BOROUGH OR COUNTY?

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 193, 17 May 1928, Page 12

BOROUGH OR COUNTY?

OTAKI FARMERS’ RATES EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COMMISSION Dominion Special Service. Otaki, May IG. To-day’s session of the Otaki Rating Commission was concerned solely with the case for the farming community, witnesses giving evidence concerning the burdens under which they, have been working, and concerning their views on the question of drainage. In opening his case for the farmers (some are already excluded from the borough, and do not wish to return to it, and some are seeking exclusion), Mr. Luckie said that he was certain that, unless some very material measure of relief were givvn to these farmers, it was almost impossible to see how they would carry ou. The Commission, added Mr. Luckie, had a difficult problem to solve. He referred to the farmers on the Church Mission Block, leases of which had been granted in 1915 when the property was subdivided. Since then the valuation of the lands had not increased. In fact said Mr. Luckie, owing to the increased rating, the valuations had really been decreased. He pointed out that the land in the Mission Block was useless for subdivision for municipal control, or for closer settlement. He did not think that the land would ever be called upon for any other use than for farming. Otaki’s case, in the speaker s opinion, was much the same as that of other boroughs which had been taken out of counties. Had the Mission Block been left out when the borough was formed it would have meant leaving out the beach properties, and there would have been no borough, the minimum population for which is one thousand people. Mr. Luckie said that his clients were almost voiceless regarding the administration of the borough. Mr. Atmore: They can whisper.

With all respect to the first commission, said Mr. Luckie, he thought that, in refusing certain exclusions, inadequate reasons had been given by the commissioners. He contended that as a matter of common sense the land between the Post Office and the railway station would be required for closer settlement long before the land of the Mission Block would be thought of in a similar connection. So far as the drainage and water rates were concerned, Mr. Luckie submitted that it would be a hardship to burden the farmers with any more rates. They were, he added, faced with ruin, and had come to the conclusion that it would be better for them if they could be excluded from the borough. He pointed out that all sorts of rates could be struck, apart from those for municipal improvements. In reference to the drainage scheme, Mr. Luckie said that it seemed a most unusual procedure that, after the ratepayers had voted for Mr. Davies’ scheme the Borough Council should have scrapped it and adopted one submitted by Mr. Jickell, without testing the feelings of the ratepayers on the subject. How Kates Increased. At this stage Mr. Luckie called as a witness Mr. E. H. Letts, a farmer, from the south-eastern corner of the borough. Mr. Letts said that he was one of those who desired exclusion from, the borough. Prior to his inclusion in the borough, he used to pay £4 17s. 4d. a year as rates for twenty-seven and a quarter acres. For the year 1921-22 he paid £l9 18s. 2d., and for 1922-23 the rates were £23 14s. By what was described by Mr. Luckie as some extraordinary accident he paid only £23 7s. Oil. for 1923- In explanation, Mr. Atmore said that there had been a slight reduction at the time. However, added witness, they jumped up to £42 bs. lid. for 1924- and for 1925-26 the net rates were £4B os. 7d. For 1926-27 he was called upon to pay £55 12s. 3d., and now, for 1927-28, the sum amounted to £<2 13s. 2d. Witness stated that, if he did not have to pay the rates, he would be able to get a new suit once in four years instead of once in eight years. (Laughter.) Continuing, witness said that all his property was subject to floods. Asked whether he got any benefit from the borough that he did not get from the county, witness stated that there was a light on the road, and an inch pipe by his boundary. However, he had bought a windwill for his water supply, as he understood that the water scheme would not benefit his property. He had spent about £l4OO on his land, the unimproved value of which was £lB3O. After paying expenses for the past year, he was left with a margin of about £2O to live on. The result was that he had to go out and seek outside work. The rates, he added, were taking the bread out of his mouth. So far as the drainage was concerned, in no circumstances could his property derive any benefit from it. He was of opinion that under the county’s jurisdiction, he would be able to make a living. Witness stated that his son was paying over £7 as rates on a one-acre section. He 'stated that the only road he and his son needed to use was the main county road. To Mr. Atmore, witness said that he thought that he might be able to carry on if the water and drainage rates were withdrawn. At the present time he saw little prospect of having Siis income increased. “All my misfortunes are due to being taken into the Otaki Borough, concluded Mr. Letts. Mr. Monk Recalled. Mr. G. A. Monk (chairman of the Horowhenua County Council) was recalled and again stated that some material relief was needed for the farmers. In answer to Mr. Luckie, he said that if the farmers seeking exclusion came to the county without burden there would be no objection raised. An arrangement concerning roads would need to be come to with the Otaki Borough Council. Mr. Luekie: That, of course, would be a matter for adjustment. Mr. Monk still considered that the lands would be better managed by the borough if the financial considerations were left out. The cases of other people in the vicinity whose cases were similar were also stated. The next witness to be called was Mr. A. J. Fogden, a farmer, holding a leasehold area of about 49 acres whieh was formerly in the borough. When he bought the land in 1922. he paid £409 for it. The rdtes in 1916 on a 34-acre block were £7 4s. lid. For the year 1920-2< thev were £74 14s. 2d. He petitioned, in 1925, and in 1926, for his property to be excluded from the borough. Prior to this, he had frequently asked for relief, and since he was not able to get anv. be took the only possible course, and asked for exclusion. In 192 U his petition was granted, and in 1.)2i lie bought a further 15 acres of excluded land. He did not think that any drainage scheme proposed by the borough would be of any use to his property, so far as residential purposes were concerned, the property was too low-lying to be of any use. Witness stated that the temperature of the water on tlie property was too bigii for cooling purposes, with the result that his summer milk had to be classed as second grade, and he was being forced to instal a pumping system. The water had been condemned for cookiug purposes. The valuation of his land had affected his financial position, as he considered that he was giving money, to the council, and was getting nothing in return. Mr. Fogden said that his lease was under the control of the Mission Board, which imposed many restrictions. To Mr. Atmore, witness admitted that, even though his position was one of the most acute, among the lessees of the Mission Block, he could manage to carry on. Witness said that he did not go in for winter milking as conditions were not suitable, and said that he relied on *.the summer milking. Witness admitted

that his farm was worth much more in 1915 than it was worth at present.

Borough Roads.

Evidence .was given by Mr. Charles H. who remarked on the question of maintenance of borough roads, and stated that certain residents who were in the county and who were never; at any time in the borough used the borough roads to a greater extent than did the residents of the borough. He mentioned one or two cases in which county residents had to use a borough road as a means of access to their property. He then gave a number of instances to illustrate the hardships underj which the farmers were labouring. He considered that there should be a community interest in the borough and that everyone should endeavour to contribute a trifle at least towards the upkeep of it. According to Mr. Williams, the farms on the Mission Block could not pay for five months of the year during the wet season. He also mentioned that thel-e were times when parts of the block were so much under water that one could not tell that the property was there. In the summer months the properties were good, but not in the winter. He considered the farms were depreciating every; year, owing to their not being refertilised. Mr. Atmore contended that that might affected Mr. Williams’ farm, but it did not necessarilly follow that other farms were in the same position. . The commission then adjourned until 9.30 a.m. to-morrow.