AMALGAMATION

Southland Times, Issue 19896, 15 June 1926, Page 8

AMALGAMATION

BOROUGH OR COUNTY? OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSAL SOUTHLAND COUNTY’S CASE. The second sitting of the commission which is at present considering the petition of South Invercargill ratepayers, praying that the outer area of the borough should be joined with the Southland County, as the first step towards the amalgamation of the inner area with Invercargill, was held in the Courthouse yesterday morning. During the morning argument and evidence on behalf of the County Council, which has lodged an objection to the proposal, was heard and in the afternoon the commissioners paid a visit of inspection to the area under dispute. The commission consists of Messrs G. Cruickshank, S.M. (chairman), N. C. Kensington (Commissioner of Crown Lands), and G. T. Martin (District Land Valuer). Mr W. A. Stout appeared on behalf of the petitioners, Mr S. M. Macalister for the Southland County Council, and Mr J. Tait for the South Invercargill Borough Council, the latter also objecting to the proposal. COUNTY’S OBJECTIONS. The proceedings commenced with an outline of the County Council’s objections to the petition by Mr Macalister. The chief question for the commission to decide, said Mr Macalister, was whether the area was suitable for county or municipal control. Taking the case of Clifton township, he said that the view of the council was that it was entirely unsuitable for administration by the county. The question of drains was one reason. The work of the county was mainly in the direction of forming and maintaining roads and attending to bridges, and it was not desirable that drainage work should be forced upon it. The county would not attend to road drains in a certain area unless it was declared a special rating area. Again, there were a number of unformed roads in the outer ward which would have to be formed if any closer settlement were to proceed. The County Council could not be expected to do this. Proceeding with his argument in favour of municipal administration against county control, Mr Macalister said that the county found it a very difficult matter to administer small boroughs when it had such a large area to attend to. A council controlling a province should not be called upon to take over closely settled areas. The strongest argument against the proposal was the probability of even closer settlement in the future. He hoped that the commission would take into consideration the question of whether or not the area would become too populous for county administration within a reasonable period. Some cogent reason should be shown why an area adjoining a large borough should amalgamate with a county. In a young country like New Zealand this was a retrograde step. “The main difference between a borough and a county,” said Mr Macalister, “is that in the first place all the things required for close settlement, such as drains, lighting, etc., could easily be carried out, while in a county all improvements of this nature could only be obtained by means of a separate rate. This has to be done on the petition of those concerned, a system which would prove inconvenient. In the case of a borough, improvements could easily be carried out with money from the general rate.” Evidence in support of the County Council’s objections to the proposal was given by B. C. Basstian, county engineer, who was examined mainly on the pointe already referred to by counsel. Witness stated that the work of draining could only be undertaken by the county with money raised by a separate rate, unless land owners whose property would benefit by the work should pay part of the cost. If the area in dispute were taken over by the county, no work beyond the usual work carried out in other parts would be done, save for attention to roads and bridges. The present position of ratepayers in South Invercargill, financially, could scarcely be improved upon. Witness also explained that if the outer. ward did become part of the county either the roads would suffer or a new surfaceman would have to be appointed. The chairman: Of course you would receive some rates from the area. Witness said that in the area referred to ther were 19 miles of gravelled road, while in‘other parte of the county each surfaceman on an average attended to 40 miles. To Mr Stout: Witness had not visited all of the area during his inspection. He had not seen all the roads. Referring to the outlying parts of Invercargill such as Collingwood, he stated that drainage work in these areas was partly subsidised by the ratepayers. The chairman: South Invercargill will never become like Collingwood unless they get some breweries down there.— (Laughter). L. A. Neiderer, representative for Waihopai riding on the County Council, said that he had inspected the area twice. He considered that it was not suitable for administration by the county. The county received frequent complaints from residents in Inglewood and Heidelberg, which adjoined Invercargill Borough, in regard to the condition of ditches. He did not consider it desirable that closely-settled areas, for which special work had to be done, should be placed under the control of the county. In the outer ward of South Invercargill a fair amount of work, not usually carried out in other parte of the county, would have to be done. Mr Stout: You were not always of that opinion, Mr Neiderer. When did you come to the conclusion that the area was unsuitable for county administration? In reply to a question witness admitted haring a conversation with Mr George Holloway in which he (witness), said that the attitude of the County Council towards the matter would be neutral. The hearing of the petition was adjourned until this morning to enable the commissioners and others interested to visit the locality.