Poverty Bay Herald PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING GISBORNE, SATURDAY, MAR. 21, 1931. BOADING FINANCE

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LV, Issue 17522, 21 March 1931, Page 4

Poverty Bay Herald PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING GISBORNE, SATURDAY, MAR. 21, 1931. BOADING FINANCE

After ;i period of comparative silence the question of derating farm lands, with particular reference In the possibility of shifting the burden of road construction and maintenance on to the shoulders of the users of the roads, lias again boon revived. blither by accident or design, this renewed activity synchronises with the reassembling of Parliament, and it was probably more than a coincidence that at the meeting of the Cook County Council this week four communications were received upon the question. After some discussion the council deferred action on the matter until next meeting. This decision, we think, was a wise one, for it, was clear from some, of the remarks passed that there is still a great deal of ignorance in regard to a topic that lias so frequently been debated. There will be a general measure of agreement with the, contention that the whole question of transport requires a thorough investigation, not only from the point of view of the farmers, but from a national standpoint. To suggest, however, that because certain anomalies exist the farmers of the Dominion should be urged not to pay their road rates is to advocate a form of “direct action” from which this country has been cornmendably free, and is ill-becoming tiny responsible body, especially when that, body itself has levied comparatively heavy rates for loading purposes. This does not imply a desire for an impartial inquiry, and the action of the County Council in dismissing a statement, of the other side of the ease with the brief comment of a member that it, was “merely eyewash” is a further indication of a biassed outlook. Various proposals have been made for a more equitable allocation of loading expenditure, the basis of most of them being that the users of the roads should be made to pay for their maintenance and upkeep. That principle, on tlie face of it, is not unreasonable, but the difficulty of deciding who uses the roads is almost insurmountable. I! may lie admitted in general terms that practically all traffic nowadays is that of motor vehicles, but. it would be absurd to suggest that motor users generally derive the same proportionate benefit from tht! Cook County Council’s expenditure on the Waimata road, to take one instance, as d<> the actual settlers who are served by the road, 'flu' same problem exists, in a lesser degree, with all highways. Who could say, for example, whether country residents derive more benefit from town roads than do town dwellers from llie highways in the country; After a careful analysis it might be decided that the advantages were approximate* ly even; yet there is no suggestion that ilie farmers should assist in maintaining city streets, but merely that the farmers’ contribution towards the national mailing system should be borne by someone else. We have pointed out previously that ,if the policy of making road users pay for their upkeep is adopted country ratepayers will not profit, and (lie point is deserving of further emphasis. Last year the total amount, spent by till county councils on mail works, from revenue and loans, was £I,IU>7,SS(). If the sum of £202,,81f) expended on machinery is added the total reaches* £1,1)00,(100. Dining the same period other local bodies spent £2,.‘1l 1,0-1!) on the construction and maintenance of town and city streets for general use. An additional sum of £9.">7 1 a was provided for expenditure in counties by the Main Highways Hoard and tho Government, and a large portion of this sum, if must be remembered, was provided by taxpayers in the towns. ]t was averred on a previous occasion at. a County Council meeting that in addition to the large sum paid by way of rates the farmer also contributed half of the petrol tax. If this statement is correct, which is doubtful, the farmers are responsible for half tlii' use of the roads of the Dominion, ami should, therefore, on the principle now advocated, pay half the cost of upkeep, which would amount t0£2,4.°.4,482, compared with the £1,(100.(500 they are now paying. It country ratepavers comprise only one third of the road-users of the Dominion they would still pay more than at present, if all the funds were to be derived from the taxation of motorists. These figures alone show the danger of blindly advocating far-reaching reforms without :i careful investigation, fur it is clear that the policy of payment according to use must apply to all roads or none. Another danger which farmers would require to guard against would be the possibility, under any form of national control, of back-country roads which are so much in need of consideration

being neglected in preference to those hit'll ways \vh ieh lire in more general

use. A still further point of interest to those on the land is the chance of the same principle being applied to railway transport, if the users are to be made to pay for tho roads, why not for the railways?—in which case the valuable concessions now given to the farming community will disappear. The whole question .is fraught, with intricate, problems and for this reason must be approached willi tact and caution. None will deny the desirability of reducing the burdens on the farmers, but we would suggest that more thought should be given to the prospects of reducing costs altogether —by the amalgamation of sonic of the many counties,‘the elimination of unnecessary overhead costs, the adoption of more efficient methods, and, if necessary, bv a general reduction in tho amount now spent on roads—and not merely passing them on to another section of the community.