FEES UNDER BYLAW

Evening Post, Volume CXXI, Issue 144, 19 June 1936, Page 14

FEES UNDER BYLAW

SIGNS AND HOARDINGS

CONSIDERED TOO HIGH

A meeting of business men was held in the Wellington Chamber of Commerce yesterday afternoon to consider proposals which have been before the Wellington City Council for some time for the purpose of regulating and licensing advertising signs and structures within the city. The following organisations were represented: Wellington Chamber of Commerce, Wellington Retailers' Association, Wellington Manufacturers' Association, Wel[lington Ratepayers' Association, Radio Dealers' Association, Signs Institute, 'and the Association of New Zealand Advertisers. Mr. E. L. Rutledge, president of the A.N.ZA., who was the chairman, said the fees proposed represented more than the reasonable cost of supervision and therefore a tax on advertising, while the regulations imposed unnecessary restrictions on advertisers. He read a legal opinion showing that the council had the right to charge only a reasonable amount to reimburse it for the cost of supervision. Mr. H. O. Pittendrigh, president of the Retailers' Association, said his association was vitally interested as they were among the largest advertisers. He had already taken action in regard to the proposed bylaw. He was very much opposed to paying licence fees also to the provisions which would make charges retrospective. Mr. R. R- Scott objected to interference by the council with a ratepayer's right to advertise on his own premises. Mr. W. Simm suggested that a committee representing the various bodies present be set up to examine the proposed bylaw thoroughly and prepare a case for presentation to the City Council. This was seconded by Mr. E. R. Render and carried unanimously. After the committee was appointed, all present formed themselves into a deputation' to wait upon the City Council. , ,_ Mr. R. R. Scott moved and Mr. w. Simm seconded, "That this meeting opposes the proposals of the Wellington City Council to charge retailers and advertisers annual fees for advertising signs, and resents the proposed interference with private property as an unwarranted tax on business." The motion was carried unanimously. _____________