Fitzherbert bridge? He didn’t think they would. Tho town clerk advised that the cost of a commission would have to be borne pro rata. Cr. Clausen thought the bridge of benefit to Palmerston North. Cr. Mansford supported Cr. Fitzherbert. People came to Palmerston North to do business because it suited them and for that reason, he didn’t think the borough should contribute. Cr. Canton agreed with Cr. Mansford. Cr. Fitzherbert reiterated that the question was a deeper and more important one than that of a contribution. The request, as far as the amount of money was concerned, was very reasonable but there was a principle at stake. If this grant was made, then it was open for every local body with a broken-down bridge to ask for help also. The Highways board should undertake the work. Cr., Fitzherbert’s motion was carried, Crs Eliott and Tremaine voting against. The Oroua County council will thus be. informed that Palperston North will not voluntarily contribute the £SOO asked for.