THE MUNICIPALITY QUESTION.

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 117, 23 February 1872, Page 3

THE MUNICIPALITY QUESTION.

To the Editor of Tilll THAMES GlAltlilAN Sir,—Much has been said and written, for and against the proposed Municipality, and those who at present oppose the same are charged with all sorts of selfish motives, while at the same time those who are so strongly in its favour have never yet got beyond stump oratory, in fact, have never attempted to show in detail the advantages to be derived from this proposed extension of power. It puts me in mind of the man who would run for President of the United States. Only make me president, and then everything that don’t pay I’ll pass an Act to make it pay, &c. Now, I suppose it will be granted that to carry out large public works you must have money—and I would ask bow is it to i.c got—where are all tlioso niucli-talked-of endowments. The foreshore belongs lo the natives, who is to find tbc money to buy it from them, providing they would sell it ? And if bought, is it likely to prove an endowment oi- not ? If tbc water works worn banded over, would they not be charged to the Municipality ; or would the Provincial Government astonish us all by making us a present of them? Even if wc bad this Municipality, would that body handle all the publicans’ and auctioneers’ licenses, or would they not still be Provincial revenue ? Auckland lias a corporation, but I notice by a report of a meeting of that Council that they don’t seem to get even the dog tax. Again 7 the rating power under this Municipal Act compels you to rate on the annual value of property, instead of, as in the Highways Act, on the value to sell. And what would be the annual value of all tbc vacant lots not even fenced in ? They could not have any annual value, but they certainly have a value to sell. Now, supposing we were to attempt to borrow, say £50.000, as n Municipality, what have we to otter as security? 1 suppose the rates ; and they arc based on an annual value. Well, we will say for argument, Oliiiiemuri is opened, an alluvial goldfield is found. I imagine that would for a time at least interfere somewhat with the annual value here. There cannot be a doubt but that every property bolder on the Thames wishes to act in the best possible manner for the purpose of improving bis property, and consequently the place as a whole, and if some of your correspondents would only go more practically into the subject,, instead of snarling at each other, we should arrive at some conclusion beneficial to all parties. We can hardly expect people who have only short leases of their properly to enter heartily into any scheme for improvements at their own expense, knowing full well that they will never receive the benefit of their outlay. It is the owner of the fee simple who will receive the most benefit, and whatever plan may be suggested that is a fact should lie always to the front.—l am, &c., Pioneer. Shorthand, Feb. 22, 1872.