THE BRICK WALL BY-LAW

Hastings Standard, Volume III, Issue 866, 9 March 1899, Page 3

THE BRICK WALL BY-LAW

[To the Editor.]

Sir, —In thanking you and Council" lor Dennett for your valuable assistance in the matter of the brick walls controversy, I once more (and for the last time) ask yon to insert a few remarks regarding the above. In reference to the framing of a by-law to give redress to leaseholders, I obtained souni legal advice on this matter, and I was instructed that there was no difficulty in having a by-law framed that would meet the case in every way. la' Insurance Companies having to re-build according to the by-law, this is a bogie pure and simple. There is nothing in the provisions in any fire office to allow such conclusion to be drawn. Every business mau must be aware of the fact tbat the Insurance Companies have no option except to re-build or pay the amount of the risk. In obtaining further information as to how this matter is dealt with I obtained the advice of a well-known Councilor in a large city (not Masterton). The bye-law was there introduced block byblock, as the capital land yalue increased, and the expense was warranted. I wish, while dealing with this matter, to take as broad a view as possible, as I consider this township is much over-rated and its value overestimated. Regarding the petition presented, Councillor Hughes looked upon it as not a representative one, as it contained only 13 signatures, whereas if time permitted 30 names could have been obtained, as it is well known that two-thirds is leasehold. Councillor Hughes' interest represents a small leasehold in the town (partly protected by adjoining lessee) and like myself his freehold is in the suburbs. Councillor's Wellwood's remarks are not at all appropriate, as he has no interest in_ any part of the town. I would like him to inform me what building has been erected in Kelly's block that is better than the former buildings destroyed by thefire. No comparison. Cr Beecroft, by his haste in erecting the shops opposite the Union Bank, evidently took time by the forelock to evade the brick-wall by-law. The last Councillor to be dealt with is Cr Beiiby, whose interest commences and ends with keeping his stock well covered, as the building that his firm occuDies is the property of Messrs Williams ana Kettle. In conclusion I must remark that the above named Councillors have proved conclusively that they have no knowledge of municipal matters, or the simplest business details. As a sample 1 will deal with two 38ft sections. One in Kelly's block at £I,OOO capital value, the other my own section (leasehold) capital value £l5O. If I make the latter freehold can I erect a £SOO building on it (I mean can I borrow to build) I say no ; but the owner of the section in Kelly's block could do so readily. This is one proof of how harrassing the brick by-law will be to freeholders, not to mention leaseholders. The proper course of arriving at a correct value of property in localities where the by-law should be enforced is to I follow the increased capital value from I block to block. The passing of the I brick by-law was the most arbitrary anil

revolutinary measure ever passed in a small country township, and I again repeat without fear of contradiction, that if such obstructive enactments are to exist, a permanent injury will be inflicted upon the town by depriving it of its rate revenue, and on private individuals by m-iking the finest building sifrs valueless. The fact that one is prohibited I'rorn making the smallest addition—not even a closet—in the whole of the business portion of a country township (which claims the unenviable title of the largest borough in the world) shows the folly of the by-law. The greater portion of the prescribed area should not be included for a quarter of a century, even provided the town made good progress.— I am, &c., T. A. Hayes.