BETTERMENT PRINCIPLES

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 48, 25 August 1930, Page 8

BETTERMENT PRINCIPLES

Objections raised to the Betterment Bill in the City Council discussion were mainly on points of detail. No convincing argument, or, indeed, any valid argument whatever, was offered against the principle. The subject has now been thoroughly debated, and this failure, to attack Ihe principle should convince citizens that in principle ihe measure is sound. Its soundness may be realised if we consider the alternatives. The Mayor referred to To Aro flat as a veritable rabbit vrarrrru with no

fewer than 75 lanes and blind alleys. Clearly this area should be replanned if it is to be used to the maximum advantage. With its present powers the Council could undertake 'replanning in two ways—by putting the cost on the general body of ratepayers and leaving the profit to present owners, or by buying the area, re-subdividing it, and selling it again. The latter alternative would be cumbersome and we fear almost as expensive as the first method. Municipalities usually get the worst of a buying and selling bargain. The first method is out of the question. Ratepayers will certainly not agree to load themselves with rates so that property-owners may be enriched. Unless some means are provided, therefore, of placing a due proportion of the cost on those who should rightly bear it, works essential to civic progress must be held up. The Mayor was asked: what is the urgency? There is no doubt of the answer. The longer preparation for replanning is delayed the more difficult it becomes, as new buildings, new sales and leases create new difficulties. The general tenor of the Council discussion, however, was not for rejection of the Bill but reconsideration and amendment., We have never maintained that the Bill was perfect in form, and we see no objection to safeguarding provisions which will leave the main principle intact and workable. Those who have objected to the Bill have now an opportunity of assisting this revision, and proving that their objections are not based on opposition to progress, or an easy willingness to see the cost of necessary replanning saddled on the ratepayers while those who reap the maximum benefit escape payment.