KAIKORAI TRAMS

Evening Star, Issue 18852, 29 January 1925, Page 4

KAIKORAI TRAMS

EXTENSION OF LEASE BEYOND 1939 REFUSED. NO DISADVANTAGE TO COMPANY. In connection with the application of the Kaikorai Tramways Company to the City Council for a further right of renewal of its tramway concussion after the expiration of the current term m 1939, Cr Taverner (chairman of the Finance Committee) made a statement at the meeting of the council last night. The report of the Finance Committee on the matter was : —“ In accordance with instructions, your committee begs to report on the letter dated November 29, 1924, from the Kaikorai Tramways Company, in which the company asks that provision be made in its deed of delegation for a further right of renewal of the tramway concession after the expiration of the current term, which expires in 1939. The original dedication of the council's rights was granted to the company in 1897 for a period of twenty-one years, with option of renewal for another twenty-one years. The option has been duly exercised. Your committee is strongly of opinion that os a matter of policy it is not desirable that provision should be made in the renewed deed for any additional extension of the company’s concession beyond 1939.” Cr Taverner said that councillors were no doubt familiar with the position. It w;is the committee’s duly to look at the matter not from a tramway point of view, but from the point of view of policy, and in doing so the committee, unanimously came to the decision that the deed of delegation should not be disturbed. The committee thought that the time to consider the future operation of the line would be when the deed was approaching its expiration. It was entered into in 1897 for a period of forty-two years, or two terms of tweuty-ono years. When the first term of twenty-one years expired some delay ensued in regard to certain detail matters before the second term was definitely arranged. There was no obligation on'the city’s part to purchase at Ihe end of the term. There was no intention at the present, time, nor would there, he in the future, to place the company at a disadvantage by endeavoring to lleeee it t’r Wilson said the Kaikorai Company apparently,had no confidence in (lie emini.ihs which it would have to deal with in future.

Cr Douglas said lie had been pleased to hoar the statement of the chairman about the Kaikorai Tram Company. They should give the company assurance that the council would deal fairly and vcastmahly with it. Cr Mai-Manus contended that the company had not shown consideration to the public by extending the service or running early trains to catch the early trains. He was of opinion they should imt meet those people or have, anything to do with them. On behalf of Cr Mitchell, Cr Clark moved pro forma that the clause with reference to the .Kaikorai tramway deed of delegation he referred bad;. He expressed himself as quite against extending the concession to trie company heynm! the present period. The present deed would enable the council - eventually to acquire the company’s property at a price that was fair to the citizens and fair to the company. The council was at present giving the company a moat generous deal.

The amendment lapsed for want of a seconder.

The report of (he roinmiHee was adopt ed.