THE STREET=WIDENING SCHEME. Is the Game Worth the Candle ?

Free Lance, Volume II, Issue 75, 7 December 1901, Page 8

THE STREET=WIDENING SCHEME. Is the Game Worth the Candle ?

IN view of the recent award of the Compensation Court, we should say decidedly not Let the facts speak The City Fathers took the property of Mrs Compton, in Riddiford-street, for the purpose of widening that thoroughfare. They offered .£lOOO for it, the price being calculated at the rate of £15 a foot It was valued at that amount for the Tax Department. The Corporation lecently purchased from Dr Collins property close to Mrs. Compton's, on the same side of the street, and half as deep again as hei's, for £17 per foot Mrs Compton claimed £2000 for hei allotment (from 50ft to 60ft deep), with buildings upon it, or at the rate of £35 a foot for both frontages, the buildings being valued at £540 After hearing a great deal of evidence, the Court, consisting of Judge Edwards (president), and Messis Harcourt and Lockie, as assessors for claimant and Corporation respectively, gave a majority award for £1644, and with the added costs it will practically spell £1800 for the Corporation. The Court, of course, did its best to arrive at a just and equitable decision. • • • Judge Edwards m delivering the award, made it evident that he had been lmjDressed by the evidence of a Mr Pearman, who had occupied Mrs. Compton's property as a wood and coal yard This witness said he would have

given £40 a foot for it, and when he had to make way for the Corporation he obtain d another property of Mrs Compton's, on the other side of the street, at £20 a foot. But it does not appeal- to have come out in evidence that this Mr Pearman is Mrs. Compton's brothei. It might have made a difference m the judge's mind. However, that is apart from our purpose, which is not to enter into the merits of this particular case The City Fathers have been buying experience in the street improvement line, and been paying for it at a very steep price Take the "Byko" corner site, m Willis-street, as an instance It is high time they put their considering caps on, and turned this dearly-bought experience to account » ♦ • The object and inevitable effect of street-widening is to enhance largely the value of property along the widened streets Unless, therefore, the property-owners who whl be benefited are prepared to meet the Corporation half-way, and sell a portion of their frontages at a erasonable price, the scheme should either be hung up indefinitely, or abandoned altogether for the present. Il will be enough for the Corporation to fix a fair price, make it their ultimatum, and decline to buy until all the interested property-owners can arrange to sell at that figure ■* » » Another point Judge Edwards ha& more than once expressed an opinion about the unsuitabihty of a tribunal composed of a Supreme Court judge and two assessors for deciding these compensation cases We agree with him. The assessors are practically the advocates for the contending sides, and the judge, who may have no special qualifications for determining land values, has to act as referee between two umpires of extremely divergent views What •is wanted is a jury of experts, able to bring experienced judgment to bear, and selected because of their independence. In the meantime, the City Fathers had better ring-off their street-widening project Give it a rest