The Opunake Times. FRIDAY, AUGUST 31, 1894. PUNEHU BRIDGE.

Opunake Times, Volume I, Issue 18, 31 August 1894, Page 2

The Opunake Times. FRIDAY, AUGUST 31, 1894. PUNEHU BRIDGE.

We have to again call the attention of the Hawera County Council to the stoppage on the Eltham Road at the Punehu river. The ford through Mr Watson’s property is. closed, the gates being under lock and key. The only kind of vehicle which it would be possible to get over the crossing is a wheelbarrow. A wheelbarrow is a very useful means of locomotion for certain purposes, but it is not usual to go the expense of £SOOO to make a road suitable for this particular kind of vehicular traffic, as has been done on the Eltham Road. A few days since a gentleman drove through from Opunake, intending to go to Kaponga, but when he arrived at the Punehu he found, to his chagrin, that he had to beat a retreat, drive back to Opunake, and then pursue his way through Manaia to his destination. His feelings found vent in curses loud and deep, which he vented on the Taranaki County Council. He was informed that it was the Hawera County Council which was responsible. He said he did not think such a thing would be tolerated by any body of ratepayers outside of Taranaki County. But, so it is. We consider it is the duty of the Council to see that the road is thrown open at once, and the erection of the bridge proceeded with without delay. Although the Council is heavily overdrawn on general account they are not without funds. The land fund is in credit aud from this fund the amount to construct the bridge may be borrowed, to

be repaid when the general account comes in credit. We refer, in this connection, to the land fund for the whole of Waimate, not the land fund alone for the loan area. This would be no injustice to the other part of the district, because their urgent works were done by drawing on the available funds, which admittedly belonged to the bush district, of which the Eltham is the main arterial road. In desperation, and partly under misapprehension, the ratepayers petitioned the Council to use the land fund of the loan area, which was to all intents and,purposes pledged for the payment of interest on loan, for the purpose of building the bridges. If the Council did this it would mean that the special rate would have to be struck for the payment of interest on the loan. At least, this is what they term it, but in reality it would mean that the settlers in the loan area, if they had to pay the special rate, would be raising a subscription of £250 a year to build the bridges, because once the rate was paid there is no way that they could have it returned to them individually by the Council. The amount which is now admitted to be owing from the open might be returned in a lump to the district, and would no doubt benefit them, but that would not be making resolution. We hold it is the duty of the Council to exhaust all other means in their power before resorting to the step of striking such a crushing rate as £250 a year on a number of struggling, hard-working settlers. It would be the grossest injustice to make them raise a subscription to build a bridge which is an urgent necessity whilst their money had been taken to keep other roads open. What astonishes us is that the press which has been supposed to be looking after the interests of this district has not brought pressure to bear ere now to have the matter attended to. When the Kaupokonui bridge on the Main South Road was down hardly a day passed without the question being agitated in one form or other until in haste a perfect waste of money was perpetrated in order to keep traffic open by the erection of a temporary bridge which was estimated as safe for two years,, when by putting in better material at a small extra cost a bridge could have been erected which would have lasted for nearer ten years.