REDUCING THE BOROUGH AREA.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXI, Issue 452, 9 March 1909, Page 3

REDUCING THE BOROUGH AREA.

Council Opposed to the

Petition

A lengthy discussion took place at last night’s Borough • Council meeting in reference to the communication received from the Minister of Internal Affairs enclosing petition for the exclusion of a certain area from the Borough, particulars of which were published in the Hkrai.d of February 27. The Clerk presented a list of the ratepayers whose properties it was sought to get excluded and the amount of rates that would be lost to the borough annually. The loss in rales would amount to In reply to Cr Heuuessy the Clerk slated that the rates for the whole borough amounted to ,£1064 I2S 2d.

Cr Frankland said that the area proposed to be cut out by the petition represented a fraction over 15 per cent of the rates. Cr Heuuessy said the borough had been reduced from 5600 acres to r 240 acres. The old area which was about four times the size of the present, returned in rates about £ 1000, and yet the reduced area had now to provide over that amount. He contended that the old borough before it was reduced, was assessed by the Commission to bear its proportion of the loan for the erection of the Whirokino bridge, yet when the borough was reduced those who went out were relieved of the obligation and those who remained in had to pay the piper. He was of opinion that those who were cut out of the borough area at that time are still responsible for the proportion of rates for the Whirokino bridge loan, and they have no right to get behind the Commission’s assessment, as the assessment was made over the borough as it then was. The Council was collecting more rates now than when the borough was four times its present size. The Clerk said that the rates collected annually from the borough before it was reduced was 7s yd. The Whirokino bridge was stalled and engineered by the Borough Council and the cost was allocated between the Foxtou Borough Council, Manawatu and Horowhenua County Councils, a third each. In order to placate the Manawatu County Council when greater portion of the borough was merged into it, those who seceded from the borough were relieved from their proportion of cost and it fell on the reduced borough. Cr Heuuessy ; One of the most scandalous things that could happen, and a blister that the borough will never recover from. Who defined the boundary ? The Clerk stated that he defined the area to be cut off, and his action was endorsed by the Council by resolution, proposed by Cr Frankland and seconded by Cr Gray. Cr Frankland said be could not remember the particulars in reference to the boundaries. It was then considered that the borough was too big and the Council was anxious to reduce it.

Cr Heuuessy said that he did not think the councillors knew what they were doing when they sanctioned the boundary at that time. He had not done with the matter yet, Cr Frankland, reverting to the present petition for reduction, said if the area was to be excluded, it should also carry with it all liabilities.

Cr Stiles said the petition had much to commend it but our present revenue was barely sufficient to meet expenditure. To lose ,£l6O in rates and one-sixth of the borough was a serious proposition. A mistake had been made previously, A smaller area would reduce the chance of improving the borough. The present trouble had arisen through adopting rating 011 the unimproved values and ratepayers had voted in the dark. Now that the system had been adopted we should abide by it. He considered rating on the unimproved values was not a fair thing for a borough like Foxton and he would oppose it at a later stage aud assist those who were now heavily rated to revert back to the old system. The Council had a duty to perform and it must safeguard the interests of the borough as a whole. Cr Coley stated that he had given no authority to have his name placed on the petition. Cr Baker spoke on behalf of the petition, urging that the rates were too high, and he objected to pay for lighting, kerbing, etc., in Main Street, when little or nothing was being spent on the streets in his locality.

Cr Jenks opposed the petition. Cr Coley said he could not see that the borough would lose a penny If the reduction was made. The borough would be relieved of the up-keep of about four and a half miles of road.

Cr Stiles: We might as well abolish the borough altogether. Cr Frankland suggested postponing the debate. During a desultory discussion, Cr Heunessy informed the Mayor that he (the Mayor) was only a dummy on the Council, and not even a ratepayer, and that the only standing he had in the borough was by holding a section of Cr Baker’s, for which Cr Baker paid the rates. The Mayor expressed surprise at Cr Hennessy’s remarks, and flatly contradicted the statemens that Cr Baker paid the ratet and not he (the Mayor). Cr Hennessy : “ Then you are more of a philanthropist than I took you to be and the best thing you can do now is to cut Cr Baker’s

rates in halves and pay halt.” Cr Coley: Cr Heuuessy is just as anxious as any one else to have the borough reduced in area, so its no use of his coming here growling now and denying it. Proposed by Cr Jenks and seconded by Cr White, that this Council strongly protests against any further division of the borough area. The resolution was carried Cr Coley dissented and stated as a parting shot that the whole thing had been “cut and dried.”

The counter petition was left in the hands of the Clerk.