EVENING POST. MONDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1904. THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL AND THE CITY LEASES.

Evening Post, Volume LXVIII, Issue 81, 3 October 1904, Page 4

EVENING POST. MONDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1904. THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL AND THE CITY LEASES.

-» In order to vindicate the common sense of the Wellington City Council and of Wellington citizens, it becomes an act of necessity to expose the latest instance of "Kip Van Winkleism" on the part of the Legislative Council. The Councillors, gathered together from various recessional retreats, are assembled to consider sundry Bills, among them the Wellington City Leasing Bill. Wellington city leases constitute a not very simple problem, and a large number of the Legislative Councillors, not having a shred of interest in these leases or their history, naturally do nob know very much about them. They therefore naively conclude that as they don't know, the citizens of Wellington cannot possibly know. And having first debited their own ignorance to Wellington citizens, they proceed to draw on it as an excuse for hindering the passage of the Bill. For instance, the Hon. F. Trask, who comes from Nelson, "was afraid that the Wellington Corporation did not give the problem sufficient consideration, and expected members of tbo Council to put things straight for it. 1 ' The Hon. S. T. George (Auckland) ''urged that the newspapers should open their columns to a. discussion on the matter, in order that public opinion might be gauged." The Attorney-General was surprised at the '"great apathy" shown. The Hon. Mr. Baldey (Okristchurck) was able to assert that "the citizens had had no chance to give their voice on the matter." The Hon. T. Kelly (Taranaki) told the real truth when he said : "The Bill was a very complicated one, and it was not a matter for surprise that the Legislative Council failed to thoroughly understand it." The above are examples. The allegation that the Wellington City Council has not given the problem "sufficient consideration" is met by the fact that successive Councils have grappled with it for years, that successive Acts have been passed, and that in the last year or two a special committee has held meeting after meeting. As to the press opening their columns to discussion, they have always been open, and have been very largely use_d' by both sides. In March last this paper published a series of interviews with representatives of lessees who opposed the present Bill and of City Councillors who supported it. There was also an interview with an independent critic, City Councillor Izard, who was mentioned by a Legislative Councillor as an opponent of the Bill. In addition there were letters written, and the usual facilities for correspondence were given. these things are on record. Tho whole question was publicly reviewed by people who knew the whole subject thoroughly, and the Bill has been advertised. If, then, the people of Wellington are quiescent, it be construed to be anything but the silence that giv^ss consent? And if it is to be construed as ignorance, is it fitting that that interpretation should be arrived at by men who have shown themselves profoundly ignorant of the whole thing? The Attorney-General, when confronted with the mere fact that the Bill had been advertised, found himself compelled to admit : "Then I can't understand the apathy shown — it must be that the people are satisfied with the proposals." The main object all the time in endeavouring to convert the leases, which for the most part bave ten years to run, h;is beep to secure immediate rebuilding instead of the existence of present ramshackle buildings during the remaining ten years. Such a rebuilding would produce a gener.il increase of ground and business values ; so large would be the increment that it ■would pay both the city and the lessees to divide it, if they can agree on an equitable line of division. It is to enabie such a division of advantages to be arrived at between the lessor Council and the lessees <<hat the present Bill Is pron'oted. An incidental benefit, of vast importance to every one, is that rebuilding would remove dangerous fire risks. The line of division is, roughly, that the lessee is to surrender a low-rent lease terminating in ten years for a continuous tenure lease with revaluation, first revalu-" ation ten years from now ; the lessee also to give a bonus in the way of increased rents (as per sliding scale) between conversion and' revaluation, and to receive in return the Council's present reversionary interest in the buildings. How this is computed to operate, in aggregate, will be found in City Councillor Devine'a remarks in the Post of 3rd March, and in other publications about the same time. If the Legislative Council can work out a better scheme, why does it not do so?