RIVER BOARD RATING

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIV, Issue 297, 13 November 1934, Page 10

RIVER BOARD RATING

MANAWATU-OROUA AREA

SETTLER’S COMPLAINT. Urging that farmers in the Mana-watu-Oroua River Board’s area who had carried out protective work on their own initiative should be exempted from further rating, a remit from the Levin branch was fully discussed at a meeting of the Manawatu provincial executive of the Farmers’ Union at Levin on Saturday.

Mr S. Sloan, a farmer whose case had come before the Levin branch, attended the meeting. Mr Sloan said that although he understood that the board had been operating for twelve years and collecting money from ratepayers, little had been done, and no benefit had been received. In his own case, he himself had approached the board’s engineer, who had given the information that in the event of a property owner carrying out private work in line with the scheme under consideration, compensation would be given. Acting on this information, he had carried out the work he required, at a cost of £SOO, for the protection of 60 acres, but had received no compensation, and, in spite of his requests, was still rated on the ground of “maintenance” expenses. No maintenance work had been carried out on his area by the board, however, and as it was self-contained, his property could derive no further benefit from any new scheme by the board. Mr B. G. Gower said that Mr Sloan was quite correct in what he had said, but had not stated the full position. The engineer had stated that compen* sation would be given when the scheme was completed, but it never was. Koputaroa and Makerua ratepayers were in the same position, and Mr Sloan s was by no mean an isolated case. Had the scheme contemplated not fallen through, compensation would have been given. Mr Sloan replied that the time the scheme was to be put into operation bad never been mentioned. He had no record of an agreement, but the board’s minute book contained no record of his attending the meeting, when his request had been made. He was of the opinion that a poll of the ratepayers should be held to determine their attitude. Mr J. T. Kent asked what the union could do in the matter. He considered that the ratepayers themselves should petition the board. Mr L. H. Best also considered that it was a matter for the ratepayers. Mr J. Boyce thought that the board should put the matter of the suggested loan for the financing of the large scheme, which had been previously considered, to the ratepayers, or else disband. The present rates were a waste of money, he contended. Mr Avery supported this. Mr Gower stated that the proposed loan had been stopped because of the financial depression. The chairman, Mr J. A. McLeavey, thought that the matter was too great a question for the union, and beyond its scope The union had every sympathy with Mr Sloan in his position, and should, of course, stand behind its members in such matters. A motion that a deputation from the executive should wait on the board and ask for consideration of Mr Sloan’s case was withdrawn, as it was considered that the Levin branch themselves should send a deputation. The remit was referred back to the branch with that end in view.