THE LEASE OF “GEORDIE HILL” RUN.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20959, 24 February 1930, Page 12

THE LEASE OF “GEORDIE HILL” RUN.

TO THE EDITOR. ; Sir, —-The numerous letters of “ Subdivision " and other anonymous correspondents on land policy in Central Otago appear to me, more or less a political move, more particularly on the part of “ Subdivision,”, and if it were not for the serious aspect they have had on the rental of my run I should not have replied. If “ Subdivision ” would come out and write over his own name I believe it would be seen that he is not interested in subdivision of land at all. I am not, however, out to. defend the Otago Land Board, ,and I have not any objection to the policy of closer settlement, but I fail to see _ how the, board could have done otherwise than grant me a re-l'ease, even without my subdividing it into three runs. ■The decision of the Supreme Court seems to define this, but if the board had taken my run for subdivision, I should have had the absolute right to claim one for myself and one also for each of my two sous—and I could claim a very large sum as compensation. The board last week offered me a renewal at £650 per year for the next term. This works out at over 8d per acre, and, as one of the most experienced pastoral; men in Central Otago (Mr Walter Wilson), who was manager of Morven Hills before it was cut up, stated that "Geordie Hill" run would not carry 4000 sheep all the year round, as it was then —and he was about right—this then works out at five acres to the sheep; and at 8d per acre you get 3s 4d per sheep, so that at the present price of wool, the gross return from wool clip would not pay the rental. I have, of course, carried considerably over that number, but to do this I have erected over 30 miles of netting fencing and over'2o miles of plain fencing, and • have also grown large areas of turnips and irrigated paddocks for hay! to provide feed for winter and, spring, and this costa a lot of money, which is, of course, like an additional rent.

If the price of stock and wool continues for a few years as at present—and' it is quite on the cards that it may —those who write as “Subdivision” does may see quite a number of people go out of their runs. , The utter nonsense be writes about an adjoining rnn carrying six ewes to the, acre, besides cattle over the most of it, is almost criminal, as this property comprises over 18,000 acres, and I question whether the holders of it shear 7000 sheep, which works out at • nearly three acres to the sheep, and it is well known that a very large sum is spent on irrigation and growing turnips, to do this. It is easy for one to write ah ahonymous screed, having for its object either to make some political capital or, as, in this case, to agitate and have the rental of these two (now three) runs put up over 100 per. cent., and the policy of the board altered by charging 5 per cent, on the capital value instead of 4 per cent, as all the other' runs had been' charged throughout Morven Hills and Kawarau,although their rentals were fixed when the prospects were very much brighter than at present, their rentals also, in most cases, being raised from a few pounds to ‘at most about 50 per cent. I would like to add that were it not for the present leader of the United Party (Sir Joseph Ward)the Kawarau 'and Morven Hills runs would not have been subdivided into the present number, for he took the decisive step of withdrawing the plans which had been issued. I think this was the first instance of the Otago Land Board’s recommendation being turned down.—l am, etc., 1 James Goodoek.

TO THE EDITORI

Sir,- — “ Subdivision " appears to he unnecessarily vehement. I can only discuss the matter from general principles, having no special knowledge -of- the facts. Newspaper controversy would be in a had way if it had to depend entirely ou those who .have special knowledge. Those who have that knowledge are in general not nearly as helpful to us\as they might be. The shallow are heard, hut tlie wise are dumb—often too much so.

The ideas of Hu skin on the preservation of homes may be something of counsels of perfection these times, none the less they are something worth striving for. If I understand “Subdivision” correctly, he objects to certain people, who, have hitherto lived and worked there, remaining on. that portion of an estate which they themselves have made what it is. If that is eo, I must disagree with him on general grounds. It may now be the most desirable portion of the estate, but who made it so? What is more reasonable than to give the people who have brought that portion of the estate to its present desirable condition- preference to remain there if they wish? And they cannot have that preference and at the same time be subject to the chances of the ballot. How much land ought they to be allowed? I do not know, lacking the special knowledge before alluded to. What land settlement is to achieve in the future is an unknown quantity. What we do know is that it suffered in the past in popular estimation because of the allurements of town life, .those who have resisted those allurements and have remained on the land are most likely to remain there in the future, and have earned the right to bo let alone.— l am, etc.. J AT February 22.