The Waipawa Mail TUESDAY, MAY 1, 1883. WAIPAWA ROAD BOARD.

Waipawa Mail, Volume 5, Issue 483, 1 May 1883, Page 2

The Waipawa Mail TUESDAY, MAY 1, 1883. W AIPAWA ROAD BOARD.

On the 15th of this month the ratepayers of Waipawa will be called upon to elect a Road Board for the year ensuing from that date. We hope to see a great deal of interest manifested in the election, and that a Board will be elected that will make it a point to display energy in the matter of roads and footpaths. The present Board has not been a success, if by the word “ success” is meant any kind of continued action. We believe that one or two meetings of the Board have taken place during the year that has elapsed since the last election. But, having said that, we are of opinion that all that can be said in the Board’s favor, as an administrative body, has been adequately and even liberally expressed. The only approach to any outside evidence of the Board’s existence has been a spasmodic attempt to clear out that laughing-stock of the County known as the “Waverley cutting.” And even that attempt resulted in just nothing. One or two cartloads of debris were removed, and then the Board appears to have gone into a lethargy so deep, that the very strongly-worded letters which have appeared in the Mail from time to time, written by indignant ratepayers, and dealing with the Board’s shortcomings, failed to elicit even the slightest responsive sign of vitality. We have no wish to say unnecessarily harsh things, but even the greatest advocate of Boft speeches must admit that the Board has been as useless a body as could well be conceived. For aught that has been done to the streets or paths of Waipawa during the past year, there might just as well have been no Board at all. Members of the Board may plead that they could not have acted otherwise. They may urge, and doubtless will urge, that the Board inherited a debt from the former Board, and has neither made nor mended roads because the whole of the rate barely sufficed to pay off that debt. But even this fact, if allowed all the force it should have as an extenuating circumstance, is yet also partly condemnatory of the Board. Previous to this year the local rate was ninepence in the £l, and if the Board had struck the same rate there would have been money to spend. But only a sixpenny rate was struck, and, as a consequence, there has been nothing to spend in repairs. It may be urged that this was done to save the ratepayers’ pockets. But, if it is so urged, we would point out that to simply cease from spending does not always mean thrift, and it is a question whether the neglect of the past year, in the matter of road repairs, will not in the long run involve the ratepayers in more expense than would have been the case if a rate sufficient to allow for repairs had been struck in the first instance. A local body that is wise will strike just the rate it thinks sufficient to carry out needed works with. More than that would be extravagance, less than that is parsimony, which costs dearly in the end. We Relieve the ratepayers have no real objection to a ninepenny rate provided it is well expended, and that they see in return for it good and serviceable roads and footpaths. We hope the ratepayers will elect on the new Board men who have a penchant for walking dry-shod, who will have the courage of their opinions to the extent of striking a rate sufficient to provide for needed works, and who will meet often enough to see that those works are carried out.