THE WIDENING OF PRINCES STREET SOUTH.

Evening Star, Issue 3795, 23 April 1875, Page 2

THE WIDENING OF PRINCES STREET SOUTH.

A special meeting of the City Council was held yesterday to consider the draft deeds of submission to arbitration -f the Corporation, and the Corporation tenan-. i tt Princes street South (between the Churoi property and Police street). The Mayor and all the Councillors were present. -

JheJWve. Committee as fol«perfused the proposed draft deeds of covenant ana submissions so arbitration m respect of widening that portton of Princes street south, abutting the Corporation reserve north of Police street. Tour committee is desirous to proceed with arbitration, hnt cannot by any means recommend the Council to agree to the draft as submitted. In re the matter of the Corporation tenants* arbitrators,' should' the case go to arbitration, your committee have no' objection to the tenants appointing their own arbitrators, provided arrangements can he made that the total cost of the arbitrators’ tees in respect of all the properties between Jetty and Police streets abn.li not exceed 600 guineas. Amotion to udopt the report having been ruled out of order, the Town Clerk read one of the deeds of submission. Mr Fish moved, “ That the acceptance of the draft deed as now: submitted would be prejudicial to the interests of the citizens ; that the same be remitted back to the Reserves Committee for such amendment as will provide only for compensation for the loss to tenants in moving back three years before they are compelled to by this agreement with the Council But under no circnmstanoe should the deed provide for compensation for present buildings, pulling down or re-erecting the same. [At the outset of his remarks, Cr. Fish was subjected to interruption, first upon points of order, and afterwards by Cr. Beck, who ex-, pressed the hope that interested persons would leave the Council Chamber.] No councillor had the slightest idea when voting for the widening of Princes street south ‘that the terhis were to be the same to the Corporation tenants as to the Manse tenants, consequently his surprise was very great when the deed was an exact copy of the : oue With" thh Manse tenants. In three years the Corfu'ration tenants would have to move back without compensation, and could it for a moment be fairly contended that they should be placed on the same footing as the Church tenants whohad fourteen years’leases to run? The effect ofthe deed under consideration would be that the Corporation tenants would be entitled to fc ceive valuation <or incidental losses, for v&kie of present erections and pres nt fixtures, to be paid for pulling down and removing buildings and re-ereoting the same, the extra cost of foundations, the loss of trade, the removal of stock and damage to same, the cost of fixtures additional premiums of insurance—in a word, he paid for everything which they would have to do at the end of three years without valuation. Were the advantages of having, the street widened three years'sooner worth puyiniraU this for? In his opinion: clearly the onlything the tenants could lay claim to would be interest for three years on the money that they would spend now in erecting buildings: also for the use of the 33ft'of ground during the" three years ; the construction of the retaining wallto keep the street up; also to some compensation for the accommodation they afforded to the Corporation by moving beokoimw.'.atv'ito request, instead of three years which compensation they would be fairly entitled to. Tn three cases the Corporation could contend that there was no lease at ail and it would be folly to arbitrate in such toses.’ He estimated a Corporation tenant would be entitled to receive as compensation about L 1.090, bit under this deed he would probably get near L 5,000. If the Council wished to&dn. serve thei citizens’ interests they Would pass his resolution. vT Cr. Kexvbs was not prepared to accept the deed as it stood, but would consider it clfcußs by danse. He had opposed the widening ?of Princes street, but that step having beep decided on by the C ouncil he wanted to see it given effect to, and not virtually 1 shelve s 'the matter, {as referring it back to the committee meant. , Cra. Walter, Merger, and Isaac strongly condemned giving the compensation nn.ni, d in the deed to tenants who, in less than tbree years, would themselves have to move back the 33ft, without compensation , Or. Walter concluded his remarks by moving “That this Council uanuot iagree. to the special conditions contained iu the deed of submission.” ; Cr. Prosser objected to the words “under no other circumstances ” in the motion. He thought the question of:what wasjfair <?opipe&. nation should be left to the arbitrators. proposed treatment of the Corporation tenants contrasted very unfairly and unfavorably With the liberal treatment of the Manse tenants, r Or. Fish having withdrawn the last part of his motion, Cr. Walter withdrew bis amendment. Cr. Grant believed the tenants only wanted what was fair., Originally .opposed to the widening, it having been carried that it should be done, the only way to get; it done was now to refer the matter to arbitration. V ; ; : Crs. Baron and Gibson characterised tfie deed as most one-sided, and the first-mentioned moved as an amendment—“ That this Council thinks it would be prejudicial to the nitons to commit them to a bargain s© greatly to their disadvantage as that embodied on the rough draft submitted for perusal.” Cr. Carroll was inclined to do away with arbitration, and so save arbitrators’ expenses and much legal expense. He moved—“ previous to adopting arbitration bonds hbdwpir. the Corporation and the tenants on poration sections Princes street south, tm*" tenants be requested to state what amount ‘they will be satisfied to take fur taking down atm removing back their buildings to the intended width of the street; this offer to be mad* withdutpifisjudice.” The Mayor also strongly condemned thk deed. The amendment of Or. Carroll Was carried and made the substantive motion, there voting for it Councillors Baron, Carroll, Fish (whs explained that, he so voted because he believed the course suggested by the amendment was the best), Gibson, Grant, Isaac, Reeves, and Wdbdland, and against it, Councillors Beck. Meroer Prosser, and Waiter. *