STRATFORD'S PROBLEM.

Taranaki Daily News, 30 September 1920, Page 6

STRATFORD'S PROBLEM.

THE RAILWAY RESERVE. FREEHOLD y, LEASEHOLD TENURE. DISCUSSED AT PUBLIC MEEfLXG. (From Our Own Correspondent..) Stratford, Sept. 28. For some years the buildings ferected on the railway reserve on the eastern side of Broadway Central have constituted an eyesore to Stratford people, and various attempts have been made to secure audi conditions for the lessees as would result in buildings iejng erected which wcu Mbe a credit to the town. The iirst step this direction had been reached by fbv.'-.iging the leases - under the lur. sdietion of the Thorough by-laws, and when this was obtained a movement was started, on the suggestion of Mo. R. Masters, M.P., with the object of urging upon the Government the desirability of selling the freehold of the land. The matter was discussed at a recent conference between the Borough Council and the Chamber of Commerce, at which it was unanimously resolved to petition Parliament to pass legislation to allow of the freehold being granted. As the outcome of that conference, a public, meeting was convened by the Mayor (Mr. J. W. McMillan) for the purpose of allowing all parties interested to discuss the question, and this meeting was held in the Municipal Chambers last nisht. There was an attendance of 34 citizens, including a large proportion of the present tenants of the leasehold properties, who from the outset of the meeting indicated that they were opposed to the freehold being granted. After the Mayor had briefly stated '.he purpose for whfeh the meeting had been called, the town elerk (Mr. P. Skogluml) read the proposed petition, the chief points of which are as follows: Thai the centre 6f the Borough of Stratford comprises an area of land beinc a railway reserve extending in Broadway on the cast side from *he Pntea river northwards, to section 290, and in Juliet Street from Fenton Street northwards to lot 1 of section 26f1.

That hitherto the requirements of the | Kail wily Department were indeterminate, \ and that a possibility existed that por- j tions of snch land might be needel for ! railway purposes. That' definite derision has now been made that the Stratford railway station shall btr"removed to a site about sixty (hains southward. That the - future requirements of the Railway Department will not demand the ownership of these, lands excepting sufficient for railway track. That the existence of leasehold land generally, and particularly of so large ijn area," is of grave disadvantage to tlio lown of Stratford. That the sale of these lands would realise £125.000 approximately. ( That, such a sum-would provide cost of urgent railway improvements and alterations. That it will be "really 1o the advantage of the town ,ol' Stratford and your petitioners that the fee simple of the said Kail way Reserve be sold and vested in private ownership. | Mr. W. H. TI. Young moved that, the petition- be circulated, and when complete, presented to Parliament by Mr. "R. Masters, M.P. The motion was seconded by Mr. W. McDonald, one of the lessees. Mr. \V. Abraham opposed the petition, contending that the sale of the freehold wuuld not b e in the best interests of the town. He would, however, support the freehold being vested in the borough as a borough endowment. Mr. T. I. Lamason, a sub-lessee, in opposing. the freehold, said that the freehold premises on the west side of Broadway were very little credit to the town. He believed that if the freehold was »ranted, speculators would rush in, and the rents charged would lie too exorbitant for the, town. In his own case he complained that the rent lie was paying was too high at present, and it would*be higher'still if the freehold was sold. He asked why some of the lessees had got their leases extended to 21' vcars. with righ/ of renewal, and others were not treated the same. , Mr. P. C. Price (a lessee) expressed the opinion that the granting of the freehold would be playing into the hands of the speculators. He advocated better conditions for the lessee, such as a 21 ; years' lease with right of renewal at valuation and protection for improvei ments.

Mr. C. Jackson supported the petition, and did not agree that the speculative clement was going to act as a detriment to the town. He pointed out that it was easier to raise money on freehold property than oil leasehold, and what was wanted was good buildings instead of the old ones at present on the leases. He would welcome the man who came into the borough, bought the freehold, ijnd erected buildings which were a credit to the town.

Mr. W. P. Kirkwood said that, looking at the matter point of view of what was best for the town, he wasconvinced that they should endeavor to secure the freehold of the reserve, and instanced the case of Tauinarunui as showing the amount of trafficking which could take place in leasehold lands.

Mr. 0. D- Sole, a lessee, doubted if theRailway Department had power to sell the freehold. He contended that the Borough Council and Chamber of Commerce would lie serving the best interests of the town by striving for decent conditions for the lessees instead of asking for the freehold. In liis opinion the leasehold should be retained in o_fder that the urfborn generations could reap the benefit of the enhanced value of the land. Mr. T. G. Grubb, a sub-lessee, opposed the petition on the grounds that the rents would be raised if the freehold was granted. Mr. Masters" That would depend on what the landlord had to pay for it. Mr. Grubb: There's going to be competition for the land, which must be worth at least £l5O a foot. If a vote was taken of the present tenants, a large majority would be found opposed to the freehold.

The Mayor said he hoped the tenants realised that the Government was likely to put on a pretty high upset valuation when renewing the leases. Mr. Grubb: Mine is a 21 years' leaseMr. Sole: They are all subject to six months' termination. Mr. W. J. Newton expressed the opinion that the leases would not be renewed oil the same footing as formerly. He supported the petition, Mr. E. Lewers supported the petition, declaring that he was a firm believer in the freehold. The Mayor said the Borough Council and Chamber of Commerce were looking at the matter from the point of view of jfjbat wai but forth* town. The public

could not be influenced in the matter by the attitude of the tenants. Mr. P. Thomson said the bulk of the present leases would hold good only until March 31st next, when they would be put up to public auction, and anyone could bid against the present lessees. The tenants would still have the private landlord under the leasehold tenure, the same as under the freehold tenure. He agreed that the freehold would be in the best interests of the town, and contended that with the leasehold the tenants would have just as high a rent to pay as with the freehold. Mr. J. B, Richards supported the petition. He said some people believed that the land should be retained for the benelit of future generations, but if they got the freehold the benefits would not go to Wellington, but would go to the people of Stratford. He did not think the Railway Department should become a landlord on a huge scale. Mr. Abraham: The country gets the benefit if"the rents keep the fares down. Mr. Richards: Mr. Abraham is a | straight-out leaseholder, and I respect his view. But at the same time I don't agree that the rents from these lands keep the fares- down one penny.

Mr. Masters said he was a firm freeholder, and always would be, and he believed that the freehold of the leases would be for the best interests of the town. The element of speculation could not be eliminated even if the leasehold system was retained. He would, however, support whatever decision the meeting'arrived at. If the meeting wanted the freehold—and he hoped they would—he would try to get the freehold, but if the wanted the leasehold, he would strive to get the best conditions possible for the lessees. If leasehold was to continue he favored the Education lease of 21 years, with right of renewal and protection for improvements.

Mr. Young, in reply, stated that he had moved the resolution, believing that the petition was in the direction of asking that the freehold be vested in the borough as an endowment. He was against selling the freehold, and desired to sep good leases instituted in place of the present unsatisfactory conditions. He was quite under a wrong impression when he first got up to speak. The resolution, on being put to the meeting, was carried, on a show of hands, by 1G votes to 11, several .oi» those present abstaining from voting. It was further decided to ask the Borough Council to put on a paid man to obtain signatures to the petition. Mr, Price intimated that a counterpetition would be circulated, asking for better conditions of leasing.