AMALGAMATION

Evening Post, Volume CXIV, Issue 130, 29 November 1932, Page 8

AMALGAMATION

HUTT VALLEY TOWNS

PETONE SAYS NOT YET

POLL PEOPOSAL

Amalgamation with Lower Hutt was discussed at length by the Petone Borough Council last night, when. a motion moved by Councillor A. Scholefield "that tho council approach the Lower Hutt Borough Council with a view to taking a vote simultaneously of the electors of the two boroughs on the question' of their amalgamation was rejected.

Councillor Seholofield said he believed that the amalgamation of Lower Hutt and Petone had to come. Ho favoured also a larger scheme of amalgamation, but realised that the two boroughs should first unite, their amalgamation automatically to include the Petone and Low_er Hutt Gas Lighting Board —"

'' And the Hutt Park committee,'' interjected Councillor E. T. E. Hogg.

■ Councillor Scholefield continued that he was not in favour of the compulsory procedup contained in the Municipal Corporation Bill now before Parliament. He thought amalgamation would come when the people desired it and not before, and it should not be by coercion. liocal bodies in the Valley cotfld not ignore the fact that the positions of engineer at Lower Hutt, town at Petone, and secretary of the Gas Board were all vacant, being only temporarily filled. Through amalgamamation and central control great economies could be accomplished. This was a unique opportunity to obtain more efficiency with economy. The Petone Fire Board and: the Hutt Biver Board could come in after the two boroughs had amalgamated. I

' The motion, -was seconded by Councillor B. T. E. Hogg, who. said he thought the question %vas a live one, on which the ratepayers should be given an opportunity of expressing an opinion. The poll should be taken at the municipal election next May, to save expense, and there should be introduced into the issue asuggestion which might overcome the objections that had been raised in Petone when the last poll on the question was taken and that had resulted in the vote against amalgamation. The main objection had been that Petone was substantially, completed but Lower Hutt was in an incomplete state. Certainly, Lower Hutt was much larger in area, and had an estimated maximum population of 50,000 compared with Petone's estimated maximum of about 18,000. The populations were at present equal, Lower Hutt had a long way to go; and it was argued that if amalgamation came about Petone would have to.bear the burden of Hutt 'a development. ■He suggested that the issue should go to the poll this time on the basis of differentiation of rating; that is, that on amalgamation Petone and Lower Hutt would be kept as separate rating areas so that Petone would pay only as much as it did now, less the saving resulting from amalgamation. "NOT A LIVE QUESTION." Stating that the question w.as not sufficiently alive to warrant the .council's proceeding with a poll, Councillor v. E. Jacobson opposed the motion. World-wide experience, he said, had shown that with the joining up of boroughs, administration costs per head increased. ■ . A similar attitude was adopted by Councillor J. W. Longman, who said he saw no reason to change his long-stand-ing opinion. When the ratepayers wanted amalgamation they could requisition the council for a poll, and he would support one. Councillor. V. A. Noble was inclined to support the1 motion. . If Lower Hutt by poll favoured amalgamation, Petone would have to tako a separate, poll. It would be economical to take the two polls together. He thought Petone would vote against amalgamation, and that wouM strengthen the council's hand in the event of a Commission being set up. LOWER HUTT'S DEBTS. "Nobody is' asking for amalgamation or even thinking about it," said the Mayor (Mr. D. McKenzie). "What could Lower Hutt give us that we haven't got? Nothing, at all. Only their debts!" It was no use coercing the people of Petone into this. Objection to .the use of the word coercion was expressed by Councillor Scholefield. Certain individuals, continued Mr. MeKenzie, were trying to bring about amalgamation for their own selfish purposes^but he would be obliged to anyone who could show him any benefit that amalgamation would bring to Petone. Their town was the pioneer one of the Dominion, and they must be ambitious to conserve its interests. Moreover, it had been proved that the larger the meeting the greater the cost per head of civic services. "And what's in a .city, after all's said and done?" he asked. "It's only a name." To Councillor Hogg, the Mayor gave the assurance that his reference to selfish individuals was not meant for him or for Councillor Scholefield. Councillor J.C. Burns did not think that the vacant positions in the two boroughs' warrantee^ the bringing up of amalgamation again. He was yet to be convinced that amalgamation would decrease the costs to the amalgamated boroughs. Councillor E. W. -Tooinath opposed the motion because the statute provided that if 10 per cent, of the ratepayers wanted a poll on the question a -poll would .have to be taken. Until the 10 per cent, approached the council it should do nothing. ' ' ; NOT "JUST THE THING." "I am extremely sorry at the manner in which you made your speech," said Councillor Scholefield to the Mayor. "I am sure you will realise on reflection that it wasn't just the thing." He suggested that special rating areas could be created and the ward system operated. "Wards are an out-of-date method," remarked the Mayor. It had been said, continued Councillor Scholefield, that Lower Hutt would have everything to gain by amalgamation and Petone everything to lose, but ho did not agree with that. There was the burden of the Jackson street widening, for instance • "A'-drop in the ocean," interjected Councillor Burns. "Why should Petone improve the beach for-Lower Hutt's benefit without it costing them a penny?" asked Councillor Seholefield. "We go to their gardens," replied Councillor Burns. "If a small body is less costly than a.large one, why not split up Petone?" asked Councillor Scholefield. In reply to Councillor Noble, the town clerk (Mr. W. \F. Sturman) estimated the c,ost of a'poll, if taken with the municipal elections, at £20 to £25. The motion was put and lost, only Councillors Scholefield, Hogg, and Noble supporting it. ASSOCIATION'S OPPOSITION. Drawing attention to the great difference in. the loan burdens of the two boroughs, the Petone Ratepayers' Association, conveyedl its unanimous resolution to oppose any negotiations for amalgamation with Lower Hutt in, .the Bresent circumstancea.

Otago, Canterbury, and Wellington Branches Navy League (jointly) 1,000 N.Z. ; -Territorial Association (Northr > era arid Southern Commands) (jointly) ..:...... 1,000 Devonport Public Library; Citizens' Committee 1.000 Wallace Agricultural and Pastoral Association '.. 400 Wyndham Agricultural and Pastoral Association 600 Trustees Swimming Baths for School Children, Petone ............ 300 Thames Prospecting Association .. 500 Makogai Leper Asylum ComfortsFund 200 Hamilton Community Camp Association ....:, 230 F&lding Industrial, Agricultural, and Pastoral Association 1,000 Wangauui Agricultural Association 1,000 Wairarapa and East Coast Pastoral and Agricultural Society .. 1,000 Woodville Agricultural and Pastoral Association ' 250 Pahiatua Agricultural and Pastoral Association .' 250 Waimarino Agricultural, Pastoral, Horticultural, and Industrial Association 850 The art union, -which is to close' for the sale o£ tickets on Christmas Eve, will be drawn on' 14th January next.