NORMANBY FARM LANDS

Hawera Star, Volume LIII, 7 November 1933, Page 8

NORMANBY FARM LANDS

COUNTY MERGER REQUEST VIEWS OF INNER AREA. EVIDENCE BEFORE COMMISSION. CONCLUSION OF SITTING. The Royal Commission which sat at the Town Hall in Normanby yesterday concluded its inquiries into the proposed merger of portion of the Normanby town district with the adjoining Hawera county, and intimated that the evidence which it had obtained' would be submitted in _ due course, with certain recommendations, to His Excellency the_ GoveniorGeneral for decision. Petitioners for the merger were the owners of .suburban farm lands in the town district which, for this year, are subject to a rate of 4d in the £1 on the 'unimproved value compared with a rate of Id in the £1 on the capital value in the adjoining county. Those opposed to the merger were the majority of the occupiers of small sections in the “inner area.” The commissioners were Messrs F.. W. Waters (New Plymouth), Commissioner of Crown Lands, as chairman, and O. Gardner (Wanganui), District Land Valuer. Counsel engaged included Mr J. L. Weir, of Eltham (for the petitioners) and' Mr R. J. O’Dea, of Hawera (for the counter-petition-ers).

Part of the day’s proceedings were reported in yesterday’s late edition of the “Hawera Star,” and continuing the evidence in support of the petition Walter Burton said he owned 11 acres, which he grazed. He had not signed the petition, but he would like to be in the county. He was not in the area proposed to be excluded. Mr W eir said this evidence was called because the previous commission had reported there was no evidence to show that ratepayers in the

inner area did not wish for retention of the town district. \ Joseph Young said he had* about four acres in the town district, the inner part. He would rather be in the county. He had not signed the petition because he was not in the area proposed to be excluded. “I know different,” said Mr Young when Mr O’Dea suggested that he was better off in the town than he would he in the county. “Petitioners are much concerned over ■ the fixture,” said Daniel J. Hughes, who pointed out the danger to a farmer of the residential franchise. The lighting was not much use to the farmers and he had not a metalled road to his door. There were 454 sections in the town without buildings and 273 without improvements of a total of 560. There were 96 with dwellings and 10 with business premises. He had 64J "acres in the town, on which he paid £49 in rates, or 15s 3d an acre. Two neighbours in the county paid 4s 8d and 3s 5d per acre in rates. James C. Wright said he farmed 36) acres in the township and paid £27 in rates, which was too much. HAWERA COUNTY NEUTRAL. John B. Murdoch, chairman of the Hawera County Council, said the general county rates included all special rates. In reply to Mr O’Dea, Mr Murdoch said the town roads had improved considerably. He told the commission that the county could supply all the services at present supplied 1 by the town, but the county was entirely neutral in respect of the petition. Addressing the commission prior to calling the evidence of witnesses opposed to the merger, Mr O’Dea said that it was necessary first of all to refute the suggestion that all the petitioners were struggling farmers being ruined by the oppressive imposition of exorbitant rates. Such was not the existing state of affairs at all. Most of the petitioners had larger holdings in the county than they had in the town district. If, therefore, the farming operations of each individual were regarded separately and his outgoings ■and income over the whole year were taken into account, a totally different idea of the position arose; for instance, one petitioner had 33 acres ir the town district and 127 acres in the county, a second had 30 acres in the town and 100 in the county and a third 20 acres in the town and 51 acres in the county. These were only a few of the many instances of farmers in the town district possessing land irKthe county; in fact, there were

only two to whom the description of struggling farmer could apply. Mens ■ tion had heen made of the high rates | paid by D. J. Hughes, Imt counsel! pointed out that he had had a clear opportunity to vacate when his lease expired a few months ago. “Why did he not do so?” asked Mr O’Dea. who answered his own question with the observation that apparently Hughes was perfectly satisfied with things as ' they were and renewed his lease Much had heen heard about the wrongs, suffered by thf> farming community. but what of the rest of the population—the big major!tv of small section owners in the town ? Obviously their position would he changed for the worse should the petitioners succeed. for either one of two things would happen: (a) Thev would remain a town district comprised of the inner area.' in which event, if they tried to carry on, the rates would have to be increased to about 8d in the £1 ; (b) the alternative was the dismembering in toto of the whole town district. In this event all the small, holders would be faced with as steep an increase in rates as the farmers would benefit by a decrease. COMPLAINTS OF PFTITIONFKS. Dealing with the specific complaints of petitioners, Mr O’Dea said their first complaint was that their properties were farm properties and, as such, should not be included in the district. It would be an uncommon event if farm lands were not comprised in the. district. ui-ner town districts comprised large areas and also had farm lands included within their boundaries. The average area of town districts in New Zealand was 931 acres. Nornianby comprised 655 acres, with a population of 860, of whom 132 were ratepayers. Kaponga. by way of comparison, comprised 500 acres, of which 372 were farm lands. The second complaint of the petitioners was that the rates they were paying were exorbitant. In the Hawera County the rates were IJd in the £1 and in one riding as low as Id in the £1 capital value. Hawera County, ■however, offered an exception to the rule, for in other counties such as "Whangamomona, for instance, the general rate was as high as 9,]tl in the £1 unimproved value. There was an >• instance of one ratepayer in that county whose land was sold for £B6O. of winch £l3O wgs paid away in rates.

for one year. In the Egmont and Clifton counties the rates went to 21 d and 2§d in the £1 capital value. For the further consideration of the commission Mr O’Dea submitted that all the petitioners came voluntarily ‘ into" the district, and it .was always open for them to leave if they, so desired. Some of them, even after thev entered. the district, had increased their holdings, one man hv 18 acres, two others by 33 acres each and one other by six acres. Some of this land, it was pointed out. was acquired when the rates were od and old in the £1 instead of the present 4d. The petitioners knew what obligations they were assuming when they came into the district,. and it would surely be a 6orry tribute to their business methods to imagine that they took up the land without the cert airx knowledge that they could make a success of it. RATING ON CAPITAL VALUE. It .was submitted further that the petitioners had pursued the wrong remedy; that their proper coui’se was to have the system of rating altered so that it was based on the capital value and not on the unimproved value. “If the petition was granted, could the inner area carry on alone?” he asked. It was submitted that it could not. With a greatly depleted revenue and a disproportionate de'•rease in expenditure the rates would have to be very nearly doubled to enable them to carry on. This would impose a considerable burden on the remaining ratepayers, who then would have no alternative but to go into the county as well. This they did not desire to do. Could the commission give effect to a conclusion which would, contrary to the expressed desire of the vast majority of the population of Normanby, mean in effect that they would all have to join the county? There were other good and sufficient reasons why this should not take place, [financially* Normanby was on a firm basis and possessed solid assets amounting to about £3OOO, while its liabilities were nil. These assets belonged to the people of Normanby. who had no desire to hand them oyer] to the county and who had no desire to lose their corporate status. Then there was the question of roads in the town. Bv what procedure could the title to these roads be divested from the town district and handed over to the county? Mr. O’Dea said he knew none, and it might be that the inner area would be left to try and support as best it could the whole of the roads for the benefit of the farmers who had become members of the county. . Thomas Lloyd, motor lorry driver, and Ashlev H. Hills, .petrol station proprietor, both residents of Normanby for a considerable period of yeais, also gave evidence. Satisfaction was expressed with the present board’s administration and thev had no desire co see any portion of the town district merged with the 'adjoinintr county. Mr Weir: In your opinion the innei area could not exist without the outer area? , Witnesses agreed that the inner area required the assistance of the outer area. DEPENDENT ON OUTER AREA. Joseph Patrick Leydon, Hawera -ounty foreman, said he had resided in Normanby for 16 years and at present was a member of the board. In his opinion ho did not think that the inner irea could exist without the assistance >f the outer area Since 1924 the ;own district roads had improved to a narked degree. To Mr. O’Dca: On the completion of work in progress every farmer in the outer area would be served by a metalled road. In the inner area it was proposed to permanently surface ...... footpaths and to continue the board’s jolicy of renewing all culverts in con-| crete. To Mr. Weir witness said that his lpinions were partly those of the board and partly his own. He was giving the board’s views because apparently the chairman, who was presult, intended to sit quietly. Witness paid £2 6s 8d in rates. Mr Gardner: Are you spending all ,’ou get from the outer area in that l rea ? Levdon.: Yes. Mr. Gardner: Then would you lose mything if the area was excluded? Air. O’Doa: The board would lose the rates. If what Leydon said was true, Mr. Gardner pointed out, except for overhead charges the board would not lose mything on the exclusion of the outer RATES NEEDED. Answering Mr. Weir, Leydon said he paid 62 6s 8d in rates. He was present at a meeting called to consider a merger. It was well attended and the proposal was rejected bv 2l votes to 13. Mr. Weir: Ain I correct that you need the farmers’ rates to carry on?— Yes. It was pointed out that the chairman of the Town Board (Mr. O. J. Preston) had declined to take part in the discussions because of his difficult josition. Besides being chairman he vas one of the signatories to the petition. Mr. O’Dea said that in the circumstances the chairman was to he congratulated on his attitude. DID NOT WANT MERGER. David Henderson, town board foreman, said his rates amounted to £2 13s and he did not want to see a lierger take place. Mr Weir; How would you like 30 acres or so in the outer area and have to oav 4d in the* £l. unimproved value. Witness: 1 think T could manage it comfortably. Mr Weir: I don’t know so muon about that. Edw r ard P. Grant said he paid £7

10s rates on his property and had no desire to he merged with the county. Even if the rates increased he was confident he could carry on. Mrs Ennily A. Free, whose rates amounted to £1 7s lOd, said she could -see no advantage to be gained by joinin,p- the county.

Recalled bv Mr O’Dea tlie town clerk (Mi H. J). Hughes) said that the hotels paid an annual license fee of £4O each, whereas if they were in the countv they would pay £25. This money was spent bv the board foi the benefit of the whole town district. To Mr Weir: The administration expenses of the hoard were less than 10 per cent, of its annual revenue. In his remarks to tlie commission concluding the inquiry Mr Weir said that the object of forming, a. Town Board was to give residents a form o'; self-government and a system of finance whereby they could enjoy the amenities and conveniences of town life. He submitted ‘that the Nonnanby Town Board had not provided these conveniences: in fact, during the 51 years of its existence it had let the olaee .go by the hoax'd and what it had done in recent yeans it had been more or less forced to do. Whilst not desiring to he derogatory in any] way, he would say that Normanby was a decaying village; no industries were likely to spring up or closer settle incut take place and he saw no reason why the board should continue in existence at all. Reference had been made to Ka.ponga and Manaia, but both these town hoard districts had justified their existence by providing water, lighting, footpaths, recreation reserves and other amenities. He pointed out that some two or three years ago a commission at Manaia had excluded some 150 acres of suburban farm lands. At the present time the farming community wanted all the assistance that it could receive. If the Normanbv petition was successful a direct saving of £172 to petitioners would result. Not a single asset would be lost by the merger and there should be no consideration whatever or the inner area which could still constitute itself a town hoard district if it so desired and he selfsupporting if rated in the proper manner—on the capital value. At the conclusion of Mr Weir’s address and before the commission rose a businessman in the gallery who had listened to the afternoon’s proceedings lodged an objection to the description of "Normanby as a decaying village. “We who obtain our living in the township very much resent the use of such an expression,” he said.