VALUABLE LAND FOR HEBREW COMMUNITY

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 151, 16 September 1927, Page 12

VALUABLE LAND FOR HEBREW COMMUNITY

AREA IN KARANGAHAPE ROAD SITE FOR MEMORIAL HALL A LONG-DELAYED decision w„ -*■ reached by the City Council last even.n S «h«n it decided, on the recommer dat.on of the Park. Comm.ttee, to agree to \eit an are. of 20 perc hes, in K .rangahap* Road, near tf e new women’s rest room, sn the Hebrew congregation. This property and its ultimate l.as been the subject of consideration by the City Council ever since Mav 1924. when the congregation first sought possessicn of the land with th«. idea of erecting on it a Hebrew Com munal Alemorial Hall. The property !* on portion of the old cemetery site allotted to the Hebrew community In 1924 the council turi ed down the request, and repented this in 1926. This year, however, the request has been strenuously advanced, and the committee decided to recommend it beina vested in the congregation. This recommendation was made at the last meeting of the council, and was referred back. Last evening the committee reported that it had no alternative to offer. A lengthy discussion, on lines similar to that of a fortnight ago, immediately resulted. Cr. A. J. Entrican said he had no option but to that the requestor the Hebrew cor gregation be declined. The council had no right whatever to give the ownership of the land to anyone. HISTORY OF THE AREA Cr. Melville, seconding C’r. Entrican’s I motion, reviewed the history of the area, and sr id that the land was vested in Bishop Selwyn in 1843 there being about 22 acres. Later, by separate Crown grant an acre of the land was granted to the use of the Hebrew people, but only for burial purposes. At a still later date when interments were discontinued the land was vested in the city on a very definite trust. The terms of the trust quite definitely bound the land down as a burialground or public reserve. The council had no right whatever to dc anything with the land Cr. Coyle remarked that if that was the law it had been broken lung ?,gu. The Catholics had a church on their area for years, and the Anglicans, a house. Cr. Kpight said the council could not allow the hall to be built without committing a most improper action. “ONLY EQUITABLE” Crs. Eady and Phelan considered that the council had no right to the j land, which in equity belonged to the J Hebrew congregation. I Cr. Allum: None of this land hat I a half-penny of commercial value. I We are simply agreeing to trans- 1 fer the trusteeship from a particu- | lar community to portion, of that I “If it was a change of trusteeship I might support it, but it is an attempt to gain the fee simple,” remarked Cr. S. I. Crookes. ! Cr. Phelan remarked that the council had taken * part of the land and built a rest-room on it. The ma joritv of the councillors spoke on the question. “TOO ABSURD FOR WORDS” Cr. Bennett said it was too absurc for words to talk of alienation. When the Grafton bridge was built the City Council itself took land which people held title :o, ordered the removal of the graves, and gave no compensation at all. Cr. Brinsden: Councillors say “What will the citizens say?” They forget that one of the Hebrew community left this city hundreds of thousand* of pounds’ worth of property, and now we are storming about us giving a tiny bit of land for them to buLd a memorial on. Citizens can say what they like I vote for giving it. Cr. Entrican’s amendment to the committee’s recommendation was sent to a division, Crs. Entrican, Crooke*. Alelville, Dempsey. Stallworthy, Basten. Knight ar.d Copsey voting for it The committee’s recommendation was adopted.