PROPOSED DRAINAGE LOAN.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16571, 2 November 1921, Page 7

PROPOSED DRAINAGE LOAN.

MANY OBJECTIONS. "A REVOLUTIONARY THINC.” A sitting of the Court set- up to hear and deal with objections to inclusion in the Christchurch Drainage Board’s roll was held in the Magistrate’s Court this morning, Mr S. E. M’Carthy, S.M., presiding. There were 140 objections altogether, many being undefended. The objections were based on tlie fact that those property owners within the city area did not consider that they should be called on to pay the of the proposed loan of £750,000 for outside drainage purposes, as it did not in any way benefit property owners in tho city whose drainage was complete. Mr O. T. J. A 1 pars, with him Mr F. 1. Oowlishaw. appeared for tho Christchurch Drainage Board. Mr Alpers said tho work to bo done was sufficiently advertised. It was a scheme to sewer the unsewered portion of the outlying Christchurch district. A poll was taken some time ago of the outside districts. It was proposed to lay down the sewer mains to the unsewered districts. and drain the sewage to the present sewage farm. The estimated cost some time ago was three-quarters of a million, but already the Drainage Board was able to announce that £50.000 could be knocked off. The proposed works could now be constructed for £750,000. In the whole district where work was to be done the hoard under the Act had tho powers of differential rating. Most of the objectors were those whose interests were in the sewered area, but he was authorised to say that the rate would never bo greeter than nineteen-thirty-seconds of a penny, the present rate levied. The inner area, nevertheless, would have to assist the outside area. In support of this assurance, Mr Alpers quoted figures at length. It was proposed that when the time came to reduce the rate it was intended to employ the difference between lid and nineteen-thirty-seconds of a. penny to pay tlie cost. It was in the interests of the city for Ohristcliuych to have a well sewered outside area, and he hoped objectors would realise that Christchurch had a good drainage system. Indirectly, the need for outside drainage was of extreme importance and benefit to the city. The loan would be secured by a rate of I 5-8 of a penny for the unsewered districts and nineteen-thirty-seconds of a penny for the inner area. The total valuation of premises in the. outside or unsewered area, would be enhanced considerably. Some people thought that it was an over-all rate of |d in the £, and a sort of general average. That was not so. as the maximum rating for the inner area was nineteen-thirty-seconds of a penny for the outside area. The Drainage Board had very wide powers. If the loan was not sanctioned, tho board could, if a Royal Commission found that the outside areas should be sewered in the interests of public health of tho community, proceed with the work. Mr A. F. Wright, on behalf of several objectors, stated that now the Drainage Board sought to ask the property owners in the river area, who had paid their rates for many years, to now pay for the proposed work in the outer districts. A loan of £750,000 should not be; saddled on the river area, which received no benefit from the work. Mr Alpers had said that' the work would be for the benefit of the city, but Mr Alpers had yet to show how the outside area work would be of benefit individually. Regarding the classification under Section 6 of the Act quoted by Mr Alpers, Mr Wright submitted that Mr Alpers had quito misconceived the position. How could Mr Alpers guarantee that the rates of the property owners in the river area would not be increased? That was impossible. It was a revolutionary thing, Mr Wright submitted, and only ratepayers’ names should appear on the rolls. Why should a man who was not a ratepayer record his vote and say that the work should proceed while ho himself does not hare to pay for the loan ? Regarding the Magistrate’s jurisdiction in the matter, Mr Wright suggested that Mr M’Carthy should adjourn the matter and give merely a declaratory judgment, leaving the interpretation of Clauses 15 and 16 of the Act to the Supremo Court. Tn fact, the matter might well go to the Court of Appeal. In terms of the regulations, a proper roll had not been prepared. It was extremely doubtful if the Magistrate had jurisdiction in the matter. vMr Alpers stated that the Drainage Board had no idea of raising the loan first and ""classifying the land afterwards. There was no benefit in adjourning the matter. The Court should proceed and hear the objections. Mr Hunter, for tho Crown Brewery Company, suggested that the whole matter should go before the Supreme Court for interpretation. Mi* S. K. M’Carthy said that he would fall in with any agreement counsel might come to. After a brief consultation with the chairman of the Drainage Board, Mr H. J. Ofcley, Mr Alpers stated that he would agree to the matter going before the Supreme Court to he interpreted. There were, he said, many points, for instance the question of whether the roll was in order, for definition. The hoard would he guided by its solicitors, and probably in the meantime some action would be taken. The matter was accordingly adjourned sine die.