THE EVANS BAY SCHEME.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 222, 12 June 1908, Page 8

THE EVANS BAY SCHEME.

PROPOSED BETTERMENT CLAUSES ' ;i> 0, .•'At, Borbugh' Councily. .'CouneilJor • M'Leod afekod what wis. the exactposition with : regard to;,the; G6uncil?s; dealitigs, witiij thdWellington " Bdard t relatiydto-.the '.ijtiestiqn of betterment in-Mnriwtibn.-.with-the Evans Bay reclamation scheme.; ■ \Thd,Mhyo'r '(Mr v C, J.' Crawford),, in-reply, said., that, , iip to"tie prbsfent-timfe,: he had reffained-'frpin ; rgfcrrjng'to,/.the queitidn-be-carise;-.the •.'wfiole, /matter--;had,\'f),een -in ;bbn)mittiee. ~ /Now/that' jthe :Efarb.6ur,;'.B6ard:-'.had t'alt,eii:/tlw';mai^'r ; out;iof gominitfee] it. \vds :onl^W^jb'^B&^.t&o.ra^^ayers v iMtould<-khoW tho;p6sitibn'-'so.*far -as the - borough' ;jjras: con-i cerhed.' -A 6 'continued, had.entered into negotiations- .with";tho,tCbiinv j ; aii'/agreeirien't -to -.facilitatb - their .rtv claraation ;Worl;'s;at 'Ev'arisi.Bay, and/': in dealing with .thdm.'through .their ,o.fßcer,;(Mr. :W.' : ,Fergiisoh), :ho,':'thp; Mayor,, ,-had-th'M-'thovhorpfeh : would/facilitatq the ' work jnjPveov^b.ncei^ble^vay.,-^ IbPtternient! clause' was. included iir-th'e'agree-ment, or'mentioned anyway; -That; 'was -therefore, for.' him: to' .go' into', details. reference.''td'Va,'. betterment''clause,' 'arid, the 'next:thing that had''haip'pehed was:that' a"Bill containing-a',bettermerit, clause had; been published. 'In reply to 'a - Wttqr : 'on : the : subject,. • the\Bbar,d.' had .stated . that '• it would, in .'due cpursel supply a ' copy,' of • the.'Bill: tb'tlie Council. •As a.ma.tter of fact, therefore, the (Council,had? not; yet . received- any official': information on'the .subject. "His idaa ; :was' that ■it. .would be wrong toapply bfetterment in this', case. .-It'." was, * ■ he\ ■ said, ' proposed' to -spend a. large sum of money on, Evan's Bay', .but '-the; expenditure- would .not, [under any oircutnstance's, ■ dome', under:the control of.the Council. The' which promoted' for .thd benefit, of the ;irohf bunders' of Wellington,/would.'for thO'betterment:df thVwhqje province- ,To ask : Miramar'to'-.pky part;'pf. : 'tlie 'cost was,' to outrage.oiis..'' : ,WKy :waV : the principle . not . applied when wharves' were .erected at Peto'ne'- and at ,Rona, Bay ? : It• seemed as', if 'it was'only ■to 'be observed -when, the Board; came to - the ■Miramrtr district., /If what .was proposed :wfis fair,: why, should..not- the; Gas Company '(which JwasJ erecting works. at'.Miramar) .bo iallowed i: to: charge-; a?betterment?'- y v Councillor East ril'takeit,tha t we will'have ! a chance''to/oppose' the • clause. l : >\T^».ljayor.s;^e'.\nH i .;knqw:',hl>wfto,- act;at the right time.' > )' ; ,'V '•!:[.