The Wanganui Herald. [PUBLISHED DAILY.] THURSDAY, MARCH 23, 1911. PUBLIC OR PRIVATE OWNERSHIP?

Wanganui Herald, Volume XXXXVI, Issue 13333, 23 March 1911, Page 4

The Wanganui Herald. [PUBLISHED DAILY.] THURSDAY, MARCH 23, 1911. PUBLIC OR PRIVATE OWNERSHIP?

Town-planning is nowadays very much in evidence, and is being seriously considered by more than one place in New Zealand. The want of a workable system is felt, however, and so far Mr A. Myers, M.P., of Auckland, is the only person who has made an earnest and dciinite attempt to overcome the difficulty. He has decided to introduce a Bill into Parliament next session, the schedule of which sets forth as the matter to bo dealt with: Streets and roads, ‘tramways, buildings, open spaces, schools and playgrounds, public buildings, baths, reclamations, and objects of historical interest or natural beauty. The Bill directs that the Board shall have the necessary powers to enforce compliance with schemes, and may give notice to the owner or occupier of any land to remove or pull down or alter any building or other work on the land which is in contravention of the scheme. Compensation is allowed for by the Bill in certain cases, and it is also directed that where by any townplanning scheme being put into operation the property is increased m value the local authority may recover from the owner of such property such a sum as represents the increased value. Mr Myers’ scheme is faced with an insuperable difficulty in the private ownership of land. And it is evident that no scheme of town-planning can succeed, for the simple" reason that it must look to the future and plan for 50 or 100 years ahead, and, moreover, cannot be confined in its operations to a few acres of ground. Here is how the problem was pointedly put in a recent issue of the New Zealand Times:—“ Manifestly any scheme of townplanning must be based upon control of land, and it is at this point that public policy may quickly come into conflict with private rights. If, for example, Wellington decided to lay down the lines upon which future operations should be carried out, as the city spread to the non*and the south and the west immediate conflict would be created with the owners of sub-divisions; not in one way, but in a dozen, and for reasons Which would challenge ownership at admost every point.

Turning to the Bill promoted by Mr Myers to sec by what means he proposes to overcome this difficulty—the crux of the whole business—wc find that lie makes proposals which arc obviously futile. Indeed, this seems to lie the opinion of Mr Myers himself. Command of laud is the bottom, beginning, and cud of the whole problem. How shall that be obtained?” Could there be a stronger argument against the system of private freehold? Or could there he a better illustration of the desirability not to say the ordinary common sense, of public ownership? The private freehold, and the conflicting interests arising therefrom, must inevitably kill any town-planning system. If the freehold be the right thing, then it necessarily follows that the killing of town-planning must be the right thing also. On the other hand, if the city beautiful be the proper thing to have, how arc we going to have it when wc permit private freeholds? The selfishness of the land grabber has furnished many an argument in favour of public ownership and the leasehold tenure. That same spirit of selfishness, by throwing difficulties in the way of the town planner, has now supplied still another argument for public ownership.