BUSINESS MEN PROTEST

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 225, 19 June 1936, Page 2

BUSINESS MEN PROTEST

Licensing of Advertising Signs

A meeting of business men was he'd in the AVellington Chamber of Commerce yffestei'dny afternoon to consider proposals which have been before the Wellington City Council for some time for the purpose of regulating and licensing advertising signs and structures within the city. The following organisations were represented:—AVellington Chamber of Commerce, AVellington Retailers’ Association, AVellington Manufacturers’ Association, AVellington Ratepayers’ Association, Radio Dealers’ Association, Signs Institute, and the association of New Zealand Advertisers.

Mr. E. L. Rutledge, president of the A.N.Z.A., who was the chairman, said the fees proposed represented more than the reasonable cost of supervision and therefore a tax on advertising, while the regulations imposed unnecessary restrictions on advertisers. He read a legal opluion showing that the council had the right to charge only a reasonable amount to reimburse it for the cost! of supervision. Air. H. O. Pitteudrigh, president of the Retailers’ Association, said his association was vitally interested as they were among the largest advertisers. He had already taken action in regard to the proposed by-law. He was very much opposed to paying license fees, also to the provisions which would make charges retrospective. Alt. IL R. Scott objected to interference by the council with a -ratepayers’ right to advej’tise on his own premises.

Air. W. Simin suggested that a committee representing the various bodies present, be set up to examine the proposed by-law thoroughly aud prepare a case for presentation to the city council. This was seconded by Air. E. R. Render aud carried unanimously. After the committee was appointed, all present formed themselves into a deputation to wait upon the city council.

Mr. R. R. Scott moved and Air. W Simrn seconded, “That thils meeting opposes the proposals of the Wellington City Council to charge retailers and advertisers annual fees for advertising signs, and resents tl;e proposed interference with private properly as an unwarranted tax on business.” The motion was carried unanimously.