RATEPAYERS MEET

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLIX, Issue 101, 28 March 1929, Page 4

RATEPAYERS MEET

HOKOWHITU ASSOCIATION.

QUESTIONS OF RATING

The annual meeting of the Hokowhitu Ratepayers’ Association was held last evening, Mr A. W. Sutton presiding. ANNUAL REPORT. The annual report presented by the president read: (Jur membership is still well maintained and there is every indication of additional members joining, as it becomes better known that membership is not restricted to residents of Hokowhitu. With one important exception, nothing has transpired during the past twelve months to engage our attention. The exception was the matter of rating on rural lands within the borough boundaries. A representative of your association was present during the sitting of the commission appointed by the Government to enquire into the rating problem, and evidence was tendered by several residents giving facts and figures and emphasising the desirability of an alteration in our rating system in order to remove the existing hardship and injustice. This was followed by a resolution passed at a meeting held on August 23 last, copies of which were fox-warded to Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates and Hon. A. D. McLeod, and Mr J. A. Nash, M.P. Legislation dealing with the rating problem was not brought down by the Coates adminis-tx-ation as promised, but it is hoped that something definite will be done by the present Government. In view of the development that is now taking place in Hokowhitu and the steady progress in the erection of residences, I would recommend that give consideration to some scheme for ,iinproving and beautifying the Hokowhitu district, thereby making this poi-tion of the town more attractive as a residential area. In conclusion, I desii'e to thank members for their co-operation at all times on mattei-s affecting our welfare, and to express my appreciation of the good feeling which has always manifested itself, during our debates. With a continuation of the same ■, civic spirit and loyalty to the association, I feel that we can confidently look, forward to another year’s successful operations. The report was adopted. ELECTION OF OFFICERS. The election of officers for the ensuing year resulted.—Chairman: Mr J. S. Winton; vice-chairman, Mr A. W. Sutton; secretary and treasurer, Mr F. 0. Amos. The meeting unanimously decided to place on record its appreciation of the services rendered by the i-etiring chairman, Mr Sutton, who declined nomination for a further term owing to business reasons. Appreciative reference was also made of the work of Mr Amos as secretary and Mr Winton as vicechairman during the past year. RATING FARMING LAND WITHIN BOROUGHS. Speaking on the question of rates on lands used for farming purposes in boroughs, the chairman quoted Section J of the Municipal Coi-poration Amendment Act, 1928, providing that, where in any borough an ai-ea of not less than three acres is occupied solely for fanning pui-poses, and is unsuitable for subdivision or unlikely to be subdivided for building, the council may, with the consent of the Valuer-General, pass a resolution to that effect and the Valuer-General shall accordingly reduce the valuation of the land and borough rates 6hall be based on such reduced valuation. Mr Sutton expressed the opinion that the remedy provided in that section was not. sufficient. What they wanted was not a revaluation but a new system of valuation to give relief to borough lands. Mr Sutton read a letter written my himself under date September 4, 1928, to Mr J. A. Nash, M.P., setting out the position. The letter was as follows: “1 note that no pi-ovision is made in Section 9 of the Municipal Corporations Amendment Act whereby owners of lands concerned may make application to the council to have their properties i-evalued in order that they may receive the benefit of the section. Further, pi-ovision should be made foxproperty owners to have the' right of appeal in cases where the council refuses to have the valuation on their pi-operties amended in order to give relief from excessive rating. As the Act i-eads at present, it is quite optional whether the council makes any adjustment or not, and, pei-sonally, I doubt very much if local bodies would exercise the power conferred xxnless it was incumbent upon them to receive applications from owners of farm lands and consider each case on its merits. It seems to me that Section 9 should be deleted from this Act and the neces-sai-y legislation on this subject fully provided for in the * bill-, which it, is proposed to bring'forward dealing with the rating of rural lands within boroughs. I would esteem it a favour if you would kindly forward me a copy of this proposed Act as soon, as same is available. t “Thei-e is one other matter that 1 desire to bring under yt>ur notice, viz., ‘cost of footway constniction. Under Section 179 of the Municipal Coi-pora-tions Act 1920, the council is empowered to charge one half of the cost of such works upon owner of lands. fi-ont-ing the same. Under the existing bylaws, property owners are compelled to construct footways when reading their propei-ties for subdivision. In previous years the council took over .many streets as public streets which complied with the requirements of the bylaws at that time. My contention is that once a street is taken over by the council as a public street the whole area occupied by such street and dedicated to the council, at once becomes the property of the council, and the said council should be responsible for the carrying out of any further necessai-y work, whether constructive or maintenance, and the cost of such work sliduld be paid out of the general fund, except when included in the schedule of work for which a loan has been raised., From enquiries made in other sources, it seems that Palmerston North is the only place that makes a practice of imposing upon property owners one-half the cost of footway construction. The section refei-red to reads ‘may’ impose, not ‘shall’ or ‘must.’ Evidently this provision in the Act was designed to meet special circumstances and was not intended to be enforced generally but only when the circumstances justified its imposition. It is decidedly unfair and unjust to withhold the convenience of footways from residents in certain streets for a long period of years during which they are rated the game as residents in those portions of the borough that ai'e favoured with every convenience the council can supply, and then call upon them to pay .one half of the cost of footway construction, in addition to their rates. Surely these people are entitled to some sei-vice in return for large sums they have contributed to the borough funds. Section 179 certainly needs revising. It. should be clearly laid down that, when a loan is raised for the purpose of footway construction, the allocation of cost as provided in this section shall not apply. Trusting that an amendment will be embodied in the Municipal Coi-porations Amendment Act, 1928,’ and thanking I

you in anticipation, Yours faithfully, A. W. Sutton, Chairman, Hokowhitu Ratepayers’ Association.” Members endorsed the views set out iii the letter and it was decided to forward to the present Government copies of the correspondence that had been sent to the late Administration on the subject, with copies of previous resolutions urging an alteration in the present schemes of rating and contribution •towards footpaths in new streets. GENERAL BUSINESS. Mr Sutton expressed the opinion that, in view of the growth of Hokowhitu, the council should be asked to take steps to bring the Hokowhitu Domain to a state equal with the parks in other parts of the town. Mr Winton agreed, suggesting that, if unemployment relief works became necessary during the winter, the men could be put on to the Domain. It was decided to. write to the council asking that the necessary work be undertaken with a view to beautifying the Domain and providing adequate parking space for motorists. On Mr Waller’s motion, it was decided to request the Borough Council to clean the drains in Botanical. Road.