The Waipawa Mail. Published Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. Tuesday, November 5th, 1912. PARTIAL SUBDIVISION OF ABBOTSFORD.

Waipawa Mail, Volume XXXIV, Issue 5960, 5 November 1912, Page 2

The Waipawa Mail. Published Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. Tuesday, November sth, 1912. PARTIAL SUBDIVISION OF ABBOTSFORD.

In oommon with everyone who has the advancement of the district at heart, we are pleased to notipe an indication on the part of the owner <|f the Abbotsford estate to subdivide a small area of about 1200 acres, some ijix or seven hundred acres of which i)re in the borough and the balance in the adjoining riding. We cannot understand, however, the attitude which the Borough Oounoil seem inclined to take up in the matter. Judging from their reported remarks one would imagine that the owners are to be acolaimed as public benefactors and that their application for concessions in the matter of road requirements should be granted in advanoe. It is just as well to look the matter fairly in the face and remember that when the borough was formed, about five years ago, the idea that prompted the inclusion of a considerable area of the surrounding land was that the owners were reaping, and would continue to reap, all the advantages of the town’s advancement, while, unlesß these lands yvero included in the borough, they would esoape any contribution towards the cost of suoh advancement. It was further anticipated that these lands (whioh should have been subdivided years ago) were more likely to be out up if they were made a part of the borough. The constitution of the borough area was energetically opposed by the owners of Abbotsford. Their opposition was generally understood and aooepted as natural. There is, however, in addition to having land incorporated within the borough, an obligation to have the various parts of the borough equitably treated, the first essential being that all the lands shall be evenly valued. It does not need much explanation to see that if some land is valued at £8 per acre while other land is £BO per acre, the one only pays onetenth of the rates per acre that the other does. We do not think that the Borough Counoil have been as insistent as they might in urging a revaluation of the town, but as this has been promised by the department we have to be satisfied. But why does the oounoil trifle with the road making proposition in the way it has done by asking for only a four-inoh coating of metal? This is quite absurd, and means in effect that the town will have to remetal the roads immediately they are taken over. We feel quite sure that at least four-fifths of the land to be subdivided is at present valued at not more than eight or nine pounds an acre. If so, surely theowners have done very well in-., escaping for five years their fair share, of local rating without the rest of the. town being asked to step in and practieally metal the roads for people who are subdividing their lands. We do not imagine that the subdivision is being done out of any regard for the town, but 1 because the owners reoognise that they are losing money by withholding the property from Bale. While we are quite as anxious as anyone that no unreasonable requisitions for footpaths, kerbing, eto., should be made exoept where the areas are quite small, we certainly oonsider that the roads should bo properly metalled, and the suggestion made by the counoil to provide for this is only a pretenoe. We can only charitably assume that the members were quite paralysed at the unexpected though long hoped for subdivision being suggested and completely lost their heads, instead of investigating the proposals.