CITY LEASES.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1695, 11 March 1913, Page 7

CITY LEASES.

MAYOR RAISES A POINT. - POSITION OF FREEHOLDERS. Speaking to a Dominion reporter yesterday on the subject of the city leaseholds and the agitation that has been raised by—tho' leaseholders against the terms under which the leases are held, his Worship the Mayor (Mr. David M'Laren) said that one important point had occurred to him as worthy of consideration, though it may not affect the main issue. It wa« a thought as to how owners of freehold properly, say, on I.ambton Quay and in that vicinity would be affected if the city corporation did take the cour.-o of varying the terms of the leases, and making the rental return less than, 5 per cent, on the capital value. It seemed to him that these leaseholders . would then have a distinct advantage in securing tenants over the owners of freehold properties in the same locality. It. was well known that some of the owners of freehold 'property carried mortgages on. them, on which they had to pay 5 per cent, or over. He knew of one who was paying 6 per cent, at the present time, yet they .would be competing against corporation leaseholders who wero getting from the city—that is, the public—properties on which they paid under 5 per cent, (on the capital value) iu rental. "It strikes me,".continued Mr. M.'l.aren, "that if we reduced the basis of rental to leaseholders we would inflict a hardship on freeholders, and would have a Freeholders' Association springing into existence.

"I have noted that the.most substantial businesses in the city have been built up nn city leaseholds. Now some of them talk of being compelled to pay a certain rental after U years, when the term of occupation has been 21 years—at an exceedingly low rental. • "It may .surprise von to know that one big firm near Lainbton Quay less rent to-day than tho corporation gets from Mr. Flockton for the old Fire Brigade Station in Manners Street. "These leaseholders now talk of a sort of co-partnership between the corporation and its tenants. Such a co-partnership could only mean the subsidising of one section of the business people at the expense of others, and allowing them (the leaseholders) to under-cut other propertyowners." '