“A VAGUE ACT.”

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXX, Issue 5490, 21 October 1929, Page 2

“A VAGUE ACT.”

URBAN RELIEF BILL. LIMITATION DESIRED. Considerable discussion took place at the last meeting of the Matamata Town Board in connection with the proposed Urban Farm Lands Relief Bill (says the Morrinsville Star). The chairman, Mr J. Buchanan, i outlined the main provision of the Bill, and pointed out that some of the definitions were vague. Fur instance, it appeared as if a man milking a few cows on a few acres and working on the roads would come undei’ the provisions. This was far from being satisfactory. Mr Mclntyre: What are the areas ? The clerk : There are no limitations. Continuing, the chairman stated that some local bodies had suggested that valuations be reduced instead of the proposed classifications, but they would not agree to this. Big power appeared to be placed in the hands of the commissioners who would have no local interest, and their finding might be very detrimental to the board.' Mr Stewart : Does it mean exemption from special rates ? The clerk : Yes, rates.

Mr Mclntyre : All local bodies are in the same positions as we are. They have raised loans on the whole area as security.

The chairman then quoted observations on the proposed Act by the Wellington city solicitor, who stated that the Act gave relief to one section of ratepayers at the expense of others, and also gave a loophole for speculators. The speaker commented that it was undoubtedly taking it off the backs of some and putting it on' to the others.

Mr Mclntyre : There is no doubt about that.

The clerk then submitted a list of properties within the town district which might be affected. The chairman, on perusing the list, remarked that he thought there should be a limit. It appeared absurd to include properties of two and four acres.

Mr Hawes thought the Act should only apply to those who made their entire living from the property.

Mr Stewart : If a man had a quarter acre how would he get on ?

The chairman replied that he could apply for exemption so long as it was not in a prospective building area. The clerk mentioned that there was a provision in the Act for the commission spliting a property up into two—that with a prospective building area and that without. The chairman suggested that a limit of 15 acres would be a fair one. “Of course,” he added “ a bee-farm-er can work on about a sixteenth of an acre, and send his bees all over the countryside working for him.” (Laughter). Mr Ruthe pointed out that there were some ten-acre properties just outside the board’s area which if inside would come under the provisions of the Act.

Mr Stewart thought a man could hardly make a living off ten acres. On the motion of the chairman, the board decided to recommend through Mr C. H. Clinkard, M.P., that local bodies be represented on the commission to be set up to adjudicate upon petitions and that the minimum area for dairy farms be 20 acres.