LOWER TARANAKI STREET

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 244, 16 July 1928, Page 10

LOWER TARANAKI STREET

COST OF WIDENING colonel McDonald replies TO CITY SOLICITOR Colonel T. IV. McDonald, chairman of the Vigilance Committee, has handed to "The Dominion'' the following statement: "The city solicitor (Mr. J. O'Shea), under authority from the Mayor, has attempted to reply to charge No. 3 in my statement published on Friday last, which charge was to the effect that the council had sold a piece of land containing 12 perches necessary for widening Lower Taranaki Street, and a few mouths afterwards acquired it again at. :i considerably increased cost to the ratepayers. "The city solicitor denies the charge, and published in support of his denial a report which he obtained from the city valuer, which report states that the land taken from W. D. and 11. O. Wills for widening Taranaki Street to 34ft. was 14 perches, or 2 perches more than the area previously owned -by tbo corporal ion. This statement is incorrect; the area taken for this purpose is 21.76 perches. The report contains this further statement that, Tn effect, the corporation sold 12 perches, for £5500. and later purchased 161 perches for £4265 on average value per perch, a clear gain of at least £lOOO, in addition to the actual saving in cash of £1235 —making a total of £2235.’ “To this statement also T gave an unqualified denial, and characterise it as the most seriously misleading one yet made on this subject. “The indisputable facts arc that the council sold the 12 perches of land for £5500, or an average of £458 6s. Bd. per perch, 'and that it soon afterwards acquired 22.93 perches (including the 12 perches it had sold a short time before) at a cost to the ratepayers of £13.333, or £579 13s. .lid. per . perch, equalling a loss of £l2l 7s. 3d. per perch, or £1456 on the 12 perches sold by the council, only to be purchased back again soon afterwards. The payments making the £13,333 will be found in the city treasurer's cash book and on his vouchers as follow: —

Cash book folio 157, voucher No. 4299. to W. D. and H. O. Wills .... £8984 16 0 Cash book folio 157, voucher No. 4310. to W. D. and 11. O. Wills .... <5 0 0 Cash book folio 157, voucher No. 4314, to J. Speight and’Co. (cost. < i of land which the council agreed to transfer to W. D. and H. O. Wills) £421 4 4 *

“Surely there is something radically wrong somewhere when two highly-Dlnc-ed and pnid officers of the City Council make and publish a statement that a gain of £2235 has been made on this transaction, whereas there _was actually a loss to the ratepayers of £1450. “The city soliictor’s attempts to rescue the Mayor from bls dilemma over Ibe Mayor's contradictory statements about the council’s legal powers to take the adioining lands and placing on the legal branch of the council the responsibility for a mistake in not fully examining the legal aspect of the matter at Jhe initial stage is a miserable failurwnnd Mr. O'Shea knows it. The two statements arc published in the Press on May 20. J92S and July 6, 1928, respectively, on identically the same point, but diametrically opposed to each other. • . “The report of the conference with the Mayor admits a legal mistake in not fully examining the legal aspect at the mitial stage, yet the city solicitor states that he made no mistake in the matter. How then does he ex-plain the councils action in attempting to take Jobson s land for the purpose of compensating the Levy Estate for land taken from it. An application approved by the city solicitor s department was actually made by the council for a proclamation to take this land, mid even in the face of objections from the owner and lessee the council still attempted to pursue its illegal course, anti it was not until an interim injunction on behalf of the owner of the freehold was issued that the council s attempted illegal action was blocked. Does the city solicitor deny responsibility for this mistake which caused considerable delay in obtaining a proclamation and increased cost to the ratepayers? “There are four serious charges against the council’s administration awaiting answers. The attempt to answer one of them has. by the publication of erroneous official information, constituted in itself a sufficient further cause for a full and impartial public inquiry into this transaction. If there is nothing to hide why fear an inquiry?”