MOVE TO JOIN CITY

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 843, 11 December 1929, Page 11

MOVE TO JOIN CITY

ROSKILL SOUTH’S CLAIMS BEFORE COMMISSION PETITIONERS OPEN CASE The sitting of the commission appointed by the Government to inquire into the proposal to include the southern portion of the Mount Roskill district in the City area, was continued this morning in the Magistrate’s Court, after being adjourned yesterday, to enable the commission to inspect the district. The commission comprises Messrs. J. G. L. Hewitt. S.M., chairman, O. X. Campbell and W, G. McClintock, Mr. V. R. Meredith, is appearing for the Mount Roskill Road Board, Mr. F. W. L. Milne for the Mount Roskill South Ratepayers’ Association, the petitioners, and Mr. J. Stanton, City Solicitor, for the City Council. In opening the case for the petitioning association, Mr. Milne said that it was the south portion of the Mount Roskill district that was asking for amalgamation with Auckland City. Mount Roskill district consisted of approximately 4,800 acres and of that 3,377 acres were affected by the petition. In all the district had 2,656 ratepayers, and of these 88S were resident in the area affected. The petitioners owned property to the value of £300,000. DIVIDED INTO THREE It was essential to realise that Mount Roskill was divided into three distinct areas, the south, the affected area, which was vastly populated, Epsom and Greenwood’s Corner area, which was closely settled, and had all the advantages of a City, and the eastern portion lying between Mount Albert and Dominion Roads, which were not so closely populated. ' The south portion had no say in local body affairs, and instead of having a one-third representation of the board which it was entitled to, it did not have a single representative. This and other things had caused hostility between the areas. Evidence would be brought later, to show that the Greenwood’s Corner portion of the district had definitely stopped a poll from being carried, which meant much to the southern district. The three areas were strangers to one another, and were really connected in name only. Then the unimproved rating carried in the Roskill district two years ago had resulted in the southern area paying a larger proportion of the rates, and there were many cases in which land owners in that area were absolutely crippled financially, and had to walk off their holdings. The south area had not had fair treatment from the local body, for it was not getting a fair proportion of the rates spent in its area. The ratepayers were not averse from paying rates and were not against progress, but they could not get it as the district was at present constituted. The south had no community of interest with the rest of the district, and it should be parted from the rest. That was the real test where two districts, so dissimilar, should be put together. At a recent commission evidence was given that there was no community of interest between Greenwood’s Corner and the rest of the district, and that there would not be, even when it was more closely settled. CITY PREFERRED “It is indeed advisable that the south portion of the district joint up with one of the adjoining local bodies. Onehunga, Mount Albert and Auckland City are all near at hand, but for every reason it would be better to join up with Auckland City,” continued Mr. Milne. Auckland City*, with all its large resources, was the only pick of the local bodies. Mount Roskill was at present getting its water supply from three different sources, while it would be only natural that it should obtain it from the City through Avondale. There would then be sufficient pressure for the whole district. The City Council’s recent drainage scheme could well overcome the drainage problem at Mount Roskill, while as far as roads were concerned Mount Roskill had five main roads leading to the City. “Ratepayers have in their minds the ideal of a Greater Auckland, an ideal which is held by a number of people here, and one which has been advocated by the Mayor of Auckland and prominent public body men throughout the district. It is one which has been favoured in every commission which hhs been set up in Auckland concerning the metropolitan district.” “In 1927 the City Council appeared to accept the Roskill district as a whole. A poll was taken, but was again defeated by the people at Greenwood’s Corner. Early this year the City Council was prepared to amalgamate with Mount Roskill South, but it now advised that it was not prepared to accept this. It is common knowledge that a large number of the councillors are still in favour of a Greater Auckland,” concluded Mr. Milne. Mr. S. T. Dibble, secretary of the Mount Roskill South Ratepayers’ Asscoiation, then gave evidence. ROSKILL COMMISSION ROAD BOARD OPPOSES AMALGAMATION At tho suggestion of the chairman of the Finance Committee, Mr. S. I. Goodall, the Mount Roskill Road Board at its meeting last evening, placed on record its opposition to the proposed amalgamation of the South Roskill area with the city. The chairman, Mr. E. F. Jones, Mr. S. I. Goodall, the engineer, Mr. John Dawson, and the clerk, Mr. J. Warren, were authorised'to tender evidence on the board’s behalf, to the commission now investigating the question in Auckland. The following grounds were agreed to, upon which their evidence is to be based:— (1) That the entire district did not favour the proposed amalgamation. (2) That if a portion only of the district joins the city, the remainder will be saddled with an increased cost, per capita, for administration expenses. (3) In many cases, water and drainage services -would traverse both districts. (4) That complications would arise regarding the apportionment of loans and special rates if the district were j severed into two parts, j Mr. G. E. Tansley, in supporting the I resolution, pointed out that one of the I 1 strongest arguments against disintegrating the district was the hostile attitude of the Auckland City Council to the South Roskill ratepayers’ petition for amalgamation.