RE THE MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS.

Feilding Star, Volume XVI, Issue 260, 7 May 1895, Page 2

RE THE MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE STAR. Sir,— l have read the letters in your issue of to-day appearing over the respective names of E. Giesen and C. L. Maclean. With regard to the letter of the latter, I would say that I consider it would have been in far better taste if (having as he professes to have any real interest in the matter) Mr Maclean had attended the public meeting on Wednesday evening last, and had there given expression to his views instead of lying by, and after the meeting had decided in favor of the Council's proposals, rushing into print, seeking to condemn them. And upon what grounds does Mr McLean seek to condemn these proposals ? What valid or reasonable argument does he put forth ? Absolutely none. Why, sir, Mr McLean is not even consistent : he objects to the Council borrowing to build on the Kimbolton road-Stafford street site, yet advocates the acceptance of the offer of the Corporation to lend the money to erect the buildings in the Square, which, sir, would entail the striking of even a higher rate than the one now proposed to be struck, the offer of the Corporation being to lend the money at 6 per cent, whereas the Council has arranged for the same at 5 per cent. How can Mr Maclean say that the Council have been in a hurry to accept the Kiinbolton road- Stafford street site? Does he not know that it has taken the Council two years to obtain it ? I am astonished at Mr Maclean, a genleman having a legal education, even hinting that there can be no valid public reason why the proposition of the Corporation to erect the buildings in the centre of the Square could not bo adopted. Surely, as a solicitor, Mr Mr Maclean must know that it is not in the power of the Council to block up any portion of a public road by the erection of buildings thereon. Mr Maclean's reference to the promissory note is apparently put forth to lead the ratepayers to suppose, that by sanctioning the striking of a penny rate, they will incur some awful risk. " I fail to see, sir, wherein the same lies. This reference to the promissory note is not a happy one for Mr Maclean, as it applies with equal force to the Square as a site as it does to the Eimbolton road-Staf-ford street site. Surely Mr Maclean must know that is necessary to strike a rate in order to give the lender some guarantee that the ratepayers will pay the interest. I trust, sir, there are but few of the ratepayers who would place so little trust in the Council as does your correspondent Mr Maclean. With regard to the letter of Mr Giesen. Sir, we all know Mr Giesen. Whatever Mr Giesen says must be correct. Why, you may ask? Well, I answer — because Mr Giesen says so. Mr Giesen says there are no insuperable difficulties in the way of placing the building in the Square even in the centre of the cross roads because neither of the roads nor the Square have even been dedicated to the public. But, sir, this time Mr Giesen is not right, he is wrong, absolutely wrong, and he knows it. Mr Giesen knows, and on the evening of the public meeting referred to* above, admitted to myself and others that the roads had been dedicated to the public, and that it was owing to an oversight on the part of the officers of the Corporation that they had been so dedicated, and I, sir, am in a position to show conclusively by public documents that Eimbolton road and Manchester street, as they now run through the Square, are public roads vested in Her Majesty the Queen, and for the reason that they are public roads no body public, or private, Council or Corporation, has a right to block up any portion or portions thereof by the erection of buildings thereon. I refer here particulirly to the Corporation, because both General Feilding and Mr Giesen argued that the whole Square as shown on the public plan of the town belonged to the Corporation — in fact Mr Giesen even went so far as to suggest that the Council should apply to the Corporation to transfer the Square to them. Had the Council acceded to this, what would - have been the position with regard to the Denbigh Square ? I am aware, as Mr Giesen points out, that the Council has power to divert a road, but surely Mr Giesen would not attempt to argue that the power so given to divert a road implies a power to build on any portion of the road to be diverted. Mr Giesen is mistaken when he says that I gave as a reason why the building should not be erected in the Square that they could overshadow the surrounding buildings. What I said was that in consequence of the large buildings abutting on the Square, the Municipal Buildings (if erected on the centre of th« Square) would require to be large and imposing, otherwise they would be completely dwarfed by the larger surrounding buildings, and would in con* trast therewith look ugly and squat. The suggestion to erect the buildings in the centre of the Square come from General Feilding, and he, sir, gentleman as he is, finding the deputation from the Council was not in accord with his views, bowed to their decision and yielded to their wishes. He did not seek to thrust his views down their throats. I am, &c, W. A. Sandilands. Feilding, 4th May, 1895.