BETTERMENT BILL

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 32, 6 August 1930, Page 8

BETTERMENT BILL

FAIRNESS QUESTIONED

(To tho Editor.)

Sir,—With your kind permission, • I would like to comment shortly on the subject of the Betterment Bill now being promotol by the City Council, and mentioned in your sub-leader yesterday. Witli your statement that "it is better to maintain the uniform application of municipal law," I agree. That a charge rightly falling on the community should not be transferred to the individual, L also endorse. The statement, '"That the city would bear its fair share of the cost of any improvement," has been made but only after there was found to be opposition to the Bill. There is nothing in the Bill itself to suggest this course. The. Bill deals with street widening and is bad in that it is based' on the false premise that the widening by a few feet of a street fifty feet in width automatically increases the value of land in that street. Why does it not state frankly that it is a Bill to levy a capital charge on certain property owners, to relieve the city from the cost of a work undertaken to benefit the whole community? Otherwise surely it would not "be undertaken at all.

Is not the position something like this? The council decides to widen a certain street because the space between the lines of cars now parked on both sides of it is too narrow to carry the existing traffic. Money is borrowed without consulting the ratepayers or the property owners concerned, and on the completion of the work the account is presented to .the said owners, while the two lines of cars still remain to the annoyance" and inconvenience of all business premises in the street. Surely an extraordinary proceeding. Further, tho Bill violates one's sense of justice and fair play. It provides for the setting up of a board to assess the amount »ach property is to pay, on which board the property owners have only one representative. They are in a minority of three to one. The original draft of the Bill did not give them even that representation, which was added at my suggestio.nl Certainly provision is made for appeal, but the onus of praof is on the appellant. The Judge is oireeted as to his finding, and the appellant is allowed to call two witnesses! If the city rates are to be relieved by a capital levy on a few property owners, let it be done with at least a semblance of equity and fair mindedness.—l am, etc., W. j: GAXJDIN. (To the Editor.) Sir,—Your leaderette would make out that the Town-Planning Act should be varied for Wellington City. Your writer seems to forget that property has an ethical basis. Property is nothing more or less than that which the individual has produced or acquired by his own capacity or thrift. Property is an attribute of personality. It is part and parcel of individual liberty. The public interest is only involved when individual property by its extent carries with it power over the lives of others, that being inconsistent with that liberty and equality of opportunity out of which the institution of individual property itself has arisen. Street-widening and charging betterment upon individual property against the owner's will is a violation of the principle of applied ethics. It is not fair, reasonable, or right. It is a threat to the individual's liberty in the possession of his property. That is wrong, and no man understanding common honesty would seek to acquire such power. • The' political philosophy o£ the British Empire stands for the institution of individual property and its protection. It implies that the individual shall not be "robbed of his property even for the good of the State or the good of any community, without being fairly and adequately recompensed or reimbursed value for value. Personally I am not at present involved in the matter as an individual owner of property, so that the question may be discussed without any leanings through personal interest. Here is a property in a street the City Council desires to widen. The owner does not wish the street widened. He does not wish to be disturbed. Why does the council desire to widen the street? Traffic is congested, and that congestion is a public menace —a menace to all citizens. Exactly. Then why should any individual be made to suffer for the loss of his property when the taking of it is for the benefit of all? Your writer agrees that a charge rightly falling on the. community should be transferred to the individual, but he thinks that the community should take its share and the individual should accept his. Exactly. But as the community includes the individual owning the property, why should he suffer twice when civic improvements are undertaken for the good of all? The individual suffering loss of property for the good of all bears his individual share of what the coinmunityrecompenses him for his Joss. The Mayor and council give some time to the city's affairs: they should also devote some conscience to the interests of property-owners; and they should imderstaud that this proposal of theirs is a blow at the rights and liberties of all citizens,—l am, etc., J. D. SIEVWKIGHT. [The arguments advanced by the correspondents call for only brief reply. Councillor Gaudin's objections are mainly to methods, and these, as we stated, will be fully examined when the Bill is before Parliament, though we cannot admit that the unfairness is so great as the writer claims. Mr. Sievwright'a argument that betterment is "a violation of the principle of applied ethics," is absurd unless he contends that the individual propertyowner should not be rated or taxed unless he has personally consented to the expenditure for -which the rates or taxes are required. It is not proposed to rob the individual of his property, but to recover from the individual that value which is added to his property by public works executed at the cost of the whole community. The claim that the owner will pay twice—once with the community and once individually—has no substance. He will pay with the community for the general benefit which he will share and he will pay as an individual for the particular benefit which is not shared by the whole community. If there is no particular benefit there will be no claim which can be upheld. To say that the owner does not desire to have his property improved docs not absolve him from payment. Many property-owners have had the value of their holdings increased without their wish by community action. Residential areas have been changed into business areas, and the owners are rated accordingly, though they may have been content with the residential value until they decided to sell. -Ed.] -