The Taihape Daily Times AND WAIMARINO ADVOCATE. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 1920. COMPENSATION FOR IMPROVEMENTS.

Taihape Daily Times, Volume XI, Issue 3431, 10 March 1920, Page 4

The Taihape Daily Times AND WAIMARINO ADVOCATE.

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 1920. COMPENSATION FOR IMPROVEMENTS.

With which is incorpm-ated “The Taihape Post and Wailna:-mo News.”

It is well, in these days, when men are d-eliberately taking from their neiglibours that which they are not entitled to, to bear in mind ‘the old well-proven truth that “an injury to one is an injury to the whole.” That applies whether it ‘be "in a mere association in an out-of—the-way village, or whether it is of concern to the whole great British Empire, Two letters from old, well-known settlers, m-en who have helped to pioneer New Zealand, and Taihape in particular, have drawn attention to a discussion in the Borough Council -that Was considerably tinctured with an essence of evil which governing bodies should be careful to avoid, more especially elective bodies, Whose first duty it is to protect minorities from greed or mistaken, misdirectetl zeal of majorities, we refer to the seeming intention of the Council to confiscate nearly all the savings of an individual’s life. As we understand the case from the report of the Councilfs deliberations. a Certain citizen ratepayer, Mr Geo. Bray. before Taihnpe could Boast of anything more than being a small huddlement. of buildings, leased from the Lands Departlnent~the Crown-a quarter of an acre section for a term of fourteen years. at the surprisingly high rent of one pound per week. _Whether the lessee’s judgment. or the %vagaries of fortune made that investlment -highly ‘profitable or a blank fail[ure, and loss. does not enter the ques[tion. In all probability the enterprise [of the lessee urged others to enterlprise and so his particular quartertacre became the centre of the town’s business, The lease from the Crown was the ordinary document issued by the Lands Department, and ‘it is .“0 worded that no person could mistake the broad intention of a. clause stating that no compensation is given at the termination of t.he‘"lease for improvements made. This same form can, and is, made a lease for s'ixt_v-six years, but when it becomes essential to the progress of a virile town that buildings should be erected out of all proportion to the value of the land, the question of indemnifying the lessee against loss should, and does, enter into the transaction? But to come to the case under notice, it. is found that in Taihape there a.re and were *3. number of Crown leases which fell into possession of the Council when the town was’ created a Borough. There is Mr Bray’s———:lnd others--lease for fourteen years, and there are leases up to a period of sixty-six years, and after a Borough was proclaimed, and it: became essential that the town should be pushed ahead by the erection of suitable buildings’, the holders of very short period leases approached the Council to satisfy themselves that compensation for improvements at the termination of such short period leases would be provided for. and from inquiries made we are perfectly satisfied that. a. resolution of the Council was carried niaking that provision. Strong presumptive evidence of such a move of the Council is furnished in the fact: that the Council did grant fairly substantial‘ compensation for improvements to at similar leaseholcler, and in fact, we understand, to more than one lease-? holder. Human nature contributes alli

the evidence that most men Wouil'£ consider necessary, for il;_.iS ulltllink~ able that Mr Bray, or anyone else, would erect building worth. say, two thousand pounds on fugitive leasehold ground without first getting What W 235 considered. honourable guarantee Of compensation, and it is equally 1111' thinkable that the burgesses: of this town, or of any other town‘, would permit the seizure and confiscation which it is supposed is in contemplation here. Let us suppose a. Council would attempt such a. seizure, what would it do with the several shops and buildings Is there a fellow-rate payer of Mr Brayfs that would bid at auction, undertaking to snatch by 1% quibble what the Council, or the Borough, has no earthly moral right 'SO? Of course. that stage will not be reached, for common right and .lllSt_iCß will be promulgated ere that can hap--pen; at the same time We 60 110 i believe there is a ratepayer in the borough that would be party to such a piece of vtheivery, and rwe hate to think that any such thought. and suggestion has. got abroad. It is regrettable to learn that if Mr Bray has not been called upon to destroy rabbits on ihis section. in accordance with the text of his lease, he has something ?more annoying in the suggested encroachments of some of his fellowitownsmerf. When the lease was taken "there was no more certainty that it lwould be more valuable than -a similar {lease in Mangaweka or Mataroa; it ‘was speculative enterprise until the ‘land was taken into the Borough, and ;then it merged into pure enterprise, and buildings suitable to the town’s pl'ogl'eSg were erected on the under‘standing that compensation would be (granted, and that understanding was doubtlessly given in the legal and vorthodox way. But, as showing’th:it the iirst Taiha-pe Councillors recoglnised the right of Municipal tenants to their improvements, the case of O’Neill is convincing. The Councillorg thought that O’Neilll’s section would be urgently required for Borough purposes; this was in the early days of the Borough, but Councillors never had a thought of confiscating Mr O’Neill’s buildings, they gave him a month in which to remove them; they knew if new leases had been prepared in OfNeill’s, Bray’s, Bebans, and other cases, the universal practice of providing for cgmpensation for improvements‘ would have been followed. But the Council did not issue new lenses, the Borough merely (lr'ifted into ownership. and at this late stage we have 2. Council that seriously suggests confiscation of thousands of pounds worth of property which it should be its duty to protect for the lessee, It should occur to Councillors that the Borough gives compensation for improvements in its leases, which are for a much longer period than that of Mr Bray’s, which was issued before the Borough came into existence. It is the Borough’s= policy and practice to allow compensation; O’Ne'ill W 35 allowed. without asking. to reinove his buildings on sections required for the use of the Borough: Mr Bebanfs improvements. in accordance witli the I‘O.<olllti(.m of the Council. were V3lll‘?d and £2OO. or more, was added to the value of his section when it wns offered for release, why talk about seizing what belongs to Mr Bray? ls ‘Bur Borough Council really SeriouS'lY [thinking about robbing 21 ratepayer aper means it has itself seemingly .made open by its own neglect of iduty? From the beginning of the [Borough such tenants ‘have been al3lowed the right of their improvements ‘in accordance with Bo:-ough Doli<:.V'ISUPDOI‘T7€d by special resolution, \\'h3' }are F'ouncillors baulking in Mr fßra.y’s ‘case? Vve sincerely hope it is all 3 ‘mistake. that justice will be meted out to Mr Bray and to all other sliofi. Dc-riod lessees. whose lenses do not fiprmido the time for recouping the oiitlay in putting up mnnerous (-.ostl_\‘ buildings; lmt letters in our corres-ponde-nce columns from two of TaihaDe’s best. settlers, not repliiéd t 0 by Councillors. or other r3t.ep:t_Vei‘S‘_. compelled 118, in plll-suit of our duty, ‘CS bring the subject more fully ‘before all 'l‘-'lt€DltZv’ers. An injury to one is the concern oi‘ the whole community.