UNDER WHICH COUNTY?

Taranaki Daily News, 30 August 1922, Page 7

UNDER WHICH COUNTY?

THE RAHOTU RATEPAYERS. A MERGING PROPOSAL. The petition of certain ratepayers of the Rahotu riding to merge into the Taranaki County was argued yesterday before a specially appointed commission, consisting of the Commissioner of Crown Lands (Mr. H. J. Lowe), Mr. R. H. Pigott and Mr. T. Sheehy. The proceedings were held in the Warea hall. Mr. D. Hutchen appeared for the petitioning ratepayers and Mr. J. C. Nicholson watched proceedings for the Egmont County Council in opposition to the petition.

In opening for the petitioners, Mr. Hutchen said all who signed the petitions traversed roads leading into the Taranaki County. This was a very substantial reason for wishing to merge. Moreover, they were getting out of touch with the Egmont Council, and their wants were not being properly attended to. They expected to get more attention and better conditions from the Taranaki Council, under whose guidance they would still participate in the revenue from the toll-gate. The Puniho Road, a very long road forming th present boundary, was administered by the Egmont Council, who paid over the rates, less commission, to the Taranaki Council, and they attended to the upkeep. Ratepayers on this road were in different counties.

Mr. W. C. Caldwell, for the petitioners, said he lived on the Ruakere Road. All his produce, stores, etc., came from New Plymouth. He had been eight years on the coast, and considered himself capable of giving a fair estimate regarding the relative condition of their roads and those in other counties. To Mr. Nicholson, he said he had only seen three or four roads in each county, but was far from satisfied with the Ruakere Road. Mr. Pigott said he enderstood a portion of the toll-gate revenue was expended on the Puniho Road. NEW PLYMOUTH INTERESTS. Mr. Charles Wells (Main South Road) said he was one of the petitioners. His interests all lay towards New Plymouth and the breakwater, and goods were carted from these places. He seldom visited Opunake, and ~as of the opinion that a road boundary was bad. If the Waiwirinui river was made the dividing line trouble would be obviated.

To Mr. Nicholson: There were very few people north of Warea who went south ou business. lie did not complain about the condition of the Puniho Road since it had been repaired. Albert Josepli Lilley, who resides on the Ruakere Road, gave evidence along similar lines to previous witnesses. He also stated that another toll-gate had been suggested on the New Plymouth side of Warea. Recent legislation, however, had stopped that, but Ruakere ratepayers were paying a special rate for a £650 loan raised for their road. Mr. W. J. Gray (Lower Puniho Road) said it was quite impossible to reach his property by road. From long and frequent observation he was sure that roads in the Taranaki county were superior to those-in Egmont. He was not a petitioner.

Mr. R. J. Bell had two properties on the Puniho Road, one in each county. He had failed to raise a loan because on a boundary road two people from each county were required to sanction a loan.

Mr. J. S. Connett, who was called not as a petition witness, but for the assistance of the commission, explained the system of revenue and work on the Puniho Road. If the merger took place toll-gates’ receipts would be divided in proportion among Omata. Oka to and Rahotu ridings. The Taranaki county was under the jurisdiction of the New Plymouth power area, and had the assurance of the Mayor that any other area which might be added would be included as well. Part of the Taranaki county was at present outside the power area. A SERIOUS MATTER. Addressing the commission, Mr. J. C. Nicholson said it was a very serious matter for part of one county to merge into another. In this connection he traced the procedure from the time a petition was circulated to its reception by the Government, showing how seriously such a severance was regarded. It should not lightly occur, neither should it be made easy to take part of a county s property from it. A definite case should be established, as the question of county finance was materially affected. plans were upset and uncertainty created. Plant, was bought and professional staffs employed: these were intended to last a number of years and to serve a known population. If this petition was granted it would be hard to say where periodical changing-over would end. The Egmont county was large, and much of its area was unremunerative. while the district in question was comparatively rich. Community interests in New Plymouth were admitted. but were not sound arguments. A river boundary would, perhaps, be an advantage, hut as the Puniho Road had sufficed for fifteen years without any official complaints he could not see much force in its application. Evidence on the whole was characterised chiefly as i individual opinion, much of it being beside the point. Mr. G. W. Rogers (Egmont county clerk) was then called to give evidence concerning internal arrangements of the county’s finance and policy. The rateable value over the whole county was £1.700.000. and the disnuted area, in 1913. was valued at £91.000. Although 32 ratepavers out of 41 had signed the petition, the largest land-holders had not. EGMONT COUNTY’S VIEW. Mr. M. O’Brien (chairman of the Egimont County Council), said that fifteen or sixteen years n-ro th? disputed area belonged to the Taranaki countv, and had begged to he taken into the Egmont county. Residents along the Puniho Road bad not. previously expressed dissatisfaction. Some five years ago a sum of £5009 at 44 per cent, was offered to Warea ratenavers. hut they would not accept it. Now maintenance had to be done nut of rat*« which were not great A sum of £2300. nlus interest on loans, was paid to the New Plvmouth Hospital Board on a rate distributed over the whole county. Tn his opinion their by-road” compared very favorablv with those of the T-iranaki countv. The Opunake Power Board were prepared to supnlv power as far north as the factory, and would include the area when completed. The whole general policy of his county would be adversely affected by a severance. To Mr. Hutchen: w? admitted that exustir’ liabili ■ J es couH be apportioned

between the two areas concerned. The three members from the Rahotu riding did not resign their seats because of dissatisfaction with the council’s policy. The Opunake Power Board was coating about £44,000. This concluded the evidence and the commission then adjourned,