BETTERMENT

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 28, 1 August 1930, Page 9

BETTERMENT

REASONS FOR BILL

THE CITY'S-OBLIGATION

NOT TO BE EVADED

A clauso in the Legislation Committee's report to the City Council last night, that the Wellington City Betterment Bill, 1930, as submitted to tho council at its last mooting, be approved without amendment, raised a discussion in tho course of which the Mayor (Mr. G. A. Troup) said that the city had no intention of evading its share of tho costs of 'betterment, but it was equally just that those whose properties were enhanced by betterment should pay for it. The chairman of the committee (Councillor T. C. A. Hislop) said that personally ho was opposed to the Bill in toto, and wished the clauso referred back to the committee for necessary amendments. Otherwise he would move an amendment. Councillor Moadowcrof t snid. that the only other dissentient on the committee was Councillor Gaudiu, Councillor Huggius having been absent when the recommendation, was framed. The Mayor said that there seemed to be a ; very great deal of misunderstanding in regard to i the Bill, which was intended to apply generally to street widening and other street works. It must be evident to any fair-minded man that where the City Council had to pay for improved access to any individual, surely it was *fche right thing if tho council had to pay for the appreciation ■of value that the individual should pity the council something for the appreciated value. That was all that was asked in the Bill. Another point was that when the council, claimed for betterment it did not necessarilyl mean that the whole amount of the betterment should be thrown on the owners. Taranaki street was being widened, for instance. It was a civic improvement in which every individual in the city would benefit, and it would apply to users of the street, traffic would, .be easier, and everyone would benefit. THE CITY'S PAKT. It was not intended that the city should evade its obligation, in that it would share part of the betterment. If values went up from £80 a foot to £200 a foot, when Taranaki street was completed, it would be a fair thing to set up a judicial body of men who were not connected with tho City Council, outside' Government affairs, who would declare what proportion the city should pay of this improvement, and what proportion the man on one side or the other of it should contribute also. The city would have to bear, its proportion, but the man the value of whose properties had gone up so inordinately had an obligation to meet the city' 6 claim. It was only equity. That explanation was due to tho people of Wellington. The council did not wish to get out of its obligation, but it had the right to claim for the betterment done by its works. The Bill" might require amendments, but the Local Bills Committee could .attend to that. Tho general principle would be agreed to by overy fair-minded man. NECESSARY MEASURE. "Without the adoption of that principle," concluded Mr. Troup,' "I declare here- that, the municipality of Wellington, or any other, will never.be afcle to give effect to the improvements required. The ease of Te Aro flat was an outstanding one. It would take, I would not like to say how many hundreds of pounds, I might say millions of pounds, to bring it to its proper condition, but with the Betterment Act we will be able to make much quicker progress than wo can now. I know cases where improvements that were admittedly necessary Were not made by boroughs, because they would not vote for them, because of the fact that they would put money in the pockets of certain ratepayers. Thus these boroughs were deprived of these improvements, because the question of betterment had not been dealt with by the Legislature. If the Government had no intention of such a Bill being brought in, we feel it obligatory to have a local Bill provided which may be tho forerunner of a Kill' by which the whole of the local bodies of New Zealand may benefit."; OPPOSITION VIEWS. Councillor W. J. Gaudin moved that the clause should be referred back, for he was opposed to the principle of betterment. Wellington was rated on unimproved value, and increaseC valuations were automatically reflected- in rates to lie paid. The English Act did not confiscate the whole of the increased value, but passed it on in annual amounts which would be precisely the effect under unimproved rating on increased valuations. The time allowed for the determination of the increased value, twelve months, was Jar too long, for all sorts of factors j might come in—three months would be ample. Again," a great many property owners had no desire to speculate, but held the land and buildings to carry on their businesses, and the selling value was"of no moment to them. The fact that a street was made wider was no guarantee that it was a better business street; in fact, it was fully re30gnised that narrow streets were betver business streets. If betterment were to be applied in New Zealand then he thought Wellington and every other town where unimprovod rating held should be excluded. Rating on unimproved value would give to the City Council an adequate return upon inaieased values, without confiscation. WHY THE HURRY? Councillor Hislop said that he could not understand why such an important proposal should havo been brought down ■without fuller consideration. The Mayor said that the action taken had been necessary in order that the Bill could-be referred to tho Local Bills Committee in time for consideration during the present session of Parliament. Councillor Hislop said that he agreed iftat laraperty owners should contribute towards "work which would benefit their properties, but ho did object to the method proposed for the assessments. BETTER WAY COULD BE POUND. The Bill as proposed, said Councillor Hislop, set up an assessment court Which had power to decide the increase in the value of any property resulting from street works carried out. The amount fixed by the court would then be made a charge upon the property, and was payable to tho corporation by the owner of the land. The court had to sit and make its decision within twelve months of the completion of the work. This meant that tho land owner "was saddled for all time with the allegedly Increased value, but it might b8 that the increased value would be illusory, and might even fall after a short period, and tho owner would still be saddled with the charge. He believed in the principle that the private land owner ' should pay his fair share of the increase in valuo resulting from the expenditure of public money, but that could be brought about in a better way than that p oposod in (W Bill. All expenditure upon roadikfl work was neeeßaarily financed in Wo ultimate -resort from the1 ifctes.

If provision was mado for a revaluation to bo mado by tho ordinary valuing authority at the conclusion of tho street work, then the rate would be upon the increased valuation, and in that way the owner of tho land would make his fair contribution without any heavy capital charge being put upon tho land. At tho same time he would not be compelled to continuo to liavo a heavy charge upon his land if values fell, and if the work done proved in the long run not to have increased ■ the values. The whole Bill wanted reconsideration, and should be referred back to tho committee.

PRINCIPLE DEFENDED,

Tho system of carrying out improvements was unfair o the majority of citizens, said Councillor M'Koon, for a few were beiiefitting at tho expenseof the many. Every appreciation of property value could be realised upon by tho owi\er, -and the individual who gained from city improvements should pay his fair share, which ho was not doing at present. Practically every city in England was applying the system, and so well did it operate that business people were withdrawing their opposition and city improvement was being speeded up. The principlo of the Bill, said Councillor R. Semple, was thoroughly democratic and sound. It was right that means should be found- whereby the "take off" t>f increased values following upon improvements mado by tho City Council should be shared among the citizens generally, and not merely by a few. SPECIAL REFERENCE TO TE ARO FLAT. Councillor G. Mitchell said that the Bill had a special reference to To Aro Plat. A great part of that area could not be fully availed of because of inadequate roading; if the council could take over Te, Aro flat, reroad it, and then resell it it would probably realise a very substantial profit. The Mayor: "Not if you had to take into account disturbance of business, bogus loases, and all the rest." Even so, said Councillor Mitchell, lie believed that a great profit could be made, for To Avo flat was Wellington's only warehouse area. The trade value of "the work in Taranaki street would not be appreciated until the side streets were formed. It was notorious that in disputes between local authorities and private individuals the local authorities came off second best, and he did not therefore,share tho fears which had been expressed regarding the assessment of increased value. Tho time wo-Id come when the city would have to face the replanning of Te Aro flat, though perhaps not in the lifetime of present councillors. The Mayor: "Yes, in the lifetime of present councillors." Councillor Mitchell: "Perhaps in the lifetime of the present council?" Tho Mayor: "Yes, and for a long time afterwards." There was a point, continued Councillor Mitchell, that were a property judged to be increased in value from £1500 to £2000, would the owner, after being called upon to pay £.500 for betterment, be required to pay rates upon the full £.2000? Still, if the Bill was going to enable the cost of city improvement to be more equitably shared among those who would most benefit it should be supported. Councillor Morpeth took the case of a business section with a 40ft frontage, not a speculative proposition. o'ia it were erected business premises. If that property appreciated by the work of the council, the claim, as prepared by Hie suggested board, would in effect be &l first mortgage, considerably hampering tho man in his business. Councillor Huggins, supporting Councillor Gaudin, thought the Bill too sweeping. There was no idea where its efforts would end. It seemed an excellent Bill for'the City Council, but the private individual would not benefit so greatly by it. He did not think Government officers would function well on the board. Moreover, there were hundreds of thousands of pounds spent on street-widening, in which the individual was not concerned. Betterment would be hard on old people who needed their properties as homes alone. He agreed with betterment, but not vvkh the Bill. , ' Councillor Chapman said he wished to safeguard the rights of citizens collectively. It seemed reasonable that if the city spent money in improvements which were against the interests of some citizens, these citizens should be compensated. Many had been — take Bond street for instance—bat the city had received nothing for betterment, over and above tho increase in rates. The Mayor said that instances where widened streets were lined by houses were rare. He knew of none, but if there were the board would not assess the^increase in values as highly as it would in the case of a business street. It was one thing to think of increases in value and another to think of increases in rating. It was purchasees at raised prices who paid enhanced rates, incurred willingly, with no right of complaint. Once betterment was in operation it would stop speculation, whereas now speculators endeavoured to anticipate increasing values directly they got wind of civic improvements. The operation of betterment would stop speculation. Councillor B. G. H. Burn asked if betterment would \ not apply to houses in Taranaki street. Houses in that street, replied the Mayor, would have to come under the general increase of values. Tho amendment, to refer- the Bill back to the committee, was defeated by 11 votes to 4, those voting for the amendment (and against the Bill) being Councillors Gaudin, Hislop, Huggins, and Morpeth, and those against the amendment (and in support of the Bill), the Mayor, and Councillors Bennett, Burn, Chapman, Forsyth, Hildreth, Luckie,. Meadowcroft, M'Keen, Mitchell, and' Semple. ' The motion that the Bill should be sent on to the Local Bills Committee without alteration was then passed.