BRICK AREA BY-LAW.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVII, Issue 4978, 24 May 1926, Page 2

BRICK AREA BY-LAW.

CTo the Editor J Sir,—Although one should treat your editorial of the 21st inst. with the contempt it desei;ves, I for one take great exception to your statements concerning the brick area. To my mind it indicates that your paper is purely a party organ, published for the purpose of stating one side of a question only and patting a minority on the back before giving the other fellow a chance. Your statements* concerning the attitude adopted by the majority of the council when voting is diametrically opposed to the truth, and constitutes a distinct insult to those councillors who did not hesitate to support what was in their opinion a very reasonable request, and who had clauses 87 and 88 of the" borough by-laws to support them in their a'ction. Your editorial would lea,d the public to suppose that the council, was dealing with an application for new premises to be erected on the boundary line facing the main street footpath, whereas it/was. merely a detached she'd or workshop to be erected behind already existing premises—a very different thing. But for till: shed we should have the sorrowful sight of an empty shop. Now that the-application has been granted we are to have the shop oc’cupied. Which is preferable ? On this, contentious point we may agree to differ. Your remarks* anent the desirability Of the brick area :are in the main fully ap-p-"c.c rated by'all members of the council, and I venture to say that not one would oppose the enforcing thereof when applied to new structures abutting on 'and facing the main street ; heaico you need have no fear on that point. The vital question which presents itself on this occasion is, "Was the erection of this particular shed casing any grave breach effi the bylaws ? ’ I think not, and acting upon the discretionary powers, which are rightly given in clauses* 87 and 88, a • majority.of the couricil (of which I have the honour to be one) also did not think so. Whilst respecting the opinion of the minority who opposed, I still think that no serious breach of the by-laws has been caused. All ’ future applications for building can be dealt with on their merite.

The legal opinion expressed by the solicitor of the Municipal Association does not count for much in this instance, because in my opinion, and that of either councillors, .the whole peculiar facts of this application were not fully placed before him. A legal opinion from a local . solicitor, expressed in' a letter to the council, why this application should be granted, was far more 'convincing. The hoighth of insolence in your editorial is reached when you take it upon younself to warn the burgesses to act more wisely when again appointing representatives to> the Borough Council, and when you condemn a majority of the council 'for ,the reason that their actions in connection with this matter wtere inconsistent; they they were swayed by personal feelings and did not a!ct in the interests of the ratepayers. Have you the authority of the ratepayers ,to make such pernicious statements ? Are they not a distinct reproach on the honour and integiity of men (bld residents) who a.re conscientiously devoting a good deal of time and giving their services free For the sole purpose of assisting the progress, of the borough ? Small wonder that many desira.ble citizens do not offer themselves as candidates for public office. I take your harmful remarks as a direct pensonal, insult, inasmuch as that 1 was not swayed by any persona.} feelings in the matter; nor do I admit for a moment that I have “betrayed the public interest.” Are we not ontitled tpi express our honest opinions without the ftigma of being publicly slandered in the columns of your paper ? G. P. de CASTRO. .