FURTHER STATEMENT

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 123, 26 May 1928, Page 11

FURTHER STATEMENT

OFFICER'S RESPONSIBILITY A further statement has. been handed to "The, Post" 'by Colonel .'l.'. W. M'Donald, chairman oil the Vigilance Committee, in reply to tho Mayor'a defence of the council's poliej' in regard to the widening of Turanaki street. In his statement tho writer says that the Mayor's only excuse for the alarming disclosures of waste in connection with these transactions,, in which he and his council has let the ratepayers in for £:!0,7'18 for land tho full' value of which is (and he does not deny it) &5603, is that the land was not vacant, ;hkl ho attempts to show that the cost included more than the land. On this land stood a brick building of no use to \tlie council-and which the Levy estate had to demolish at its own cost. The council now, in addition to receiving no value from this building, has to pay the cost (not included in his figures) of tlio demolition and save the Levy estate that amount. lie challenges the Mayor to disprove his valuation of the land acquired.. "Let the Mayor give a 1 straight unequivocal roply to this question: Why : did tho council authorise the Levy estate building to be erected and ton months afterwards acquire tho land at a cost of £33,784 when it could have ordered the building to have been set back the required distance and acquire/! the land at a cost of about £861)3—a dead loss of about £25,091. What caused the change of policy':" < The '■ Mayor admitted, continues Colonel M'Donald,*that the cost so far for the strip of land between Manners street and Wakofield street was £57,----540, or £1308 more than lie (Colonel M'Donald) made it, but to bo added to this was a liability of £2550 and certain other claims. No more complete endorsement of his allegations could have been made than the Mayor's startling admission. The Mayor stated that "the council still holds available for use of tho land purchased, land amounting in value to at least £6000." Would the Mayor state to what laud he referred. "The Mayor states that the widening of Luke's lane by Bft was necessay to improve that area. . I deny this, and tell the Mayor, what he already knows, that Luke's lano. was widened as a special condition of the agreement with tho Levy Estate, and that it was done for the special benefit of that estate in order to give it a back entrance wide enough to turn lorries, etc., in and to allow a cart dock to bo made in Luke's lane. The Mayor states that it is expected to obtain £3000 for the steel it holds. In a previous statement the Mayor stated that -this steel should cover the cost of demolishing the buildings. Where'will the £3000 be then ? . COUNCIL AND ITS OFFICERS. "The Mayor states that all the settlements were made by council officials and' approved by tho City Valuer. This is an unworthy attempt to remove tho responsibility for this colossal mess from the Mayor and council and place it on tho. shoulders of the ofntials. If tho council did not do it, then they have been guilty of gross neglect of their duty to tho ratepayers. Tho Mayor states that it is inconsistent to blame the council for not deferring these widening operations until after tho town-planning scheme is approved because it is blamed for not acting ho■ foro tho building was put up. This is ii. quibble, for the Mayor knows full well that there was no Town Planning Act in oxistenco when tho building was authorised.. . . "Tho Mayor's attempt to wriggle out of the council's failure to obtain the ,advantago of tho betterment provided for'in the Town Planning Act is ludicrous," continues tho statement. "All that was1 necessary, once the land had rboen purchased or otherwise acquired, was to make the widened street and then sell the b'alanco of tho land publicly and receive the full benefit for the betterment thus created. But, instead, tho council has let the ratepayers in for a huge sum and given back to the Levy Estate property considerably increased in value.at tho cost of the ratepayers, besides getting that estate out of all its difficulties, demolishing all its building, paying enormous compensation ;to the Levy Estate contractors and cortain employees, paying oft' a-1 mortgage .of £11,000, interest charges, etc., of £793 13s, and the coun.cil has to meet all other claims. 'The £33,784 above referred to includes compensation of £3400 paid to T. A. Wells, lessee of the Fox. Estato property, and £3600 to, W. A. Arnold,1 sub-lessee of T. A.-Wells. The council agreed also not to charge the Levy Estate any rates on the said property for tho financial, year 1027-28, Tho total rates payable oji tho property were about £200. The land was taken by proclamation with effect from 7th October, 1027, and the amount owing by the Levy Estate for rates up to that date was about £103. lls. On win sit ground, and for what reason, has the council remitted this sum for rates? The only lawful authority I know of is on the ground of extreme poverty under section 74 of tho Eating Act, 1925."