NO AMALGAMATION

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 867, 10 January 1930, Page 10

NO AMALGAMATION

ROSKILL SOUTH AND CITY COMMISSIONERS’ REPORT The request by the South Roskill i Ratepayers’ Association that the area | be included in the City of Auckland has been refused by the commission which recently heard evidence for and against the proposal. In declining the amalgamation, the ! commissioners. Mr. G. L. Hewitt. | S.M., chairman. Mr. O. N. Campbell, | Commissioner of Crown Lands, and I Mr. W. G. McLintock. district valuer. | expressed the view that the time was ' not yet ripe for giving effect to the request. The commissioners recommended, however, that South Roskill might be relieved by the adoption of the ward system of representation and finance. The petitioners were represented by Mr. F. W. L. Milne. Mr. V. R. Meredith appeared for the Mount Roskill Road Board, Mr. L. Tozer for the Mount Roskill Fire Board, and Mr. J. Stanton for the Auckland City Council, all opposing the amalgamation. “Although we fully appreciate the ideal of a Greater Auckland scheme we think the time is not yet ripe for the inclusion of Mount Roskill South on that ground, since there are so

many areas much nearer the city and more suitable for inclusion, * say the commissioners in their report. YY e , fully appreciate the difficulties of the j petitioners, which are mainly due to the system of rating on unimproved values, but we cannot see that these difficulties justify a finding that the Mount Roskill South area should be included in the city.” The fact that the city objected to the amalgamation and its reasons in support of that contention must necessarily have a considerable I weight, since if the area was to be included the city would be saddled with the duty of administering it. the commissioners continue. One reason put forward by the petitioners for amalgamation was tlia' there was no community of interest with the Greenwood's Corner and Dominion Road areas. It was further contended that the rates were unduly burdensome, owing to the unimproved system of rating, and that an instiffi cient portion of the rates collected in the Roskill South district was spent in the area. The Road Board’s objections were that the district was not suitable for municipal control, while a change would seriously embarrass the board For the City Council it was contended that the Roskill South area, being mostly rural land, was not suited to municipal control. The commissioners recommend that the costs of the inquiry should be j borne in equal parts by the Mount j Roskill Road Board and the Roskill ; South Ratepayers’ Association.