“Mona Vale”

Press, Volume CVII, Issue 31501, 16 October 1967, Page 12

“Mona Vale”

Sir, —The costs of maintenance, as estimated by the joint committees of the Christchurch City and Waimairi County Councils, appear to he more than double the annual costs of upkeep by the present owners. Development costs are irrelevant at this stage. Buildings and improvements can be made at any time in the future. Local authorities should be demonstrating their responsibilities by making provision for such reserves as the urban population increases. The cost of purchasing and developing land for a similar use elsewhere would be many times the cost of preserving “Mona Vale.” Councils appear to have ignored the public support already given or promised towards the purchase and development, which surely must be of considerable saving to councils and ratepayers of the future. The property could be shut up until an administrative trust board is formed and definite arrangements for its development then made. Would the fundraising committee care to

comment on the proposed economics of the venture?— Yours,'etc., APPEAL SUPPORTER. October 11, 1967. [The chairman of the “Mona Vale” Appeal Committee (Mr John Oakley) replies: “I would not question the figures in the report on the maintenance and development of ‘Mona Vale.’ These are no doubt reasonable if the property is to be maintained at the same high level as the botanic gardens. But as Cr P. J. Skellerup pointed out ‘the figures do not take into account any income from the property.’ This, if course, was not part of the committee’s assignment. They were concerned only with costs. At the same time if the property was maintained quite simply, and developed along the lines suggested by the Civic Trust the revenue from admissions, rents, etc. would go a long way towards off-setting the costs. These would certainly increase but so would the income, and if carefully handled there is no reason why ‘Mona Vale’ could not become self-supporting within five years. Under these circumstances the costs outlined in the committee’s report could give the public a false impression of the situation.”]

Sir,—What will happen if Mr Oakley and his Civic Trust fail to raise the required amount from their appeal? It would appear from their actions that they will now be committed to purchase this property in order to keep faith with the gullible public who have subscribed to the appeal. Who is going to pay

the balance? It would appear that the public will be subject to another annual street appeal to pay the annual upkeep of this doubtful investment. As the councils, after considering expert advice, turned the proposition down, it is a wonder that this appeal was allowed to proceed. —Yours, etc., MONA GROANER. October 14, 1967.