DRAINAGE BOARD LOAN.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17293, 3 November 1921, Page 13

DRAINAGE BOARD LOAN.

MAGISTRATE hears OBJECTIONS. QUESTION or BIGHT TO VOTE. i indication waa made by some fifty -STownersbefo re MrS.E.McCar. SM. the Magistrate's Court 'to have their names removed special roll for the Christ2?ch Drainage Board's proposed loan ftt in order that those whose names struck off not rated for I loan In all, about 100 objections ere fcd««d» 6ut man y of th ® did not. appear, and wore not repre««nted by counsel. ~ 0 T. J. Alpers, who appeared r „ tl«>'Christohurch Drainage Board, [j the proposed; loan was to provide TiSaS for the areas of n-Hstchureh not already included in existing syste®. There were two the inner, or sewered area, and fr 'utar, or unsewered area, and it *■?. noV proposed to extend the seweriMgrstem to the outer area by laying •Tains to the Burwood sewerage fam. tC estimated cost waa £750,000 for wWoh so® the 80 - al l raise a loan, but it had since been found that £50,000 could be knocked off that estimate, and as the worn wonJd proceed over a number of years, it would eventually not cost more than ' £isoo 000 The Board, Mr Alpers went on to had found that the best method of raising the amount required was by striking a rate over the whole of the Chrßtchurch area, the Board having to differentiate the rating ac- , wding to the benefits, direct or m- ' direct, accruing to the property holdere The Board had divided' the areas .into the sewered and unsewered portion* and the majority of the objectors yere' those whose properties were si tor ' ated in the sewered area. Counsel had been instructed that the rate m th® inner area would never exceed' Yd-Sid 1 in the £, which was the rate at present levied. The inner area would lie called upon to assist the outer arca, ; but the Board assured the inner a?ea owners that their rates wotud • not be increased. The loan for the draining of the inner area would w M id off in 1927, but it was proposed, I after , that time,' that the inner area should continue to pay 19-32 d to help the outer area. In the ordinary wuree 'of events, the rate would.be reduced 4d. and tho 7-32 d would be used on . the outer area. The inner area would . receive the advantage of being srur- , rounded bv a healtny, well drained ' suburban district. The Drainage Board waa supported by the Government, as • well as the Canterbury health authorities in this matter. Many of those who . worked in the oity lived in unsewered fe-areas, and there were certain suburbs , ' built on peaty, water-logged ground, < which was conducive to various catarrhal complaints. There was a tendency ,; for suburban districts to join the city, and it was imperative that every part ~ of the oity should he sewered. The - rate in the outer area would be ljo, and this would be struck on the old valuation. The drainage of the satrar- , ban areas would increase the value or >' the property. Counsel assumed that of-the objectors were appsanng because they disapproved of the / scheme, but the Board hoped' to con- < vince them that it was their duty to interest themselves in the drainage ot the city. He pointed out that it was not only direct benefit which should be looked to, for all the inner area : properties must 'benefit oy the drainage ' bv the inner area. Mr Alpers said that. Alpers said that," 'Supposing a factory in the city employed 100 hands, SCK of t / whom lived in unsewered areas, that , , factory would benefit considerably in ... j an indirect way if all its employees I ' lived in healthy and well' drained disI : - tricts. The Board was given extraor- ! ; -Vdinary powers to ask the Government : ~i''to-set up a Commission .to enquire into the question, in the event of the loan being rejected at the poll, and if the Commission decided that the work was necessary to the health of the city, v; ; the work could still he undertaken. ,?;V . Case for the Objectors. JC ■ = Mr A. F. Wright, in presenting the - "- 1 case f6r , tho objectors, said that the »grounds the objections were that the | properties of the objectors. ,wero not benefited as provided, by sec--i',s tion 3 of the Local Bodies Loans Act, 1913. An indirect benefit to those pro"<:i ' parties would not avail. It had to be shown by the Board that the proper- •' . -ties wire actually benefited, by ) the "proposed expenditure. As the properin question were ajl served by the ' present sewetage system, and as no / . portion of the money was being spent ■ i,* m the original ' sewerage area, , it, waa that-no benefit would accrue to '/;< those properties. The original sewer- "■ age area nad almost repaid its loan of & 3fi§oo,ooo to provide its own sewers, and " 'lts own pun.ping station, and as tio -' :p«hrtion of the loan money waa to be <■'_ in the inner area, it was inequit- " able that that area should be celled ','ijipoh to pay for providing sewers, for outer especially when the V area would have the free use of central assets of the - Drainage V" Board, which the inner area had alpaid for. There was, however, j;;£'ai wider and more important question the' objections of individual ratei That was whether the poll to ■ raise £750,000 oould be carried out itton the franchise contended for by A ;,tbo Board namely, the municipal fran- ' *" chise, which provided for a freehold r* qualification, a ratepayer's qualifica- ; tion, a residential qualification of three V msnths, and an occupier's qualification. vvl.lt was contended, on behalf of the obSly jectots, that, only ratepayers were en-k-.i titled to vote in respect oi the loan, as they. were the people whose properties i! 5 ;- Would have to pay the rates, and the wider franchise, practically adult suf- ' frage, could not he availed of for the M' purpose )of carrying the loan when the fe . non-ra.tepayera paid no portion of such Tbe under th© Local feviX Bodies. Lows Act provided that a ;te/ Magistrate - waa required to sign and !^' ; 'oertafy as to. the correctness of the roll. If other than ratepayers were iSoiot entitled to be upon that roll, then, the roll waa wholly bad. It • \also bad for the reason that the properties affected were not ou ' provided by the regulations. ' The submission of a loan poll under Local Bodies Loans Act to other 2 ratepayers was such a sweeping 'Mflffjifoge that the clearest and: most unamlanguage was necessary before ®ucn a revolutionary departure could It; Was submitted that t-eo--15 And 16 ojhthe 1920 Act, exjtending the franchise which were relied • "j,tipon by the Board, did not hear the V -which the Board's solioi,,toft, placed' upon it. Those sections >ir . applied to the election of members of % the Boardi, ahd to the taking of a poll jfe fct the: eKtfension of the>. drainage aisWb 'srict as » whole. A poll for the raisM,- the £750,000 was not a poll the Drainage Board's Acts at 'lt was a poll under the Local Bodies' X«oans Act, and, onlv ratepayers coul4 vote. There was such ®|S} a conflict between the two Acts that it be" highly : deairn,ble that the rulM|™g of the-Supreme Court, or even of r.? -- the Court of Appeal, should be obtainas _ to whether or- not the extended applied to "the taking of a fejfcpoll for the purpose of raising a loan mt? .as contended by the Board. uifQ. With reference to the question cf ' classification of lands and of differrating, it was submitted that counsel for the Board Baa misconceived the portion. The differential rating principle applied to general rates, and »ot to fecial rates, tinder the prog{ visions at the Local Bodies Loans Act

there could not be a differential special rate, aa a special rate had to apply over the area affected as a -whole. The suggestion, therefore, that the inner area would be relieved of a portion of the rates by reason of the classification, was unsound, as that would have the effect of altering the contract between the Board and its debentureholders, and it was submitted that for that very reason the suggestion was untenable. Counsel for the Board had stated he wa* authorised to say that there would be a classification'and a differential rating. The answer to that was that neither counsel nor the Board itself were in a position to give any such guarantee, for the reason that it would be modifying the contract in whioh the debenture-holders were concerned, and, furthermore, it was not possible to have a differential special rate. Such a thing waa unknown to our law .under the Local Bodies Loans Act. The only way to get a differential , special rate would be to split the district up into different areas, and to allocate the money to be spent in each area. With regard to the suggestion that if the loan were not carried, a Commission could sit and put the loan 'through, the section of the 1920 Act, relating to the Commission, referred to a poll of thus clearly showing if any confirmation were needed that the proposal had to bo submitted to the ratepayers, and not to the electors on the broad franchise. To allow people to vote on an expenditure of three>-quarte(rß of a million when they had not to pay a penny of the cost, waa a moat revolutionary doctrine, and waa really against all natural justice. Replying to Mr Wright's statement that the outer area would receive the benefit of the pumping plant paid for by the inner area, Mr Alpers said that that was not so. The outer area would have its own plant, and the two systems would only converge at the sewage farm. He was authorised to say that the Drainage Board was not going to raise the money loan first and classify the lands afterwards. Clause 16 of the Act could mean nothing less than to extend the franchise to others than ratepayers. He submitted that clause 16 of the Act gave the Board power to take the poll. Mr Wright raised the question of the Magistrate's jurisdiction. Mr Alpers said the objectors came there to lodge objections to the roll. If they said that the roll was no roll, they should not object to being placed on it, but should take the matter to another quarter. There would be a conflict of evidence on the point of health, continued Mr Alpers. son, of the Hospital, had said thJt the health of the city was better in the unsewered portion than in the _ sewered portions. The point to be decided was in regard to benefit to the properties. Messrs A. F. Wright, W- J- Hunter, and F. W. Johnston, three of the counsel appearing for objectors, suggested th'at the matter should be adjourned sine die to enable the Board to consider the question of franchise, which it was suggested was in direct conflict with the Local Bodies Loans Act. It was submitted that the residential qualification for voting applied only to the election of members of the [ Board and the extension of the district, and not to loan polls. Mr Alpers, after consultation with the chairman of the Board, Mr H. J. Otley, agreed to the adjournment, in order to allow the point to be submitted, to tha Supreme Court for a declaratory judgment if necessary.