BETTERMENT OR WORSEMENT?

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 68, 17 September 1930, Page 6

BETTERMENT OR WORSEMENT?

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—The great difference between the English Act and the Wellinston City Betienncnt Bill, 1030, is that the lust has. a indicial foundation and the latter has not. Tlie editor of the "Evening Post" says the .Assessment Board under the Wellington City Council's Bill comprises "one representative of the property owners, one representative of the City Council, and two impartial and experienced persons. The Bill really states nothing'of the kind. The first Bill stated that the board was to cbmpnse "the Director of Town Planning, the chief surveyor, the City Valuer, and one persou appointed by the GovernorGeneral by Order-in-Cquncil to represent property-holders." Ratepayers strongly objected to this because such an Assessment Board could not be by any stretch of imagination regarded as fair or judicial. None of.the first three has had a training that would qualify him to be judicial. In the selection of the fourth the ratepayers or property holders to be affected would have no say. They would not even be consulted. If" is remarkable that the editor of the ".Evening Post" has not seen fit, in the public interest, to denounce the constitution of such a board. But:that is not all. The first Bill has been amended. There is now no mention of the Director of Town Planning. The Chief Surveyor is eliminated. The City Valuer takes precedence, and following is the appointmeut of some one to represent the property-holders, and "two others, being members of the Civil Service." This is something quite different from what the editor of the'"Evening Post" says is to be the constitution of the Assessment Board. ■ The ratepayers and property holders say that the City Valuer ought not to be of- the board as .he would be the chief witness for the City Council. His place is not on the board, but in the box. And two members of the Civil Service can hardly be reckoned as qualified for judicial positions, no matter how knowing they may be about land valuations. In Great Britain the law is quite different. The local body has no say in the selection or nomination of the arbitrators. In making reference to these I did not make use of the term "definition" for that of "function," and the editor of the "Evening Post" could have easily supplied the inadvertent hiatus, and made my letter read: "the definition of the duty" of the Reference Committee, itself of the highest judicial standing, "was to appoint official arbitrators." These official arbitrators have to deal with the question of compensation claimed by property-holders when their properties are taken for street-widen-ing or other public works. If an arbitrator acts singly in England he must be free from all • "private business or practice. Apply this principle to the Wellington City Betterment Bill and the Town Valuer and the Civil Servants would be precluded from any Assessment Board. Our own system is 'bettor—a Judge of the Supreme Court, one assessor for the council, and another for the property-holder affected. Why did not the Bill provide for such an Assessment Board? ' . Then this Betterment Bill (1930) is a leap in the dark. There is in existence a Wellington City Betterment Bill. _ \vny is there nosd for another? What is the object of the one promulgated by the Mayor for 1930 against which the council is divided? Thousands ha\"e been wasted in the acquirement of property for so-call-ed betterment. Is not this Bill (1930) being promoted for the purpose of casting all the council's losses upon individual property holders, and to save councils present and future from criticism and condemnation for wanton, ruthless, and expensive blunders? At all events, the Mayor does not seem to be quite frank about this Bill (1930). What does he want this Bill for? In England they buy up properties, make the "betterment" or "worseinent , and then- re-sell the properties at the advanced price "betterment" has given, or charge the "worsement" to the profit and loss account. The local authority in Eni;-1 land lays its plan before Parliament. Has the Mayor done, that? Betterment is fixed in England fx'om "nothing" to half of the value added to property by betterment. The other :half is borne by the community. The 'Mayor evidently wants by his Bill, and his Assessment Board; to saddle the whole of the cost of his undeveloped undisclosed proposals upon the subjects of his dreams. The Mayor's proposal to put such a'■ Betterment Bill over the property holders of Wellington will not be tolerated, notwithstanding the Town Planning Institute's condemnation, or the "Evening Post's" approbation. This letter can hardly escape a further foot-note from the editor to give emphasis to its merits! By the way, can you tell the ratepayers of; the city why Melrose, Onslow, Karori, and Miramar should be excluded by the Mayor from the operations of his precious Betterment Bill?—I am, etc., RATEPAYER. ' 13/9/30.-

[Though "Ratepayer" tries to convict "The Post" of error, his own statements [prove the accuracy of our references: The (Assessment Board is to comprise the City Valuer, a member to represent propertyowners, and two members of the Civil Service with experience of land valuation. If the latter arc not experienced and impartial what will they be? "Ratepayer." however, is merely quibbling to cover his own mis-statement to which we drew attention. He now describes his error in attributing actual arbitration functions to the English. Committee or! Reference as an "inadvertent hiatus," but it was not an hiatus when he wrote: "Mr. Troup's contribution to your issue of the 10th September indicates what the character and judicial capacity of such a board should be when he states that in England and Wales the arbitrators, or fixers of the betterment assessment, shall be 'the Lord Chief Justice, Master of the Kolls (also a Judge), and the president of the Surveyors' Institute (the members of which combine' valuing of property with their specific profession in England). In the English Act these gentlemen are called a Reference Committee, and the definition of such committee is that it shall 'form a panel of persons to act as official arbitrators.' Why did not the City Council, or Mr. Trqup, nominate such a panel of gentlemen in the Wellington City Betterment Bill?." The.correspondence catmot be iisefully' continued on these lines.—Ed.]