CITY COUNCIL.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1159, 21 June 1911, Page 8

CITY COUNCIL.

HEAVY LIST OF MOTIONS. A STAFF COMMITTEE. A special meeting of the City Council was held last night. Present: Councillors J. Smith. (Deputy-Mayor), Fletcher, Shirtcliffe, M'Lareu, Cameron, Fuller, Barber, M'Kenzie, Fitzgerald, Atkinson, Godber, Frost, Trevor, and Hindniarsh. Councillor M'Laren moved:— That a Stall' Committee be appointed to deal with all matters affecting the relations of the council to the corporation: employees respecting conditions of employment and service. Re said ho believed that such a committee would do a great deal of useful work, and would enable the council to [ better understand the circumstances 'surrounding any disputes between the cciuncil and any of its employees. It would also gather information as to conditions of employment under other municipalities. After a. brief discussion the motion was rejected- by 9 votes to three. A POSSIBLE SLUM. Dr. Cameron moved:— That the following resolution passed at the meeting of the council held on the 6th day of April, 1911 i be rescinded viz.:—That the sections of land at Adelaide Eoad and Gibbon Street be sold by public auction. Dr. Cameron said that this property being on three main tramlines would be very valuable. It was in a central position, and would make good sites for factories. This was not a good time at which to sell property. Another thing was that in King Street (of.which part of the property in question was an'extension) tho city had an area that nearly approached a slum. At one time it had compared with Haining Street/ If the block proposed to be sold fell into the hands of the "jerry-builder" or speculator ho would obtain a return of something like It per cent, by erecting cottages of an undesirable class. As thero was a danger of a slum area being created in this locality, the council should not lose control of the sections it was now proposed to sell. If eventually sold, a condition should be insisted upon that would make Glum-building impossible. The front portion of the sections should in any case be retained by tho council. In seconding,. the motion, Councillor fiarber expressed the opinion that the whole of the corporation property fronting Adelaide Eoad should be dealt with in a comprehensive way. Many of the buildings on this property were an eyeifrjre, owing to their dilapidation, and should be pulled down. Adelaide Eoad might be compared with Papanui Eoad in Christchurcli, and could be mode an equally desirable residential locality. Councillor Shirtcliffe said the property was at present worth JE6QOO. The council was losing rates and interest on this amount, and, all things being considered, would continue to suffer a loss of .£3OO or ■£400 a year, so long as the property was held out of use. The revenue which could be derived from the land if it were sold would materially help to meet the horso tramway loan ot .£20,000, when it fell due. The money obtained from the sale could be devoted to the same purpose. As to what Councillor Cameron had said, surely the council could control the jerry-build-er. In any case, it would not pay to erect any save substantial buildings on this land. The decision to sell this land had been arrived at under legal advice. Councillor M'Laren supported the motion. The city should' hold on to all the land that it had got. It had to pay through tho nose when it bought land, and the plea that the city was losing on the , land was not a sufficient ground for selling it. The council had never considered tho question of properly administering its property in Adelaide Eoad. Councillor M'Kenzie supported tho motion. , ~ Councillor Trevor expressed thn opinion that if the land wero sold solid brick buildings would be erected upon it. It was truo that the land was not worth as much as it was ten.or-fifteen years ago, but if it were'held'for another twenty years a large sum would be lost in rates. The deputy-Mayor opposed the motion. Councillor Atkinson said it was no use 'making all this fuss in view of the alternatives before the council. It could only sell tho land or offer a. 21 years lease that 'would attract nobody.. If they decided not to sell the land they must move to amend the law' so that a longer lease could be given. . . The motion was carried on a division by eight votes to six. NEW COMMITTEE PROPOSED. Councillor Fitzgerald moved :- "That a committee of five (5) members be formed as an Electric Lighting Committee, to deal with all matters pertaining Jo the electric lighting department." Supporting his motion. Councillor Fitzgeraid claimed that the Electric and Tramway Departments were eacn large enough to warrant the ment of separate committees. The Electric Lighting Department was essentially a trading concern, and had to compete with one of the strongest corporations in New Zealand. The tramways were . not being too well looked after, at the present time, and yet the affairs of the Lighting Department were invariably made subsidiary to tramway affairs. Unquestionably the time had arrived when tneso two departments should be separated. The Electric Lighting Department was being ueglected. . Councillor Fletcher, seconded the motion. Unlike tho mover, he considered that the Tramway Department was very well conducted, but the Lighting Department was at present neglected.. Councillor Hindinarsh opposed tho motion. Tho reason ; tha,t tramway matters bulked more largely on the'order, paper than those of the Lighting Department was that the latter department ran more smoothly. Committees were of less importance than the experts who managed the departments. - The committee, to a ereat extent, should leave the expert Councillor ShirtclifEe said Councilloi Fitzgerald had not brought down any concrete statement that ono could reply to. Tho actual position was that the Lighting Department had been extremely well managed, and the speaker could not understand Councillor Fitzgerald's allegation that it was being mismanaged. The Deputy Mayor thought it might prove very inconvenient if tho joint management of the Tramway and Lighting Department had to deal with two committees. He would oppose the moA - division was taken and Councillor Fitzgerald's proposal was defeated on tho casting vote of the deputy-Mayor. INSPECTING BUILDING TIMBEB. Councillor M'Kenzie moved— "That the By-laws Committee consider tho advisability of having a by-law drafted bv the City Solicitor providing that all timber, new and old, shall be subject to inspection prior to use in any building constructed within, the. city of Wellington, and. that no timber shall bo used in any building except such as has been approved. ' . Speaking in support of his motion, Councillor M'Kenzie said his attention had been drawn to buildings in the outlying districts, classed as new, but built of timber so poor that a penknifo could be forced through tho boarding. The buildings were erected by "jerry builders" for sale, and were usually unloaded on men who could ill afford tho responsibility. Councillor Shirtcliffo thought the motion was in tho right direction. Whatever the powers of the council, there would bo no harm in having the matter considered by the By-laws Committee. It should be insisted that all buildings should bo erected of properly-seasoned timbers. Councillor Fletcher asked if the city inspectors did not at present attend tc this sort of thing. Tho deputy-Mayor replied in the affirmative. Councillor Trevor took it that if Councillor M'Kcnzie's proposal were adopted two or three additional inspectors would have to bo employed. Tho .speaker did not think so much bad material was going into.buildings as some peoplo imagined. Councillor Frost said he had.examined many buildings in the city and couli: support Councillor M'KenaVs allegation; that a great deal of "sappy" timber wa.; being worked into building?. Too motion was carried on the voices.