THE PUBLIC BODIES POWERS ACT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 9139, 11 June 1891, Page 3

THE PUBLIC BODIES POWERS ACT.

DISCUSSION IN THE COUNCIL,

At last night's meeting of the City Council, the question of the adoption by the council of tte Public Bodies Powers Act came up for discussion. The matter was introduced by

Cr Pisn, who moved—" That in the opinion of this council it is desirable that tho council should at onco take tho necessary steps for tho adoption of ' The Piiblio Bodies Powers Act 1887.' " He said if the council adopted the act, they would be empowered under it to reduce or modify the reels of their tenants in suoh cases wheia they fouud that they were paying an exoosflive amount. The matter had been discussed before on two occasions in the council, and although a motion in favour of the adoption of the act had not been carried, yet the opinion of the councillors, so far as he understood their arguments, was that there were great wrongs existing with regard to the rents that were Leiiig paid in many cases. No one denied that, loe only objections he had heard to his proposals were—that the council was not in a position financially to lose any revenue, as they would be sure to do if tho aot was adopted; and that it was too largo a power to give the council to exercise. That %vas to say that the council might bo charged with improperly using their votes to favour individuals. With regard to tho last objection, he did not thiuk that any councillor upon reflection would venture to urge it, because it would cast such a rtfleotion upon himself that if ib were true be would not be fit to sit in the council at all. Then, in regard to the objection that tha council could not afford to 1036 any revenue, he held that the principle of doing what was absolutely right and just was Buperior to a narrow principle of the kind to which he had referred. There wore two notable oasea which he thought it would only be necessary to mention in connection with this matter. Tha one wsb a caso of a property in Munse street, where the tenant paid £7 a foot rent, and another property of a Bimilar oharacter immediately next door was let for 303 or £2 a foot. It seemed to him to be absolutely indefensible that such a thing shonld exist. In tha case he referred to, the tenant was absolutely losing a considerable amount of money by . the property. The next caso was that of tho Auld Scotland Hotel, the tenant of which was paying about £5 a week rent, aad his takings were about £15 a week. It, therefore, followed, ss the night did the day, that it was only a question of a very short time when this individual mast inevitably go to the wall. Cr Swan seconded^ the motion. The case of corporation tenants, ne said, was often a very hard one, and it was only a matter of justice that relief should be given them. He did not see any objection to the council having the power to reduce rents so long as they took great care in exercising that power. If, however, some rents were largely reduced, other rents would require to be raised, or some pressing work would have to bo left undone. . If the council adopted the aot he would be in favour of no rents being reduced until a valuer had reported S3 to whether the rents were exorbitant. Reduction?, ho thought, should only be made in exceptional cases after the strictest inquiry. Cr Cohen moved—" That this council, while Bgreeing that it is desirable to make provision for a periodic revision of the rentals paid by thair tenants, are of opinion that such revision ehould be effected only by a court of .competent jurisdiction, and that power should be given to the local body interested to move such court to raise, if the circumstances warrant such a step, the rental of any of their tonanta that has been already reduced." He thought it would not be wis3 if tho council alone were the body to dedetermine the question of future rentals, owing to the pressure from outside that they would be subjected to. He pointed out that there was no pressing demand on the part of tho corporation tenants for relief, aad went on to say that ho thought that if rentala were reduced tenants should be prepared to revert to the origiual rentala if the council wished them to do so. '.Caere wss, however, nothing in the Pnblic Bodies Act giving the council power to raise rente again after having reduced them. Regarding the question from a financial aspect the council could not hope to carry on ;tbeir business, nor would they be acting fairly towards their creditors if they did not deal with some assured finance. While admitting that there were individual cases of hardship these cases ho thought shonld be taken to a court of competent jurisdiction free from all chanc? of improper doaling-ra court where the onus of proof would be laid upon the parson sffectad. He would go into the court to prove his case, and the courl; would make such a reduction as the case warranted for a period of fiva years. A period of three years, he contonded, would not be fair either to the parties applying for reductions nor yet to the corporation. Some measure of rtliof from tenants should also be afforded to the council if the council asked for

Cr Haines seconded the amendment. Ho was altogether opposed to the council adopting the Public Bodies Powers Act. Ho was satisfied that if the question of reducing rentals were left to the council pressure would, .bs brought to bear upon thc-m, and','tUex "would be led to do what they would not do i£. leU to their own reflettinnflsaii ±The Public Bodies Powers Act provided only for reduction of rents. He did not see why tho corporation should not have power to raise them. He believed it was contemplated to introduce what wa3 called a Fair Rent Bill into Parliament next setsion. He had read the outline of that bill, and it went in the direction that Or Cohen expressed himself in favour of that night. Or Solomon said this was: unquestionably the moat important question that had been before the council for some time, but it was a question concerning which thc-re was great diversity of opinion. For bis part ho could not see what right n man who had a lcaso bad to ask Hint hia rent should be reduced any more than a man who purchased a freehold had to ask that a portion of his purchase money should be returned to him. There were maay very great difficulties in connection with this question so far as it concerny.s the corporation. The firat was the absence <.f fiaality that there would be in all the council's future dealings with corporation land. Supposing tho council pat up a section for lsase, and some perfectly responsible person wa? prepared to give, say £300 a-year, but some speculator out-bid him and gave £350 a-year. In about six months the man who got the lease applied for a reduction o5 rent, and told the council that if he did not get it ho would have to go through the Insolvency Court. In that case the council would havelo3tagood customer. The couocil were there primarily in tho interests of the ratepayers—(hear, hear)—and it seemed a very improper thing that the ratepayers should be taxed in order that corporation teDants should get cheaper land. There waa no doubt in his mind that so soon as the council udopted the Public Bodies Powers Act every tenant would apply for a reduction of his rent. When this matter wa3 disenseeel come three or four years ago some 14 tenants sent in a petition to the council, which conclusively proved that if the act were adopted the council would be likely to get applications from 330 tenants for a redaction of rent. When the matter came up before he coasulted Mr Gibson, the late town clerk, and aßksd him what ho thought would be the financial result if the council adopted a resolution similar to that whish Cr Fish had proposed. Mr Gibsoa said that he had gone very carefully into the matter, and ho estimated that it would mean a 1038 to the corporation of about £3000 a year. Cr Fish : Oh, no. , . Cr Solomon eaid he would not credit it. He thonght it was quite ridiculous, but he went through tha matter with Mr Gibson, and he waa quite satisfied that he was right. If the act were adopted the majority of the 330 tenants of tha corporation would apply for a redaction, and they would find that Mr Gibson s estimate of a loss of £3000 a year—which was at the rate of abouV £10 a headwould be rather under than over stated. Now a loss of £3000 a year to the corporation meant an increased taxation of 3d in the pound. That was to say, that the council would have to add 25 per cent, to the present taxes. He sobmitted that throughout this whole question tho injustice to tenants had beea very much exaggerated. He had been very careful over the statement of tho corporation reserves, aDd ho certainly must say. that he failed to see any very terriWe case of hardship. He admitted that there were a few cases—probably about half a dozen; but he submitted that the cases were not so numerous aa to justify the council ia ruDning the risk of loss, which ho was pretty sure they would have to run if they adopted tha act. It seemed to him that matters were hardly so bad as they were represented to be. Tho council's revenue from reserves was £12,385 a year, and daring all thase ye»r3 tha total amount of rent in arrear was £347. Now, if these tenants were so hardly dealt with as they were represented to be,6urely the rent roll of nearly £13,000 would be more than £35C in arrear. Cr Fish : Why, one gentleman alono W3S in arrear nearly £1000. Cf Solomon : Was in arrear ? Cr Fish : Yes. Cr Solomon : Yes; but he paif\ He proceeded to say that the council were told that the gentleman in question v/as in arrear, and the council were told that he was nearly going through the insolvency court, and then shortly afterwards he sent them a cheque. If Cr Fish's motion were carried it would practically mean that there would reqnire to bo an entire rearrangement of rentals paid by the Corporation tenants, and ha was quite certain that that would be, from n financial point of view, a very ri*ky proceeding indeed. In the case of the Auld Scotland Hotel, the council had nothing to do with that. The licensee's landlord was the Corporation's tenant. All the conncil. had done, so far as he was concerned, was to consent to a sublease being granted to' him. The council were not running the licence of the hotel. It waß cot the slightest use talking about any other tribunal than the council settling tho matter. The couDoil was the only tribunal that could sattlo the question. He intended to voto against both ihe motion and the amendment, becanse he thought the beat thing they could do was to Jaave the matter where it was. Cr Habdj did not think any membsr of the jounpil should give a eilent vote on tbat qunsfe., They wets «U indebted to Or Flab, fa?

bringing tho matter forward, and he (tho speaker) hoped that it would bo threshed out once and for all. It had boon frequently before tho council and sent to the finance Commit go to roport, with tha invariable result; that tho council could not give aiiy relief for the prisent. Through the wisdom auii forethought of tho founders of this colony, a largo mid valuable estate had been set asiiio for the cmncil, and every citizen should be grateful for this, for if this estate had not butn sot aside there would

bo far more taxes to p»y. If any person, in applying to the council for a portion of this estate, made a mistake, it was his own fault and his owu misfortune, and as they made their bad so should they lie. Ho granted that peraens with private estates bad a right to lower their rents, but in a raattor like this ho nantended that itwasquito a different thing. Tho mover of the resolution said they were doing a great injustice to thtir tenants by exacting from them such rents. He {the speaker) failed to Bee it. Tho saddle should bo put on the right home, and these who made their bargains should stick to them. Tho mover of the resolution also said that they were driving their tenants into the Bankruptcy Court. Well, that was rather unfortunate; but, after all, that did not seem to bs suoh a very formidable thing.—(Laughter.) Sonio peoplo seemed to come out with new feathers and wing?, and were botter off than ever.—(Laughter.) In conclusion, he would vo!e against tho resolution and the amendment.

Cr M'Greoor said he oould not possibly support either tbo resolution or the amendment. Cr Fisn said that it was quite evident that on this occasion he would be in a iniserabis minority.—(Lsughter) Thit did not aft all mean, however, that he would bo wrong. In his Worship's vast experience ho had frequently found that the minority had proved shortly afterwards right, and the majority wrong. Ho could perfeofcly well understand iv appealing to men 6uch as city councillors, who were all property owners, that they could not look at this matter in tho proper Hjjhr. They feared that if they reduced the rents of these men, they (the ratepayers) would have to put their hands iv their pockets. Sush a meaning was conveyed in every line of Cr Hardy's statements. If he (the speaker) thought for a single moment that, ss his friend Cr Solomon said, there would bo a loss to the corporation cf £3000 or anything approaching it he would not have attempted to bring forward a motion of this kind at all. However, he was quite satisfied that Cr Solomon was in the realms of fency when he said it.— (Laughter.) Ho said that 14 men sent in a petition asking for a reduction of rent, and only one wss granted. Cr Solomon explained that he had stated that the fact that 14 of their tenants having applied for a reduction where only one was entitled to it showed that if suoh a proposal as that made by Cr Fish were carried out, 90 per cent, of their tenants would probably apply for a reduction. I

Cr Fisn: V«y well; he accepted the proposition. If 90 per cent, of tbe tenants did apply, it did not follow that 90 per cent, would get a reduction. He agreed with Cr Cohen that the responsibility thrown upon the council was a fair responsibility, and he had no doubt that the council would act as fairly and as impartially as if the applications were dealt with iv the Resident Blagisttate's Court. As to the question of freeholds, ho held that if they reduced tbe rentals, or leaseholds, they did cot reduco the value of freeholds, and contended that no argument had been advanced in support of such a proposition. Tho arguments of Cr Hardy chilled him to the bone.—(Laughter.) Great heavens! "As they made their bed, so should they lie." It was Shylock who said that—(laughter)—and he could understand his friend opposite 83 a representative of the tribe ——

Cr Solomon : Permit me. There was a Shylock, but he was a Christian. —(Renewed laughter.) Cr Fish: That was not the Shylock he referred to. There was a phrase, commonly accredited to him (the speaker), that circumstances alter cases

Cr Cohen : Don't you claim it ? Cr Fish: And his friend Or Solomon said that if a person agreed to buy a piece of land ho should pay for it. If that rule was right about land, it was right abont other things. But if his eyes had not deceived him, he had read in the evening pßper a report of the Benevolent Trustees meeting where a baker made a contract but could not carry it out without a loss, but Or Solomon and the other members agreed to relieve him of the contract. That was inconsistent, and he did not know how Or Solomon could reconcile it with his statement that evening. With regard to the bondholders, that was a far-fetched idea. It was only one of those bogies that rich men sometimes brought forword in support of arguments that were not on a sound basis. During tho coming or the next session of Parliament a Fair Rent Bill would be introduced, and if it were passed it would be perhaps a misfortune to the council, as applications for reductions might come before the Resident Magistrate, and large reductions made where none should be made.

Cr Cohen said that with the coneeut of the seconder, he would withdraw his amendment, because his objeot had been gained by tho discussion that had followed. A Fair Rent Bill was certain, .to bo brought forward in Parliament, and he wa3 justified in asking tne council for sn expression of opinion on that matter. The motion was then put to tbo meeting and lost, only Crs Toomey, Swan, and Fish voting in its favour.