ESSENTIAL POINTS

Evening Post, Volume CXXI, Issue 142, 17 June 1936, Page 6

ESSENTIAL POINTS

HOW WILL. PETONE FARE?

After reviewing the history of amalgamation discussion since 1923, the Mayor of Petone (Mr. A. Scholeneld) said:

In discussing this important question I sincexdtr hope we shall get away from the parochial viewpoint which always stood out predominantly when the question of amalgamation of local bodies in the valley, Lower Hutt and Petone in particular, was discussed. Let us forget we are councillors for the respective local bodies, but as citizens of the valley let us display a broad outlook.

"Is it not more important to realise that there is a population of approximately 27,000 within the combined area of -two of the boroughs represented here, Lower Hutt and Petone, the residents of which have the right to demand that the best communal services should be given them, and that the district comprising the combined areas should be so developed as to bring about the highest possible standard of communal development? Can this be given whilst the people and areas are divided into a number of local bodies? "The time is ripe to review the services of the valley and see whether they could be economically co-ordinated and extended to cope with future developments. Also, whether comprehensive services could not be instituted through amalgamation of all or some of the local bodies in the Hutt Valley. These should be more economical and beneficial than the maintenance of a number of separate local bodies.

POPULATION AND PROBLEMS. "The increased population of the yalley has produced problems which could and should receive immediate serious consideration. "In my opinion, the most favourable opportunity from every point of view, for the amalgamation of Lower Hutt and Petone was in the year 1927 when the councillors of each borough met m conference, the outcome of which was the appointment of - Mr., G.. J. J. Feil to bring down a report for submission tb a further conference iri the near future. It is not to the credit of the then: Mayor and. councillors of Lower Hutt that the. information required by Mr. Feil»to Compile his report was refused by them, causing the report to be hung up for a period of over two years for tjil.simple reason that the Lower Hutt Borough Council desired to retain the; sole control of the development scheme they, had in hand, and also to a\\'ait the time when Lower Hutt's population exceeded Petone's. These are not wild statements, but declarations made by members of that council. "No wonder it has been said by Petone's residents that under a scheme of amalgamation Petone's residents would be saddled with the expenditure of the development which has and is taking place in Lower Hutt.

"Two questions of vital importance to Petone are:— 1. Will Petone residents, under a scheme of amalgamation, be saddled with the cost of development which has taken place and is still proceeding elsewhere? 2. In reference to the above, will Lower Hutt, having the larger population, dominate the position to the detriment of Petone's residents, who will have numerical strength on the combined council? , Mr. Scholefleld then proceeded to 1 give details of the loan indebtedness of the various boroughs. The chairman asked if it was necessary to give the figures at this stage. They could be given later when the committee was set up, he said. Mr. Scholefleld replied that he would not proceed further with his speech, but would move an amendment as follows: — . ~ 1. This conference appoint a qualified accountant to bring down a comparative report of the affairs of the local bodies represented at the conference, covering the seven years ended March 31, 1936. : 2. That the town clerks of the local bodies here represented confer with, and supply the necessary data and figures required by the accountant appointed to enable him to prepare the aforesaid report. 3 That upon completion and presentation of the report it be circularised to each local body here represented, for their immediate consideration,] after which the delegates resume and further consider the question of amalgamation in the light of the r e P° r * and opinions of the local bodies on the question. 4 That this conference recognise the right of the electors of _each local body to determine by ballot vote whether their respective local bodies shall be a party to amalgamation, m i any form, of all or gome of the bodies here represented.

In seconding the amendment, Mr. Hogg (Petone) said he would reserve his remarks until later, but asked Mr. Andrews to define the area for amalAndrews replied that this would be the job of Mr. Hammond, the townplanning officer. .