The Bridges and Foreshore.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume V, Issue 660, 17 September 1891, Page 3

The Bridges and Foreshore.

COUNCILLOR WHINRAY’S MOTION. At the last Borough Council meeting, in accordance with notice, Cr Whinray moved to the eSect that the Council seek to get steps taken to close the rivers to navigation above the bridges, except to the freezing works boats. He thought it would be best to have a committee appoiuted to get information on the matter. He thought it astounding that the Borough should ba put to such an expense for the benefit of just one or two. [Cr Joyce raised the point that the motion had not been seconded, and Cr Dunlop seconded it pro forma. | He could not understand how the Harbor Board could think of letting sites above the bridges—the benefit was a myth. If they were to let the foreshore down below the Turanganui bridge they could reclaim it by a wall and there would be many take up the sites. It would be too late now to draft a measure for the present session of Parliament. He moved that a Committee be appointed.—Cr Joyce said the motion must ccme before a committee, which the Mayor ruled to be the proper course.—Cr Joyce could not see why there should be a waste cf time in discussing this matter when they knew that they were compelled by law to keep open navigable rivers. He considered it would be foolish of the Harbor Board not to got all the revenue they could, and he did not think any public body should try and Prevent any new industry being started. He understood this matter to have originated from Mr Burns’ application, and said that was a very desirable work to have done in the place,—Cr Dunlop said he understood that •Cr Whinray’s main cause of complaint was on account of the expense caused through sites being let above the bridges. Viewing the expense of attempting to get an Act 1 passed, he did not think they could do more

■*— than allow the motion to be a protest. The way in which these sites were let was verv unsatisfactory, and that day there had been great inconvenience and risk to the bridge. It was a pity bo much expense and incon ▼enienoe were not avoided.—Cr Somervell Baid the motion was evidently meant to be in sympathy with the ratepayers for the expense to which they were put, n?, however, was strongly in favor of a site being let for a boat slip, tba advantage to ‘ho Borough being far greater in comparison to the cost of opening the bridges. He had thought whether iht?ra could not be a regulation by which the bridges could be opened at a certain time and make shipowners keep up to lune, but he feared the expense of a special Act would be too great to think of. -Cr Hard ing said they all sympathised as to the inconvenience and expense.—The Mayor said the sue applied for by Mr Burns was the only one euiiabie for the purpoee. There was at P{eMDt only one site leased, Oomm-n, Shelton B old site—the others ware on suffer--BDC6. He thought when the footbridge question came up they should try and get it erected without a swing, end thus test the matter,—Or Dunlop eaid the question was that no inducement should be given to lesse •ites above ths bridges.—The Mayor said there were no other sites to lease above the Tarphem bridge,—Cr Dunlop eaid he did not object to the site for a elip, only they wanted to know where thia would end, He wished to move an amendment protesting against the lease of the foreshore above the bridges, but the Mayor ruled that he eould not do so at that stage.—Or Harding eaid they were discussing a matter not in the motion, which was that they should try and get the bridges closed altogether.— r Whinray, in reply, said he only meant the motion to ba in a crude form, but members seemed to think it too sweeping. He was sure that the matter must come up in another form. The way a vessel had stuck in the river that day proved that it was only a mud creek. It was unfair that the ratepayers should be put to the expense of opening the bridges oecause Common, Shelton and Co. had been permitted to squat there. As to the slip he was convinced that no work of that kind that would be available would in 20 years pay for the erection of a proper slip. —The motion was lost, only Or Whinray Voting in its favor.