Greymouth Evening Star. AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1801. THE WAIL FROM BOUNDARY STREET.

Greymouth Evening Star, Volume XXXI, 18 February 1901, Page 2

Greymouth Evening Star. AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1801. THE WAIL FROM BOUNDARY STREET.

“ The only site is Boundary Street I” pleadingly aud despondingly wails our morning contemporary. “ Not a bit of objection to putting it further back,” As the Argus very sagely remarks, “ there is plenty of room further back.” As we before remarked, of course there is—over Preston Bridge, Cost, too, is no longer a matter of consideration to our contemporary. Buy Mr. Flannigan’s site “ for £620, it will always be worth the money.” Last week the same writer denounced in unmeasured terms the very idea of giving £SOO for an acre of ground in Mackay Street; but inconsistence is charming. Then says the Argus: “We should most decidedly prefer the hall erected in Boundary Street, where it will stand out conspicuous, as a town hall >.hould, to bo prominent in the eyes of everyone approaching the town from the sea, as well as being a centre at which several roads meet.” We presume what our contemporary moans by being “seen from the sea,” is by folks on board steamers in the roadstead. If this is the idea, would it not bo better to erect the hall, say, at the flagstaff? The building, if erected on the Argus’s pet spot, could not bo seou from the river ; of course, from the Argus door it could be seen standing forth in bold relief—a monument of municipal folly. Our contemporary retreats from his former contention that the site is a central one, and now states that it is a centre at which several roads meet ; so, by the way. is the crossing to the cemetery. Why not erect the hall there ? To wind up the strange contradictory story, the Argus says : “It may bo as well to point out in reply to the statement that the Church Trustees are privately offered £IOOO for what they offer to the borough for £SOO, that the terms of the Church Trustees’ lease precludes their transferring any part of the property for other than a public purpose.” This statement has no foundation of fact in it. The lease is a clear one to Messrs. Kettle and Thomas, exactly similar to other leases in town, and with all the rights to sub-let. Really, our contemporary should be more careful. But of town hall site we’ve had enough. Let the ratepayers decide.