WELLINGTON STREETS BILL

Evening Post, Volume LXX, Issue 48, 25 August 1905, Page 5

WELLINGTON STREETS BILL

CITY COUNCIL ON THE SEDDON BLOT. THE BLOT OR THE BILL MUST GO. "No new building shall be' erected, used, or occupied as a dvvellinghouse in the City of Wellington, after 'the passing of this Act, on land fronting any right-of-way that is kiss than 40ft in -width." This amendment, inserted by the Government in the Wellington Streats Bill, came before the City Council last evening. The City Solicitor TepoTted that he bad interviewed the Premier, who 6tated that buildings would not be allowed fronting 20ft ways. Tha Premier stated >that 'this was against the spirit of the law, and he -would next year bring in a general Bill dealing with it. The City Solicitor wished to know whether the Council would go on with or abandon fehe Bill, weighted as it was wim tho Government's clause. Councillors were indignant that Wellington should ha\e bsen singled out for shod. &n enactment. Besides the general injustice, it was urged that a man would •be prohibited not only from building, •but from rebuilding. The object of the Bill is to publicly *ake over a number of private narrow s-trests on whioh public money •cannot now be expended, although Tridents pay rates. The question for the Council was which is 'the lesser evil : To abandon the Bill and its object, or to take it with the Seddon Blot.- Councillor Gcdber declared for withdrawal. The- Council subsequently went into committee, and passed the following resolution: — "That, unless the Hon. T. K. Macdonald (who has charge of the Bill in the Legislative Council) is satisfied that he can procure the deletion of ithe new clause (3) of the Wellington City Streets Bill, he be asked to withdraw tho Bill." "SLUMS" ARGUMENT REFUTED. WHY SHOULD WELLINGTON BE SINGLED OUT! The decision of the Council that the Seddon blot is inadmissible at any price, was the subject of an interview granted this morning by the Mayor (the Hon. T. W. Hislop) to an Evening Post reporter, , in the course of which the Mayor repeated the gist of his remarks of last evening, which were re-echoed by most of the Councillors present. The Mayor expressed the opinion that probably this clause was passed with less regard to public and private interest, and was less sound than any previous enactment on this subject. It singled out the Wellington City from others as not' being regarded as fit to manage its own local affairs. The men who were elected for purposes of local .government were quite as able and as eager to make the city, healthy aud beautiful as Parliament was. Movements of this sort sprang more often from municipalities than from Parliament; the action of the Corporation of Glasgow in beautifying the city was a case in point. The Wellington City Council hid just as much sense of responsibility as members of Par- * liaraeni, had, and he could say as far as lis connection with the Council went -that members were always particularly careful to see that overcrowding was prevented. This clause and tha remarks made regarding rights-of-wayi in Wellington showed that the persons responsible were not only ' ignorant of the requirements of the place, but .of the law which had been passed by the- preceding Parliament under the guidance of the same gentlemen as were presiding now. SMALL MAN'S SAVINGS SACRIFICED. With regard to the lands in Aurora - terrace for which a way had been authorised by the Council, the Mayoc stated that, far from overcrowding, they would be most eligible -and pleasant homes, and the configuration was ■ such that if a full width road were mado there -would be no use for. it. Up some of the terraces in Wellington it was impossible to drive, so. what was the use in such -j. npot of a 40ft way? Asked how far the clause goes as affecting existing buildings and such as may be destroyed by fire, the Mayor said it was difficult to interpret it, as it was bristling -with possible lawsuits; bat, whatever the inierpretation, it Was a ruthless interference with rights that had been acquired, and would deprive people of the use of their property. Cases where it would have the effect of obliterating the sayings of tt life-time were personally known to him. Some members of the Legislative Council, supporters of Mr. Seddon, had expressed to him (tha Mayor) their surprise at the nature of this amendment and of the attempt to make it law. THE IMMEDIATE PROBLEM. OF TWO EVDLS, CHOOSE THE LESS. BUT WHICH IS THE LESS? As stated above, the City Council has decided thai it is 'better to abandon the Bill than to accept the Blot. But ib would 6eem that the city's Parliamentary representatives are not so convinced of -the wisdom of this course. They appear to consider the abandonment, and aiot the Blot, the greater evil. In tho following interview, the harm bhat -the Blot may cause before it can be superseded, is weighed up ao against the loss to private streets if the present opportunity of incorporation is lost. WHAT WITHDRAWAL (MEANS TO PRIVATE STREETS. The Hon. T. K. Macdonald, who has j charge of the Bill in tho Legislative Council, remarked, when questioned by a Post reporter, that the position was , somewhat a curioua one. To emphasiro the importance of -the object of the Bill, lie reviewed at some length the position of residents on private streets, many of vrhom had been paying Tates for over a quarter of a century, yet it waa held that public money could not be expended on such streets, which consequently became in -winter a veritable Slough of Despond — an' injustice which could not be remedied unles3 such streets were taken orer by the Corporation as public circcte. With th'S object, the Bill waa introduced ; and for the firrft time in she history of Parliament, the Lower Houso agreed to rectify the state of things, and to incorporate as public streets considerably over a hundred private streets, according -to the schedule prepared by tho City Council. As Mr. Duthie said to him last night in tho lobbies, if this dauso is not, availed of it might be years before tho citizens otb allowed another opportunity by Parliament of taking over these private ttreete, which 'ought to havo been taken over years ago. The i stumbling-block of the Bill— for which the Council was, according to its resolution, prepared to Sacrifice 'bho intere«to of many hundreds of people inte«Bted in private 6treets, is clause 3 (printed above). WHAT DAMAGE THE CLAUSE MAY DO. This clause opened up the -whole question of tho width of public and private etreets find rights-of-way, and 'tho amendments required to the- Public Works Act, 1903. Every one in tho Legislature now Tecognisod the necessity of an exhaustive seriea of ameird6i:nts to tho Public Works Act on thieV

question; anc' the problem involved had so many complicated phases that if the ckiaso in the Wellington Bill passed in its present form, and limited as it is to Wellington, it could .not affect the general question outside of Wellington, and our own .local difficulties would be neither made nor marred 'by it. Apart from the clause, there must be general amending legislation next session, when the question as a whole must be dealt with. The main danger in connection with the- clause lay in the possibility of a house or building (affected by the ■clause) being destroyed I>y fire, or condemned by 'the authorities and pulled down, between now and tho next sitting of Parliament. "If a general Bill was passed next session, what would then become of this clause if passed in the present Bill ?" " It would go to pot." "Tho later legislation would overrule?" "Ye 6. If. .the clause is passed, the matter will not tra allowed to Teat there." WITHDRAWAL A ,TWO-EDGED SWORD. The Hon. Mr. 'Macdonald pointed out ■that the City Council was faced with the difficulty that 'both Mr. Duthie and Mr. Aitken a^e more dispesed to let the Bill go on, even with the obnoxious olause in it, than to drop it, to the great loss of residents on private streets. Personally, having consented to take charge of tho Bill in the Legislative Council, 'he was bound to put before the Council any view that the Mayor and the Council jnig-ht desire to siibmit. " The stoppage of tho present Bill is, however, a 'two-edged sword, and I am afraid that City Councillors .have not given the matter quite as much attention as it deserves." When the Bill >oame before the Legislative ■Council on Wednesday 'he -would submit •two or three amendments which in his judgment would help to make mat [era go smoothly, -and to minimise any loss or injury under the clause, but it wao impossible to say at the present stage whether >the Legislative Council ,'would see eye to eye with nim in "these matters. "So you think the Bill can be patched!"' "Yes." Councillor D. M'Laren writes : — "With reference to the decision arrived at by the City Council having reference to the clause added to the above-named Bill on the Premier's motion, I wish to say that it is, in my opinion, decidedly a mistake for the Council to tako upon itsejf the responsibility of withdrawing the Bill. When the motion passed by the Council was under consideration I urged that we should seek to have clause 3 of the Bill limited in its application to rights-of-way which may be formed hereafter, and that houses which may be built to replace structures at present in existence should bo exempt from the provision set out in clause 3. It appears to me that it will probably pleasS the Premier to have the City Council take the onus of withdrawing the Bill, and, we shall be presented in the light of being determined to continue the creation of narrow thoroughfares. I therefore object to the decision arrived at by our Council, and Councillor Winder also made the same objection at the meeting yesterday evening." A local architeci? (Mr. J. ODea) informs us, by way of illustrating the vexatious nature of the proposed restriction, that 'he recently applied for -and was granted a permit U> construct a •right-of-way on a certain Town Acre, providing for the erection of very 6uparior dwelling-housss, and also providing for a considerable excess of air-space around the buildings above that required ■by onr 'bylaws. This was, in «Mt. O'Oea's opinion, owing to the configuration of the ground, the best way of dealing with tie property, and 'this opinion was endorsed by the proprietor and 'the City Council. The architect now, principally owing to the action of the Premier and his colleagues in connection with rights-of-way, finds that he will be ope of the sufferers through the provisions of the Bill. He has received instructions from the owner to withdraw the application. This, he states, will undoubtedly mean a considerable loss of revenue 'to the City Council as well as loss of a good deal of work for the artisans of Wellington, for whom the Premier has always expressed unbounded feeling. It is to be hoped, Temarks Mr. ODea, 'that this ridiculous measure will be discarded, as in this instance, at any rate, there could be no question of slums being created. * Such would havo been the case, however, had a 66ft street been created, as a considerable number of smaller buildings would havo been erected, and the occupants would have had leise air-apace. , "football. WELLINGTON RUGBY UNION. The weekly meeting of the Management Committee of the Wellington Rugby Union was held last evening. The following were present : — Mfessrs J. T. King (in the chair), D. .D. Weir, H. M'lntyre, S. Brown, W. Hales, T. Hunter, O'Sullivan, L. Jordan, A. W. Stevens, D. M'Kenzie (secretary). The Athletic Club was granted permission to play a junior match against the Waipuna (Blenheim) Club on Saturday, and Victoria College Juniors were given permission to play Nelson College on Saturday. In a recent Wednesday competition match Petone v. Artillery, the suburban club handed in to the referee a liit of 4 players, which included several wrong names. It was decided to declare the match a loss against Petone, and to iuspend the acting-captain of the team for twelve months. In a speech made at Nelson regarding the New South Wales-Wellington football match, Mr. Henderson, manager of the visiting team, remarked that there was not the difference in play that the scores would indicate, though he was of opinion that had they played on the adamant ground they in Australia were used to, the Wellington team would still have won, and he mentioned the forwards as specially good. Some of their players were not then at their best, nnd they had had the advantage of an object lesson, which they meant to profit by. At the Nairn-Ftrect Reserve to-morrow at half-past one o'clock tho Post and Times boys will meet to try conclusions jn a football match. Evening Post Hm : — Fiijbig, Cojd, Graham, C. Furness, E. Furnesj, Binnis, Davis, Mountier, Chapman, Cording, Baldwin, Mummery, Galvin, Rollins, Keys ; emergenices, Hill, Pearcc. New Zealand Times team : — N. Mitchell, Piper, Armit, V. Chapman, Tullett, Haughey, Watson, iCoy, Lewis, A. Tullett, Endes, K. Mitchell, M'llraith, Allan, S. Chapman. ASSOCIATION. The following games will be played tomorrow—Senior League: Queen's Park v. St. John's, Newtown Park, Mr. A. Williame; Diamonds v. Swifts IV No. 1, Miramar, 'Mr. W. White; Rovers v. V.M.C.A., No. 2, Mr. F. Kitching. Junior League (challenge) : Toa v. Porirua, Mr. W. Harris; St. John's B v. Diamonds T3, No. 4, Mh-amar, Mr. IS. Watts. Third League (final): Marist Bros. v. Swifts, No. 3, Miramar, Mr. W, Machin ; (Henderson Cup) Petone- v. 'Marist Bros. B, Petone. Mr. W. H. Gifford. Boys' League : Swifts v. Petone, No. 5, Mmuiiar, Mr. A. G. Barnett; Martot School v. V.M.C.A., No. 6, Mr. J. °ye-Smitlij Marist Old Boys v. Kaiwarrn, No. 8, Mr. L. White,.