NEW OUTLET FOR CITY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LI, Issue 15718, 19 September 1914, Page 5

NEW OUTLET FOR CITY.

JERMYN STREET SCHEME.

OPENING OF COMMISSION.

THE FINANCIAL ASPECT.

The commission of inquiry into the City Councils proposal to re-form and widen Jermyn Street and Beach Road, for the purpose of making a new outlet from the city, commenced its sittings yesterday morning at the Magistrate's Court befo.o Mr. C. C. Kettle, K.M.; commissioner appointed, by the Government. The matters scheduled for inquiry were:-1. Whether or not the proposal 'of the council to take the land is a reasonable and proper one, causing no undue hardship to the owners and occupiers of the adjoining property, or of the lands proposed to be taken. 2. Whether any private injury will be done by the taking of such lands tor which due compensation is cot provided by the Public Works Act, 1903 3 Whether the council has made provision for the payment of compensation, which would probably be awarded fur the land proposed to be taken. The city solicitor, Mr. Stanton represented the City Council. Objector's, being property-owners and tenants oi property , in the streets concerned, were present or 1 represented as follows: Auckland University College Council and George Brown (Mr. Prendergast); J. Norman j Rishworth, Mrs. Baird, the Vacuum Oil • Company, and the Fen ton trustees (Mr. Richmond) ; Wilson and Cauham (Mr. Hanna) ; H. J. Marett (Mr. Mahonyi ; j Rebecca Groat (Mr. Massevi; Andrew ' Fernandez (Mr. Hesketh) ; Briscoe and Co., A. S. Patterson and Co. (Mr. Rusi sell); John Endean (Mr. W. P. Kndean) ; ■ Elizabeth Cahill; Kate Berber; A.-nes E. Colgan; Mary Jane Phillis and Francis Smith. The commissioner decided to first- take evidence on clause 3, .as to the provision by the council of finance for competition purposes. G. B. Osmond, land and estate agent, in reply to Mr. Stanton, stated that he had valued the land proposed to be taken. He computed the values, including ail freehold interests, at the following sums: — Jermyn Street North, £42,095 ; Jermvn Street South, £514,455 10s; Beach Road, £115,260; total, £171.810 10s. The witness was cross-examined in detail by Mr. Richmond and other counsel as to his valuations of individual properties in the area concerned. The commissioner suggested that evidence should be adduced to show what sum the council had made provision for wherewith to pay compensation. Mr. Stanton said no specific provision had yet been made, but the council was prepared to provide all that would be necessary. The commissioner said it would save time if the parties making objections would agree amongst themselves as to the amount which should be provided for compensation. Mr. Richmond said that would not be possible. There had been no' meeting of the property-owners. He would sav. however, that at least £100.000 more than tho witness's valuation would be required to I reinstate the occupiers of Jermvn Street in equally desirable homes elsewhere. The continuation of cross-examination of the witness as to details of valuations was the subject of several protests by Mr. Stanton, who contended that the information thus extracted was giving the objectors an unfair advantage over the council The commissioner said it was difficult for him to restrict the cross-examination. At the same time he would only admit the e\idence so obtained on condition that it should not be used against the council in any proceedings before the Compensation Court. Mr. Richmond said he could not consider himself bound by that condition. Mr. Kettle sjid it would be unfair to use the commission for the purpose of obtaining evidence of values and using it afterwards in the Compensation Court. Mr. Stanton said that if the cross-exam-ination were allowed to proceed he would have to ask for an adjournment of the commission in order to ascertain from the council itself whether it would have any further evidence called. He contended that as to values only evidence as to lump sums should be taken. The commissioner then asked witness whether in his opinion, £171,810 10s would be ample to provide for compensation? Witness replied in the affirmative. City's Sound Financial Position.

The Mayor of Auckland. Mr. C. J. Parr, said the council had obtained confidential valuations of ea*h pioperty in both streets. He took strong exception to any of the parties being allowed to obtain details of the individual valuations. Such a course would prejudice the council and the ratepayers. Tho outlet scheme would greatly improve the localitv. The land between the newly - formed streets would give a large asset, and in addition the council was seeking authority from Parliament to borrow £50,000. The genera] account of the city was quite competent to finance the schemeThe electric light and power scheme was financed to the extent of £160.000 out of that account. There was also £50,000 on fixed deposit in the district fund account available at once for payment of compensation. The council would not have to pay alii claims in cash. Nearly nil the business] men in the area were prepared to take land on the newly-formed Beach Road, but. even if the whole amount of compensation had to be paid in cash, the district fund account of the council _ was in such a prosperous condition that it could finance the scheme with ease.

Council Could Devote £200,000 to Scheme

Mr. Neville Newcomb appearing as a ratepaver asked the Mayor if, in view of the war. he did not think it would be difficult to finance the scheme. Mr. Parr replied in the negative. He had considered the matter in the licht of the war, but was so impressed with the importance of the scheme, and the soundness of the citv's financial position, that he had urged that the proposal should be gone on with without delay. John S. Brigham, city treasurer, put in a summary of the City Council's bal-ance-sheet for the year ended March 31 last. This showed a surplus of assets over liabilities amounting to £1.330.646 Witness added that the city's revenue for the. present, vear was expected to exceed £300.000. The council would have no Gitfiedtv in finding the sum of £200,000 to devote to the Jennyn Street scheme.

I Evidence ot Objectors. I Several of the tenants in attendance, ! boardinghouse-keepers. supported their : own objections to the taking of the properI ties occupied bv them, and advanced rea- [ sons for prospective claims for compensation. ~ . _ . The objection of the Auckland University College Council was stated by Mr. j Prendergast. The p-oposed r-adwav was to run right through the university site > which the council purposed huvme in its I entirety. Mr. Stanton, however, had i eiven him an assurance that the university ! would not- be disturbed for some considerable time. i Citizens' Committee. Charles Rhodes, chairman of the Citizens' Committee appointed to go into the matter, stated that as a result of conferences held with valuers the committee had come to the conclusion that if the council bought the whole of the land a profit was practically assured. Corroborative evidence was giver by Oeoree Elliot, another member of the commute" Walter E. Rush, city engineer, expressed the opinion that the scheme \ra-s a reasonable « nd proper one. Neville Newcomb. a land agent, appealed and contended that the council ought to take only as much land as was required for the purposes of the new outlet. It was not fair for the council to gamble with the people's property. Coojisel representing tho various objectors addressed th« commissioner, who then [adjourned th« inquiry until 10 a.m. to-day.