RECLAIMED LAND LEASES.

Evening Post, Volume LXVIII, Issue 97, 21 October 1904, Page 5

RECLAIMED LAND LEASES.

THE REFERENDUM PROPOSAL. DUBBED A WRECKER, AND REJECTED. The reclaimed land leases, and! the Wellington CRy Leasing Bill dealing with the conversion of these leases, were again before the City Council last evening. Councillor Izard moved, "That a ckuee be inserted in the Wellington City Leasing Bill to the effect that the Act shall come into force if and when a proposal to bring the same into force shall be carried by a poll of the ratepayers to be taken in as nearly as may be the manner provided in the Municipal Corporations Act and its amendments in respect of polls by ratepayers for raising loans." The mover argued that such a proposed reference to the ratepayers was not new, as there, waa a clause of the Wellington City Empowering Act of 1897 providing that a certain portion of the Bill should) not be brought into force without the ratepayers' sanction. Whatever the majority of the Council thought when the present Bill was first promoted, many of them were now very doubtful in their minds as to whether the Bill was advisable or not. He pointed out the anomalies of the present en bloc proposal, instancing that fact that the Council was asking the same premium from Wright and Carman (whose building is worth £400) for conversion, as it was asking from the Union Company* with a building worth £3400, and one not likely to depreciate. (This point was fully reported in Councillor Izard's remarks at the recent public meeting on the subject.) It was right that the_ question should go to the ratepayers. Councillor Barber seconded. He was understood to* give, as his reason, that he adhered; to the principle of the referendum. Councillor Barber then left the meeting. Councillor Luke was surprised at Councillor Izard coming forward with this motion at the eleventh hour. He (Councillor Luke) had in the past not taken a great part in the discussion on the leaseholds question, being then interested in a leasehold, but he was no longer interested in any of these leaseholds. He was surprised that— as the Bill had passed the Lower House, and a« Councillor Barber probably voted for it thereCouncillor Barber shOuldi now second the motion. At the public meeting convened by opponents of the Bill, he was informed that only 17 hands, out of the 40,000 or 50,000 in Wellington, were held up against the Bill— though he understood there was at that meeting an attendance of interested persons. Councillor Luke defended the re-building conditions of the Bill. They could not reasonably force the building to be completed within less than five years. Councillor Devine, Chairman of the Leaseholds Committee, alleged with some warmth that Councillor Lwrd had been inconsistent, and had simply copied his opinion from that of the "great civic dictator " who had opposed the Bill. Long ago Councillor Izard should have moved for a reference to the -people if he thought it necessary. The real object of the motion was to wreck the BilL The public meeting was probably packed as much on the side of Councillor Izard's party as on the lessees' side. He was not going into details of the Bill. Councillor Barber's remarks . reminded him of the just criticism passed by a member of Parliament, that the referendum was "the sheet anchor of the political shuffler." The 1900 Act was Councillor Izard's special admiration. Did he ask for a referendum before passing the 1900 Act? Johnston and Co. took a lease under this admired 1900 Act, and the result was that they got it £100 cheaper than they would have got it under the present en bloc proposal. Councillor Izard: If you wait another two years that will be the case all round. Councillor Devine said all he maintained was that in this case the Council, under the 1900 Act, lost £100 a year that it would have got under the, en bloc proposal. The Union Company's rent under the non-building ' clause of the Bill would be worth £4471, while Mr. Ames put the present value of the brick building at £4000. The deterioration in the wooden buildings was such that in his valuation a month or two •ago Mr. Ames had to write the building values down to £23,700, while in June, 1903, he valued them at £31,000. He I defended Mr. Ames from any aspersion cast j at him. (Councillor Izard denied hay- ' ing made any.) To huny tho building would be to unduly congest the labour market and attract too many labourers to the city 5 also, it was undesirable to cause buildings to be erected with windows plastered with "to lets." It was impossible to create tenants, and the building must be* spread over .a period. There was no analogy between the permissive portion of the Act of 1897 and the present referendum proposal, for which Councillor Izard could show no precedent. \ ' Councillor Evans opposed the motion. Any question of general policy he would submit to the ratepayers, but not an intricate question of administration involving details with whicH the elected body had made itself thoroughly conversant. To adopt the motion would be to censure the Council's past action leading up t6 the Bill now before the Upper House. Councillor M'Laren defended the principle of the referendum, but said that With regard €o the prefeenfc proposed application of it, he was in the same position as Councillor Evans. Councillors Cohen, Jorgensen, and Godber opposed the motion. Councillor Izard likened Councillor Devine'fe criticism of himself to the noise of a rushirig wind such as we had experienced last Thursday. It was an illustration of "having no case, abuse the other side." Councillor Devine had not attempted to meet the. question of why Wright and Carman's lease and the Union Company's lease were treated on the same terms. (Cdufedill6r Devine: "I said I would not go into details.") The niore he had gone iato these calculations the more he had come to see that the Council" was making a mistake — however much he may have failed to recognise in the past the full extent of the mistake. He was doubtful whether the Bill would be a gain to all the lessees ; he was sure it would not be to the Council the benefit that power for individual dealing v/ould be. As regards the 190Q Act, and comparative benefits of conversions under that Act in 1900 and conversions under this Bill in 1904, it must be borne in mind that while under the 1900 Act the total rents in 1900 would have been £2859, the total rents if the conversion took place in 1904 would be £7683. This' was because, in the space of throe years, the actual ground rental value had increased in this propertion. He had always said that the 1900 Act required amendment, there being difficulties in its working. The motion was rejected by 11 to 1, Only the mover voting for it. The seconder was still absent. • THE HARBOUR BOARD LEASES. At another stage of the meeting, the Legislation and Leaseholders' Committee reported that it had further considered the question of the Hunter-street endowment leases, referred to the Council by the Harbour Board on the petition of the lessees. The committee saw no objection to the proposed change in the nature of the leases, but, being doubtful of the

Board's present power to effect *ha change, recommended that the Conaerli consent to the Harbour Board obtaining permissive legislation to deal with fche matter, but that after such legislation is obtained no surrenders be accepted by the Board without the consent of the Council thereto being obtained in each case. The Chairman of the Committee (Councillor Devine) explained tba.t the leases expired in 1907 and -some in 1911, and under these leases the ground rental would, at expiry, be put tw for competition at public auction ; tbe lessee, ii' outbid, to receive compewsation for biff improvements from the purchaser. It was proposed to get legislation to allow the lessees to convert their present leases into a continuous lease under tbe true Glasgow tenure, with revaluation at expiry of present term of lease, and there--' ' after revaluation every fourteen yeara. These leases would revert from "the Hab. I .'.' hour Board to the Council in 1907, mi. . as tie Council was itself endea-Yovring to ; bring all its own leases under the true Glasgow principle, it should give its per* mission to the Harbour Board to get < legislative power to do the same by thee* Hunter-street leases. Councillor Evans said that as the Council was not yet owner of the leases,' " it had no status to obtain legislative power itself in order to improve the ' lessees' tenure; and all it codd/do war .." to consent to the. Harbour Board, piping,,,,", this. '- » "-" Councillor Izard: The pwfib wSI gft ' into the Council's pocket. The report was adopted.