TOWN HALL SITE.

Greymouth Evening Star, Volume XXXI, 14 February 1901, Page 2

TOWN HALL SITE.

It is advanced by our morning contemporary to-day in support of Boundary Street as a site for a Town Hall " that the street can be reduced to 40 feet." Our contemporary is in error. Sub-section 3 of clause 212 says : " Every street shall not be less than sixty-six feet wide measured at right angles to its course." Subdivision " e" of the same clause states that the Council shall have power " to increase or to diminish the width of any street, provided the width shall in no case be diminished to less than sixty-six feet." Again, section 226 declares that " every private street shall be sfxty-six feat wide, measured at right angles to its course." Clause 236, upon which our contemporary relies, does not apply, as it referrs to new streets and not to those already in existence. Besides, it is qualified. It follows : " Where the configura|ion of any borough is such as that within any particular area or areas thereof it is difficult or inexpedient to construct streets of the width of sixty-six feet as required by this Act, on application by the Council, the Governor-in-Council may by Order-in-Council authorise the Council to permit within such area or areas the construction of streets and private streets of a width of less than sixty-six feet but not less than forty feet, provided that within the limits so defined the provisions of sub-section three of clause 212 thereof and of section 226 hereof shall apply." Both the section quoted in the proviso, declare that streets shall be not less than sixty-six feet in width. But failing this, adds our contemporary, if there is not room, put the building futher back where there is plenty of room. Oh, of course, put it back by all means, say across Preston Bridge, there is plenty of room there. Or, by the way, the slaughter yards must be removed shortly, and there is " plenty of room there." " There is nothing," says our contemporary, "in the contention that either site possesses any advantage over the other in respect to the cost of sinking a foundation." Yet in yesterday's Argus it was advanced as an all sufficient reason against the Mackay Street site that it would cost £3OO to fill up. We fear with our contemporary " it is too many cooks," etc., and one cook does not note what ingredients the other cooks have already put in. Hence the " soup " is generally a " hotch-potch."