CITY BRICKWORKS.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 20076, 12 October 1920, Page 10

CITY BRICKWORKS.

COUNCIL DECIDES HOT TO BUY, A PROPOSAL DEFEATED, The City Council has decided not to in to the brickmakiug business, inis decision was arrived at last evenitrg alter the discussion,®f a special report. the Brickyard Committee recommended that the council should purchase, at a cost of £Booo,' a property consisting of 7J acres of land, at the foot oi tire hills in St. Martins, with kiln and chimney stack, dryer with bricks, brickmaking ‘machine complete with electric motor, engine and boiler, tramways, motor-house and sheds, and wfitcr supply. The committee reported that the land included a high bank of goed clay, but that an estimate of the quantity of day could not be-arrived ax without a number of bores being sunk. The brick kifn. was capable of holding £IO,OOO bricks, and the. dryer 25,000 bricks. The ■ preporty was at present owned by Air John Brightling. Councillor H.. T. Armstrong moved that the report should bo adopted. There was a serious shortage of house-;, and the council should do whatever it could to improve the position. The tenders for the workers’ homes in Sydenham showed that the cost- would be prohibitive to the average man. None of tho tenders was under £IOOO. The tenants would, therefore, have to pay 25s in interest alone. Councillor J. W. Beanland said that 27s a week would cover interest and principal. Councillor Armstrong said that the weekly profit from the brickyard would amount to £37, allowing £2OO for revenue and £163 for expenses, including £BO for the wages of sixteen men, £63 for coal, £5 for oils, £5 for.electric power, and £lO for interest on the money borrowed. Tho proposition was sound aud businesslike, and it would lessen the cost of House construction to the worker. Councillor H. Hunter seconded the motion. Councillor E. F. Stead said that he hardly believed that a yard was for sale that would return a profit of 50 per cent to tho purchaser. Councillor (A P. Agar said that he thought the figures were valueless. For one thing, no provision had been made for the cost of delivery of bricks. Councillor E. H. Andrews said the yard was one of two which had been abandoned by the owner, for a reason which was not stated. He believed that Councillor Armstrong's figures would not stand investigation, and he was opposed to the purchase. Councillor PI. E. Langley said that Councillor Agar was inconsistent. He had urged increased production but he would not supporf the purchase of a property that would'mean mors bricks. Councillor J. TV. Beanland said that with tho increased cost of coal he did nob think that the council would, be able to run the yard properly. Other propositions of the kind had not proved payable. He could not support the proposal. It had to be considered that only about two-thirds of the bricks would be turned out free of fault. Councillor F. Cooko said that the council should secure control of, the source of supply wherever possible. Councillor H. F. Herbert said that he would like more information before ho supported the purchase. Councillor E. F. Stead asked if Councillor Armstrong hud had access to the books of the present owner. Councillor Armstrong,, in reply, said that there was no separate account for this yard, which had been closed for a time owing to a shortage of .coal. The only argument against tho proposal was that it was too .good to be true. It was suggested that the'yard would not pay. Nothing paid, in this country; neither dairy factories, nor sheep-farms, nor meat works, The motion was defeated by eleven votes to live. Those in favour of the proposal were the Mayor and Councillors F. Cooke, 'E. E. Langley, H. T. Armstrong and H. Hunter. f; I believe in municipal - trading,” said the- Mayor, explaining his vote,