THE DRAINAGE SCHEME.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLV, Issue 13691, 6 March 1908, Page 7

THE DRAINAGE SCHEME.

THE [7 MM PROVED VALUE.

TO THE EDITOR

Sir,—-The necessity of obtaining an cfiificiit drainage system must Tie recognised by every citizen of the district. To continue our present! parochial and poisonous method of draining into the crevices of the rocks in the volcanic districts and carting the filth through the streets in the clay districts is simply courting typhoid, plague, and other dirt diseases, If we look at the configuration .if the land from the harbour, and wish -Auckland to become one of the finest cities in the Southern Hemisphere, we must put all local jealousies on one side and insist on one comprehensive drainage system. Rut, as soon as we talk of touching the pockets of the different districts interested I lie question of self-interest ■at once comes to the front, and each local body tries to fight, for its own hand. The opposition of the .suburban local bodies to the estimate of 'heir contributions made by Mr. Bush is quite justifiable, as it is unsound in principle and unjust to the local districts. There can lie only one just method of estimating the proportion due by each local body, viz., by rating on th.j unimproved values. As !lio.>e values automatically increase with the increase of population, so would the contributions of the various bodies, and as Auckland city would get most of the benefit from the expenditure, in the shape of increased trade, from the fact of £850,000 being spent in (ho district, it is only just that the propertyowners of the city should contribute more than the local bodies. Then, again, what is it that makes the city land values? Is it not largely due to the presence of the suburban residents? And since they contribute by their presence to create and maintain the city land value are they not justly entitled to part of that value for their drainage system? Jhe estimate of their contributions made by Mr. Bush is based on the fallacy that the man who improves his property should pay the greater part of the rates, while the, vacant sections should reap the increased value, and although the leaders of the local bodies know that their share of the rates is crushmgly heavy, it would be " unfashionable for them to advocate that the rates be levied on the unimproved value. The true, just, anil wise solution of the drainage problem would be for the suburban local bodies to join in supporting the proposals of Mr. Midgley Taylor, on condition that the rates to cover the cost should be levied on the unimproved value. The Official Year Book for 1907 gives the unimproved value of the city and suburban district? as follows: — Unimproved Unimproved value ' value March 31, 1907. in 1891. £ £ Auckland 5.592,54 ... 2,471,496 Grey Lynn ... 2/7,86/* ... 135,607 Point Chevalier 43,487 ... Not given Mount Albert .. 231,012 ... Not given Mount Roskill... 174,118 ... Not given Mount Eden ... 387,066 ... Not given Archhill ... 57,929 ... Not given Eden Terrace... 63,161 ... Not given I'arnell ... 305,903 ... 138,775 Newmarket ... 126,396 ... 82.327 Remuera ... 460,345 ... Not given Epsom ... ... 201,041 ... Not given One-tree Hill ... . 289.366 ... Not given Orakei 9,328 ... Not given Avondale ... 67,606 ... Not given £8,287,172 £2,828,205 • The present land value of the suburbs is only £2,694,625, as compared with £5,592,547 —the present land value of the city. That is to say, the city holds more than twice as much land value as all the suburbs put together, and therefore has twice as great a pecuniary interest in the general welfare. Yet although the city holds about 67£ per cent, of the total land value as compared with 32£ per cent, in all the suburbs, Mr. Bush proposes that the suburbs shall pay £567,200. as compared with £282,800 to be paid by the city! He absolutely reverses the proportions which justice and common sense alike demand, and would practically make two-thirds of the value (i.e., the city) pay only one-third of the cost, and one-third of the value (i.e., the suburbs) pay two-thirds of the cost! The following comparison of the .amounts payable by the various districts under rating on the unimproved valuo and under the estimates of the city engineer will explain the position : —

Proportion due Proportion due according to the according to the | Unimproved Value. City Engineer. • £ £ Auckland ... 573,575 ... 282,800 Grey Lynn ... 29,000 ... 53,674 Point Chevalier 4,350 ... 38,566 Mount Albert.. 24,000 ... -80.618 Mount Roskill.. 18,000 ... 22.515 Mount Eden... 40.000 ... 114,088 Arohhill ... 5.750 ... 17,005 Eden Terrace... 6,250 ... .10.436 Parnell ... 31,250 ... 45.627 Newmarket ... 12,800 ... 16,862 Remuera ... 47,150 ... 69,866 Epsom ... ... 20,625 ... 58,706 One-tree Hi 11... 29,600 ... 48,794 Orakei .. ... 775 ... 5,459 Avondale ... 6,875 ... 4,984 £850,000 ... £850,000 If rating on the unimproved value were adopted we could at once secure all the advantages of a Greater Auckland. There would be an end to parochial strife and jealousy. The cost of municipal improvements "would be adjusted fairly and automatically among all who derive pecuniary benefits " from such improvements, and we should at once bring our beautiful city up to date in the march of progress. F. M. King.

PARNELL'S SHARE OF THE COST. Sir,—ln a further interview on the subject of drainage, reproduced in your issuo of today, Mr. Bush, the city engineer, states that, after reading my letter which appeared in yesterday's Herald, he has only to reiterate his previous statements relative to Parnell, but his latest observations do not make the position much clearer, nor do they bring very conclusive proof in support of his previous contention to the effect that my statement, taken from the estimates prepared by himself, that Parnell's contribution to the drainage would be £27,000, was inaccurate. I made no comment upon the amount that is set down as Parnell's share of the cost of the main outfall sewer, evidently a trivial sum, in the city engineer's opinion, of "only £17,627." 1: the amount at. present estimated to. be contributed by the- city is a just proportion of tho total cost, be commensurate with the benefits which the city will derive from the completion of the scheme, and assuming the basis upon which calculations have been made is the most equitable method of adjusting the amounts which should be borne by' the local bodies interested, Parnell's allocation appears a fair proportion. I am Well aware, however, that such adjustment need not prove an insuperable difficulty, as an actuarial and judicial tribunal would probably be able to satisfactorily determine tho amount, each district is justly entitled to contribute.

The fact, that I mentioned that IT is Worship the Major and Mr. Bush were willing and anxious to answer questions, etc., at, the conference, litis 110 bearing whatever on iny statement that I was unsuccessful in in.v endeavour to obtain information with regard to t he-amount estimated by the city engineer as necessary for the reticulation of I'arnell, which to me, in view of the advanced state of Pa melt's drainage requirements, appeared a large sum, land worthy of Some attention and inquiries into the reason' of its necessity, though, judging hp the remarks one reads on amalgamation and its desirability, it; would appear to be a heinous crime to make any' inquiries as to (he probable cost to the taxpayer, in spite of the fact that we have not only to provide our share of flto initial cost of the construction of a main sower, which has been designed to meet the requirements for all time of a population three times its present number, but also a share of an annually recurring and undoubtedly annually increasing cost of working.

Mr. Bush now tells us that a certain sum will certainly bo required for altering existing drains for the purpose of connecting with the main intercepting sewer, and, by way of encouragement, and, perhaps, to prove that after all my statement with regard to Parnell's contribution was an accurate one, hints that, iii the event of existing sewers in the borough being in faulty condition, we may have to contribute ail the amount estimated, and perhaps more, for reticulation. " '

I'ho last paragraph of my letter referred to the drainage, scheme, and, whilst it may be true, as His Worship the Mayor has pointed out, that tho drainage question has been before us for some time, it has only quite recently become a definite proposal, and it is only within the last few days that wo have had an indication of the amount each local body waa likely to bo called upoii to contribute. "; V

Few probably -will be prepared to dispute the contention that the scheme submitted by Mr. Taylor and Mr. Bush will, if carried out in its entirety, prove efficient, and immeasurably improve the sanitary conditions of a vast area.

It is not my intention at present to enter into it discussion of the Greater Auckland question, as i still hope that the. City Council—and particularly those members who so vehemently opposed the adjournment. of the conference for a we el - , on the ground that so many valuable lives were in danger of being sacrificed to typhoid fever—will abandon their incipient idea of using tho drainage scheme as a lever for extending the city boundaries, a course which, if persisted in, may have, the, effect of shelving both projects indefinitely. if the Parnell Council were convinced that the city regarded drainage and the improvement 'of sanitary conditions as of primary importance, there would rob a bly be no objection whatever to the Mayor attending the meetings of the committee set up bv the recent, conference of delegates from "local bodies. ■ Frank. Fitt.