The Franklin Times PUBLISHED EVERY MONDAY, WEDNESDAY AND FRIDAY AFTERNOON WEDNESDAY, APRIL 3, 1929. “BETTERMENT.”

Franklin Times, Volume XIX, Issue 38, 3 April 1929, Page 4

The Franklin Times PUBLISHED EVERY MONDAY, WEDNESDAY AND FRIDAY AFTERNOON

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 3, 1929. “BETTERMENT.”

Office and Works

ROULSTON STREET, PUKEKOHE. P.O. Box 14.

Phone No. 2. Night Phone, No. 328

“We nothing extenuate, nor aught

set down in malice.”

THE idea of the “betterment” principle in - connection with public works has very’often been mooted'during the past thirty years. The principle of taking the cost pf the work, or as much of the cost of it as possible, from the owners of land that would presumably be increased, in value, may. seem at first blush to be a fair thing, but any attempt to carry it into practice would result in so many- injustices l that it is scarcely surprising that we still keep on in the old way.

Mr Edwin Bold, the senior land-pur-chase officer for the Public Works Deparment has just retired from his posi tion, and at a farewell gathering held ir. his honour he unloosened himself to the Hon. E. A. Ransom, the Public Works Minister, of the impressions garding this important matter which he had acquired during a long career of land-buying for railway purposes. After many years fighting with landowners in the attempt to acquire their property at the lowest possible figure he may not perhaps be in the best possible mental state to approach this question in a purely judicial manner; but that can be allowed to pass, and his views on the subject looked at from the point of view of their facevalue alone.

Mr Bold quoted the finding of a commission which enquired into the betterment question some seven or eight years ago, as follows: — “The great difficulty which must inevitably be encountered in finding capital in the immediate future for public improvements will make it jnore important than' ever before to to apply a fair and efficient method ’ of securing some of the value created thereby. It was not considered in the national interest that persons whose property is being enhanced in value by the expenditure of public money should retain the whole of such enhanced value, and that if a portion (say 50 per cent,} of such can be secured in reduction of the cost of public improvements, there will be more inducement to undertake numerous schemes of developing the amenities of national life, which at present are in danger of being hampered or indefinitely postponed for financial reasons. It Was, however, considered essential that the application of this principle must be effected at the initiation of the undertaking.”

Mr Bold holds that if effect were given to this report the original property owners would not be able to get value to the detriment of a new buyaway with the community created er, who would afterwards be rated j with the cost of the work. But can j Mr Bold, or anyone else devise any ! plan by which this betterment principle could be fairly apportioned among land-owners, so that -they would pay only in proportion to the benefits received. To have an invaluable institution like, let us say, the Auckland General Hospital, within easy reach, is undoubtedly a betterment, but would it not entirely outrange human ingenuity to adjust the payment of its cost so that, the landowner in Parnell, the land-owner in Papatoetoe, and the land-owner in Mercer, should contribute in fair proportion to j the benefit received. Mr Bold, it is j true, was only referring to railways, j and the drainage of swamps. Pos- j sibly he does not think public works in the cities should come under the betterment system, so let us take the case of a railway. The Paerata-Wai-uku line cost about £220,000. If the land were rated for fifty per cent of that sum the annual rate charge would be about £7OOO. Would it be possible to distribute that rate fairly? We doubt it very much. And how would it be possible to arrive at anything like a fair allocation of the cost of the Bombay-Pokeno deviation of the Great South Road? j

It must not be forgotten that most of the rural land in New Zealand has been broken in under pioneering con•ditions. Industrious and persevering settlers have pushed back the wilderness years ahead of railways or even adequate I'oads. No doubt one of their incentives was the hope that the road or railway would come to them goalie day. It seems an extiaordinary thing to grudge to these people or their successors the trifle of betteiment they may perhaps, and only perhaps, gain after years and years of toil and endeavour. It is useless to talk of

the • “unearned increment” in relation to the rural lands in New Zealand, when we know that in most cases the improvements could not be put on the land for the whole of to-day’s selling value.

It is practically impossible at the present time to induce anyone to go on to’unimproved land, no matter how easy the terms. We would be safe in saying that if the whole of the Crown Lands were offered gratis to people who would go on to them and farm them not twenty per cent would be taken up. And we venture to say that if it Were offered with the condition that the betterment system would be applied when any public works \vere undertaken, not an acre of it Would be accepted.