RATEPAYERS' BODY

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 94, 22 April 1931, Page 11

RATEPAYERS' BODY

STATEMENT IN DEFENCE

■ -,The- following statement was made to-day on behalf of" the." Wellington Ratepayers' Association: —

'"Always: Mr. Luekie seems to give a quarter of an hour .to • tlic sins of the Ratepayers' Association,--bat. unfortunately for him lie is out in his facts ('?)• Referring., to the Betterment Bill, lie states that'the Ratepayers' Association opposed the betterment principle; and so killed the BUI. The answer is that the Ratepayers' Association frankly admitted /when ppoaking before the Parliamentary Committee, that they, were not opposed to betterment as a principle; but certainly were opposed to the iufamous Bill brought forward by the City Council—a Bill, with but, a skeleton of-'clauses,'.all of which Vrere weighted against the owners of- property. So bad was' this Bill that- the City Solicitor brought forward clause after clause in art endeavour to make the. Bill acceptable. Why were these clauses not brought forward when the Bill'was promulgated? .; , "Then another little statement is to the effect that-the Ratepayers' Association ivas against tho Betterment Bill because it wanted to make the suburbs pay,, for'the street widening- ; ; scheme which benefited city properties only. This is a complete mis-statement of fact. "The Bill .at first included, the suburbs in the scheme of things, but very cunningly, when the,, amendments were brought forward, the suburbs.were dropped., Why?!. .Because the Mayor was flirting with the suburbs^ with _a view .to getting their support in this matter!;. No,' the' Ratepayers' Association was for all the city, but the coun-cil-itself .took sides, as it were", '-.. ',

"Councillor Luclde's statements in reference to eastern and western access aie equally misleading. The fact is that the Ratepayers' Association has never expressed views on this scheme. It certainly did object to a loan being raised by 'Order-in-Council, which was advertised pn 23rd December (a very good' date to squeezo an advertisement through almost unnoticed). The association failed in its effort to get information from the council, and had to go direct to the Loans Board. The Bowen street proposition had already been turned down by ratepayers, so the Mayor and his advisers tried to overcome this by joining the Bowen street project and the eastern tunnel project in one. Hence both schemes are now held up,, not because the schemes in themselves are in question, but because the consent of ratepayers to tho Bowen i street part of the proposition had not been obtained. In fact, the ratepayers previously turned this down. "The Ratepayers' Association stands on sure ground. Its protest has been affirmed by tho Minister of Public Works, proving that the action of the council was .wrong. Tho Ratepayers' Association is not opposed to any scheme for the betterment of Greater Wellington and its people, provided the ratepayers have had an s opportunity^ of considering the proposition" and giving it their sanction. It is tho principlo that the Ratepayers' Association is concerned with."