COST OF WIDENING

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 122, 25 May 1928, Page 6

COST OF WIDENING

■MAYOR'S REPLY TO CRITICISM A long statement lias been handed to "The Post" by Colonel T. W. M'Donaid, chairman of the' Vigilance Committee, charging tho City Council with the extravagant expenditure of ratepayers' money in connection with the widening of Lower Taranaki street, and also. With adopting Star Chamber methods of procedure. Pressure on space does not allow of the .publication of the full statement, of which the following summary is made:— . Colonel M'Donald states that a permit was granted for the erection of a nine-story steel frame building on the Lovy,Estate-property at the corner of .Taranaki and Ma. I i rs streets on 15th April, 1926, a- condition being made that the. corner-should be splayed. . On 2nd December, 1926, the council decided that the land required for splaying purposes at the corner should be ■taken under the Public Works Act, but no action was taken with a view to widening Lower Taranaki street. Colonel M'Donald • contends that had the scheme for widening Taranaki street been, deferred until the town-planning •scheme- was ; approved, ratepayers would hayo, had an opportunity of, /opposing the widening on tho lines' now- being done but by forcing the widening through before the scheme was approved tho ratepayers were deprived, of any right of objection. Considerable betterment has resulted to the Levy Estate, but no advantage had been taken of that in tho settlement. Tho Town-planning Act had been in force 'ess than two months when the City Council decided by resolution to widen to 100 ft that portion of Lower Taranaki street on which it had resolved ten months before to authorise the , erection of the building. On 13th June, before the proclamation to take the land to widen the Btreet was issued, the council decided to appoint a Towjiplanning Officer.; The ultimate decision of the council, continues the statement, permitted the Levy building to be erected about 16ft in advance of tho general building line of the street, and thereby created a bottleneck at the Manners street end. Not only would that give the street an ugly appearance and make a dangerous corner, but it would render useless for traffic purposes nearly half tho land originally intended for street widening. ■■• . • " ' All that was necessary for the council to have done 'when considering the application for a permit tb- build was to have made the Levy Building proprietors., sot back their 'building line to the required distance, in which case only the bare land would have had to be acquired. COST OF, THE WIDENING. The statement then goes into detail to show the cost to the ratepayers of the council's method of procedure. The strip of land acquired from tho Levy Estate for street widening contained 7.05 perches, the valuo of-which was, in Colonel M'Donald's opinion, £8693. Had the council ordered tho Levy building to bo set back 18ft when issuing the permit that was all the land should have' cost. But tho council evidently proferred a method by which it acquired and gave to the Levy Estate 9.77 perches, or 2.72 perches more than it took from the estate. That land cost the council £10,300, about £1607 more than the valuo of land taken from the estate. ,' A Additional payments were: A. A. Renner (Levy Estate contractor or foreman), £1917 13s'8d; L. p. Williams (architect),,'£l4so; F. and B. Levy, £1953; Hansford and Mills, steel,contractors, £6000. The council also paid off a mortgage of £11,000, and interest or other charges of £793 13s 4d on the property, .or £3100 more than the equivalent of a second payment of the ;full value of" t.he land acquired, and £263 more than was agreed" upon in the" settlement, a total of £1^793 13s 4d. Stamp duty paid on the retransfer to tho Levy Estate of balance of land taken and not required amounted to £333 13s, the cost of land given to the. estate was £10,300 2s 9d, making a total of payments "for land worth £8693" of £33,748 2s 9d. Tho council was liable for a further payment of .£,2550,, ■which,/i£.:,claimed, would make £36,298 2s 9d. Other, ■'claims from sub-contractors might be made. To the above had to be added the cost of demolishing the steel work and brick or concrete building, but there would be credits to come from the sale of- materials and plant, which the Mayor estimated should cover the cost of demolition. The cost so far of the balance ofHhe sti'ip of land in Lower Taranaki street was as follows:—W. D. and H. O. Wills, £9059 16s- J. Speight and Co., £4274 4s 2d; Gibson and Paterson, £6300; Fox Estate trustees, £2850, making a total under this heading of £22,484 0s 2d. The grand total cost so far for land taken for street widening was £56,232 2s lid, or, if the £2550 had to be paid, & 58,782 2s lid. Colonel M'Donald contends that there is now no effectivo check on the City Council in connection with any street widening operations, for it can carry out such works without a poll of tho ratepayers under the authority of a local City Empowering Act, which, he considers, should be repealed. On 20th October, 1927, the council decided to tako the Levy 'Estate claim for compensation to the Arbitration Court. Although that resolution was never rescinded, i|ie council had adopted a, method which had .involved the ratepayers in an expenditure of about £33,748., ' ■■-'■■■ Colonel M'Donald holds that the rateliayer no longer has a right to attend council meetings and hear discussions, as the council has adopted the Star Chamber method of .constituting the whole council the Finance Committee, attendance-at meetings- of:;which:' by the Press and public is, barred.'SyEe concludes by stating that tho ratepayers should take concerted, action to (1) bring about tho repeal of sub-section (c) of section 6 of the, Wellington City Empowering and Amendment Act, 1924, and any similar provision in any other Act; (2) to compel the council to deal with all such matters in open1 council or permit the public to be present at Finance Committee meetings; (3) cause a full and impartial-public inquiry into the statements >made,.in the report; and (4) to'obtain by declaratory judgment or otherwise a decision as to the right of ratepayers to inspect all the accounts (including vouchers) of the Treasurer.