PUKEKOHE RATEPAYERS' COMPLAINT

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 7, Issue 344, 11 January 1918, Page 1

PUKEKOHE RATEPAYERS' COMPLAINT

A meeting convened by the Pukekohe Ratepayers Association was held in the Council Chamber on Tuesday evening last over which Mr R. F. Webster presided. There was only a small attendance present.

The Chairman explained that the object of * the meeting was to protest against the charges made against property owners for kerbing and channeling which they regarded as unfair and an injustice. The reason for complaint was that the Council having obtained authority to borrow money for the purpose of making roads should not now charge them with such cost but such charges should be borne by the rates. He contended that had the Council been asked by the owners of property in the different streets to do the work the Council could then have made it a condition that a charge would be made, but no such request had been levied and he, questioned the right of the Council to make such charge. As to the work on Prospect Terrace, for which he had received an account representing half the cost of kerbing and channeling, only a portion of that street had been kerbed and channeled and he considered that the whole Terrace should have been treated alike. Legal advice had been obtained which was to the effect that the Council could only make a charge in respect of actual work effected in the construction of a footpath. If the work could be. regarded as maintenance or improvement no charge could be made. Mr H. Thornton mentioned that he had been charged for work to the extent of 90 feet in respect of the frontage of a quarter acre section which was excessive.

In Edinburgh Street north, Mr J. £. Brown mentioned, ( the footpath had been made and chips put down before the Borough Council took over that street. He regarded the charges as an injustice. MrO. Cooper, who did not think the charges made as an injustice when it was for" the public benefit, mentioned that soma time ago the Council informed a deputation who waited upon them in respect of the kerbing of Tobin Street that the Council would do the work on condition that the owners paid half the cost. He pointed out that the meeting overlooked the broad principle that it was not only for the benefit of the owner but for the public generally and such kerbing and channeling improved the town. If, said Mr Cooper, those present vetoed schemes for the improvement of the town they woulld never have any improvements. Ratepayers must not look at those matters in such a narrow light but should aim at supporting all proposals for the good of the town. Mr Usher expressed the opinion that if the owners in Tobin street agreed to any work being done other owners should not be charged unless they desired such work. He contended that the kerbing should be done out of borrowed money

The Chairman intimated that he underttood the work of channeling and kerbing was carried out in accordance with the resolution of a previous Council. After some informal discussion in which Mr Cooper again asserted that the improvement to the footpaths was better than defective water tables and mure in keeping with the progressive policy ot the Council, the following resolution was carried, Mr Cooper being the only dissentient: "Tnat this meeting of ratepayers interested considers the chaiges for kerbing and channeling are unfair and that Messrs K. F Webster, T. G. Usher, U Wake, J. B. biown and E Smith beadeputation to wait on the Borough Council." The gathering theu dispersed.