THE WATERFRONT RAILWAY SCHEME.

Auckland Star, Volume XLVI, Issue 70, 23 March 1915, Page 7

THE WATERFRONT RAILWAY SCHEME.

(To the Editor.) Sir,—The Mayor (Mr. C. J. Parr) has declared that the only way of meeting with growing needs is to endorse the waterfront railway scheme, and says that a lot of " exaggerated nonsense" hae been talked concerning the destruction of baye and headlands. May I be permitted to quote from an interview with Mr. Parr, published in the " Star " early last year, when this matter of the destruction of Campbell's Point firet cropped up? On that occa- i sion Mr. Purr remarked: "Mr. Gunson and I are only trustees for the citizena, and this matter has reached a stage which justifies the citizens being made aware of it. The Harbour Board scheme is to take five, acres of Campbell's Point. . . . The advantages of such a scheme, from a Harbour Board viewpoint, are apparent. Instead of having to dredge for spoil for the reclamation, the Point can simply be tipped from where it is into the tea, at an immense saving of cost to the harbour authorities. Whatever Mr. Gunson may put forward to the contrary, the idea involves the destruction of the present reserve as a fine eea park. Now. -what are the citizens to get for this great sacrifice to utilitarian projects? What price is to be paid? Simply this: An equal area is to be giren us of what is left of Klibryde, after one and a-half acres have been rut down in the same way as our park. Put in a nutehell. the scheme suggested to mc involves the destruction of the Point to the extent of over 400 feet inland, and the throwing of thousands of tons of earth into the harbour to provide eheaD reclamation. Citizens should jfo and see for themselves. It is true that the bait of a new extension eastward was held out to the city, but there ara two observations to be made with respect to this. Firstly, H ie quite unnecessary to demolish Campbell's Point. The new outlet omild much more easily bend round the Point than pass through it. Mr. Bush, the City Engineer, wilio visited the spot this moming, agrees with mc entirely that the road may he quite easily taken round without destroy ing the Point." Tt is significant that on that occasion the Mayor felt that the public was entitled to have some say in the matter, (or he concluded his remarks with the observation: " I feel that the matter has reached a stage when the public should decide for themselves, and the fullest information should be placed before the people." Perhaps Mr. Parr ajrrees with the Hon. F. M. B. Fisher. ex-M.P.. that consistency is the refuge of fools. —I am, etc., MEGAPHONE. (To the Editor.) Sir, —May i again crave for a short space in your paper, re the waterfront scheme. It is evident that great public interest has been aroused by the Press, but I think our opposing correspondents have not fully weighed the matter out well enough to grasp the situation. Writing from a yachtsman's point of view recently, 1 was accused of being a quibbler. Well, eir, my friend must be quietly excused for his rash statements, as 1 can conclusively proVe we are practical supporters of many industries. Firstly, yachts mean the boat-building industry, which Auckland is noted for, employing some hundreds of employees. Secondly, their benzine, sails, rope, paints, groceries, bread, meat, etc., all in their turn give employment to various industries. Would it interest my friend to know the approximate value of yachts, etc, in Auckland totals some £30,000? This means work. Do you think we should be considered? —1 am, etc., YACHTSMEN. (To the Editor.) Sir.--Aucklander» should fevl indebted te ....u for so ably inciting that there are two sides to thie. as every other quedtitin. -.uid that titer* is quite evidently a desire on the part of tiros*? who approve of the echeme as at present to burke the other itasue, i*., to have a fair and impartial consideration of t:he whole question by tohotse most materially affected, the public, und not, as it aecnie, by a few. Seven men invet in Chamber of (jonnneroe and approve, ergo it must be Tight. Mr. Hiley saj* this ie Uhe only solution, tliereforv tirat ends the matter. Listen to Mr. Peacocks: "With regard to the argument of the tpoiiation of the waterfront, it mutrt be remembered that the city tmust grow ac a city, and it would be just as seneible to Kiy thait Queen Street should have its puriTi trees." The 1 call piffle. Further, , he saye: "The scheme would entail an expenditure of £2,000,000, and yet we were quarrelling like little children «c to whether they Should give ub ii or not. 'The TB&t of New Zealand must be laughing at i».'"

This you must allow mc to caH rot. Who hae raised any objection to the iiiiprovenrei* of Auckland railway bUiron? Dots it nwt em -obe question ie, how we, the people of New Zealand, will epend tfine £2,000,000 to the bwt advantage? 1 do mot tbink the lest of New Zealand is laughing at tie, and further, I fchtnk 1 would prefer Mr. MetwUfe"e opinion as to the feasibility of the eiurnaifcive pin-pose than even- ihoee seven membens of *h« Chamber x>f Connuerw. Let us put another view. If the elections liarf yet to take place, and Mr. Pair had not praotically vacated <th« mayioral chair, would he be advocating this soherne without offering to give the other side a fair hearing? It eeems to mc ftihat things iave been puebed srihead without taking the people into partnership in this huge undertaking. Tble war ■hae been a big upeet, and hae oversiEkdowed imet flrtJrar mattom, and now we suddenly wake up and find the preliminary work started. I endwee tJie many able and thoughtful letters appearing in you-r eohimne aganst /bhe matter being ruehed, and I would advocate moni?ter meeting of protect in the Town Hall *t> stay proceedings until tlie pros amd ooiw of bath schemes 'have been laid before the people.—l am, etc., FAIR PLAY".