DESTRUCTION OF CAMPBELL'S POINT.

Auckland Star, Volume XLVI, Issue 71, 24 March 1915, Page 7

DESTRUCTION OF CAMPBELL'S POINT.

(To the Editor.* Sir, —I am surprised at Mr. Purr's attitude. Surely his success has notcaused him to love less our dear old shores. Can he conscientiously stand by, even encourage,-and watch unmoved the destruction of the dearest old land marks in our harDour? Are they, no longer dear to him, who has spent his whole life among them? He, an old Auckland boy, trusted by all old Aucklanders, to preserve our rights, and help keep our shores from unsightly smoky railways and the destruction of its beauty epots by a lot of newcomers, who can have no remembrances or reverence for those spots co dear to us. Shame on him! The old trust and faith must wane. To Mr. Metcalfe. who so nobly defends our right, I say all praise. Let the railway find another outlet, even thorigh it be through a few tunnels, and at a slightly higher cost.—l am, etc., K.E.M. (To the Editor.} Sir,—The dignity of our Mayor haa evidently been ruffled. Some 2000 odd people believe that before portions of our boautifnl waterfront are irreparably destroyed, the citizens of Auckland should know beyond ail doubt that this is inevitable. They have actually had the temerity to suggest a public meeting, so that a number of representative citizens might go into details. How truly unreasonable some people are! Has not the Alpha and Omega of civic wisdom approved of the Railway Department's scheme? "Therefore," hei cays, "a public meeting would only make' a public fool of itself." Then he asks the president of the Civic League: | "What would a public meeting do? A public meeting is considered the panacea for every ill, but I think in this instance such a proceeding would be obviously futile." Truly, there is nothing new under the sun; the same sentiment was expressed a few centuries ago in the following manner: "1 am Sir Oracle; when I ope my mouth, let no dog bark." I What docs it matter if the Mayor has ! completely changed his views on this question within the past twelve months? The public memory Is short, and they forgot that he made the following remark in your issue of the 29th June of last year: "To destroy a beautiful mountain, or wreck a fine beach front is toe dear a price to pay nowadays for any utilitarian scheme."

Does Mr. Parr seriously think that by treating over 2000 citizens in this highhanded manner he will be able to crush all opposition to the scheme? Does he not see that by riding rough-shod over what they consider legitimate objections, he is simply fanning the opposition which he is so anxious to avoid? Surely it would be infinitely better to satisfy these citizens, even if it should cause a week or ten days' delay in a schemt which will not be completed for several years- —I am, etc., PATRIOT. (To the Editor.) Sir, —Mr. Parr's refusal to call a public meeting in reference to the proposed railway outlet is further proof of his determination to stifle, if possible, all public discussion on one of the most vital and important questions affecting the present and future interests of the city.

Is it possible that Aucklanders will submit to a one-man rule on such an important matter, for assuredly this is the position as far as the City Council is concerned, for have we not Mr. Parr's own words that in the first instance on his advice, when the destruction of Campbell's Point was mooted by the Harbour Board, the Council, were most emphatic in echoing his cry of "Hands off"? But, lo and behold, within the space of a few months, and after the ratepayers have been cajoled by the Mayor into the purchase of the Gillies Estate, mainly, we were fold, to Becure Judge's Bay for the people, Mr. Parr takes, figuratively speaking, a complete somersault, arid from an opponent becomes a' strong supporter of the Scheme of destruction, and the City Council has no difficulty in following the Mayor in his somersaulting feat.

It looks very much as if the Mayor hag absorbed the individuality of the councillors.

If the present scheme is so absolutely above criticism, and Mr. Metcalfe's scheme is so absolutely absurd and impossible, it must be apparent to anyone that a full unbiassed inquiry into'the merits of the two schemes can only result in a solid arid united public for the better scheme. Then, why all- this opposition to the matter being thoroughly thrashed out? Is Mr. Parr afraid of the half dozen interested property-owners near Judge's Bay he talks about, that he refuses to call a public meeting, or is-he afraid that his half dozen may have swelled into as many hundreds?

The only possible solution is that the advocates of the present scheme, with its consequent destruction of our fine waterfront, fully realise that their case is considerably weaker than they care to admit.

What is required is an unbiassed report by a competent engineer with "no axe to grind" on the present embankment scheme and the alternative tunnel scheme. Napier is not too far away from Auckland for us to forget the lesson it has to teach us. Hundreds of thousands of pounds have" been thrown away, and the district for miles inland penalised for all time hy heavy rates to meet the costs of constructing a harbour which can never be a harbour, and, after years of labour and thousands uselessly thrown away, through the inexhaustible efforts and" untiring energy of one man, who was sneered at, jeered at-and written down a fool, with the only excuse that it was said he had private interests at stake (in fact, the very accusations now being made against Mr. Metcalfe and others who only desire the best route adopted after'due consideration of the merits of each), this same party, in spite of. all opposition and, we may say, deceit, misrepresentation and abuse, has at last convinced the district that his inner harbour scheme is the only one to give Napier a natural and safe harbour.

The above facts will be known to a large number of yonr readers, and only goes to show how, in a matter of this magnitude, the railway outlet for Auckland, every facility should be given of affording due consideration of what has been pot forward by a competent engineer as a feasible alternative scheme without the great sacrifice entailed in the present scheme, instead of attempting to stifle all legitimate discussion and inquiry.—I am, etc, 1 MORE LIGHT.

<To the Editor.) Sir,—l think most people will agree that our present Mayor has consistently shown pride in Auckland as one of the moat beautiful of cities, and has always displayed a progressive spirit in schemes of development. He has no doubt given the Railway Department-cum-Jlarbotir Board proposals earnest consideration, but his ability to pierce a -way through difficulties and to unite utilitarian plans ■with ■ high considerations of sentiment seems, in the present instance, to have been overshadowed- by the personality of Mr. Hiley and the widespreading infiuI ence of the 'Harbour Board. The environment of a member of Parliament is different to that of a city councillor. In any case, he has confessedly failed to find an alternative 'scheme to this abominable destruction of "headland and landmark, bay and foreshore. But where he has failed others can succeed, and it is to be sincerely hoped that the citizens of Auckland will throng the Victoria Arcade, and eign the , petition which will keep the matter in abeyance, j One scheme Mr. Parr has shortly touched upon, and' as shortly dismissed, viz., the suggestion of Newmarket as a railway centre. This should be considered in the closest manner by experts. The position of Newmarket, and the space available for a railway depot, seem to mark it out as the natural starting-point for all Main Trunk trains. The populous Mount Eden district is, on the wnole, nearer to Newmarket than to Lower Queen Street, and it can easily be seen that the larger number of inhabitants of Greater Auckland will be in the future settled on the isthmus, and will have to pass through Newmarket to reach the city.—l am, etc., ANTI-HUN. (To the Editor) Sir, —It would he amusing, if it were not annoying, to read Mr, Parr'e arguments in favour of running the "railway through Judge's Bay, considering that a few months ago, he was as keenly against it. I, for one, would never have voted for the purchase of the Gillies Estate had I known that this scheme wae likely to be carried out. Mr. Parr says that the only alternative site* for the main railway station would t>e either iNewmarket or 'Hobsqn Bay. Well, i» my opinion. Newmarket would be a capital site. The station should be central and not down at the water's edge, and the line already running there would do for the harbour traffic. In Sydney, a most go-ahead city, when they built a new station, it was moved even farther out from the wharves, not closer —the people would not allow their beautiful waterfront, which is a valuable asset, to be mutilated. Some of the advocates of the new scheme say that beauty must' give way to business. Now. taking Sydney again, as an example, look at their beautnul Botanical Garden, and Government House grounds, stretching down to the water's edge, and right in the heart of the city! Imagine the Sydney people allowing a railway to be run -outside these! They know what a valuable asset to a city is a beautiful natural situation. Anyone who has travelled at all knows this. When our lovely harbour is completely destroyed, so far as its beauty is concerned, we will realise this. I myeelf own no property in Parnell. and do not live anywhere near it. but am actuated entirely by a love for Auckland', and a wish for her -welfare, and it ■makes one's blood heal to see, one by one, .ill her beauties being torn from her.'—l am, etc.. ANOTHER OLD AUCKLA2FDER.