MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AMENDMENT

New Zealand Times, Volume XL, Issue 9172, 12 October 1915, Page 7

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AMENDMENT

POSITION OP CITY LEASES,

The debate was resumed on the question that an amendment from His .Ex-, ocllencv the Governor should be agreed to in the Mundpal Corporations Amendment Bill. The Hon. Gj W. Eussell said it was now proposed to dispense with the disputed clause in, regard' to valuations .altogether, and that a new clause should -be added to the "Waehig Dp Bill"; for the purpose of dealing with all leases. All leases coming in were to bo held over till January Ist, 1917, and there was te be no valuation in the meantime... The leases would bo extended,, but during tho recess the Government would : consider the desirability of bringing down amending legislation ■ dealing with tho whole question of valuations of properties, reserves and leases of local governing authorities ■ with a view to placing them on a broader footing altogether; A difficulty that had occurred in Wellingtou had shown tho - necessity: feu- some reform. Information had reached..the Government that a groat deal depended

on the gentleman wbo happened to he the third vainer. In some cases the third: valuer had assessed adjoining properties on an entirely different basis to what another valuer had done. That showed the necessity of a. court constituted entirely free of any-local influence which would do justice to the tenants and local authorities alike. - - . Mr A. H. Hindmarsh (Wellington South) suggested that the better course would be to let the clause stand and postpone its operation and the arbitration. Then the matter would be safeguarded instead of being loft entirely open. . Mr Russell; "The whole matter is to be postponed ponding legislation next session/ Mr Hindmarsh: "If we postpone the matter wo will have the same fight over the same principle/' , Mr C. J. Farr (Eden) considered that the Minister Bad discovered a good way out of the difficulty. A magistrate as a final adjudicator was objected to by many tenants. . . , ,Mr* J. McCombs (Lyttelton) agreed with the view of Sir Hindmarsh. It would be just as, well to let the matter go,' and have the experience of a new tribunal. If unsatisfactory it could bo altered. Mr J. Anstey (Waitaki) supported tho proposal of tho Minister. Tho ques tion of tenants’ rights .would have, to be fully considered. Trouble Bad arisen .through no. valuation being allowed for improvements, rents having to bo fixed accordingly. Insecure leases were bad tor all parties. The amendment proposed by the Minister was then agreed to. .