Gondola project

Press, 24 February 1986, Page 12

Gondola project

Sir,—Having had his moves for a District Scheme change thwarted by other councillors, the Heathcote County chairman, Mr Oscar Alpers, wants an independent commissioner to hear

any application that is made for planning consent for the gondola project. He fears his councillors, whom he alleges have been lobbied by residents, might not be impartial. So far, however, only one member of the council has openly expressed an opinion, and that is Mr Alpers himself. “The Press” reports him as saying that he does not want to see the council throw obstacles in the face of “the developers of an imaginative project.” Is that an impartial view? Other councillors should be congratulated for treading cautiously and requesting more information on the changes mooted by the Canterbury United Council after its meeting with the gondola developers on December 16. Why all this manipulation before a formal application is made? — Yours, etc., PATRICIA SHEPPARD. February 22, 1986. Sir,—l note with interest Ron Hazlehurst’s reply to Hugo Steincamp’s earlier letter (“The Press,” February 21). He cites several reasons why the project should not go ahead, but none seem to carry any real weight. In fact the main thrust of his argument, the noise pollution the residents of Heathcote will have to endure, seems to confirm Mr Steincamp’s accusation of the great Kiwi clobbering machine. As for his other points, well, the gondola in Queenstown is a huge success, why not duplicate a winner? It must be apparent that bus rides up the hills are nowhere near the attraction a gondola would be. If they were, the Sign of the Takahe would be considered a mecca by now. His final point, that of little employment to be gained from the project, is simply wrong. There are infinite proofs that the tourist dollar is by far our most valuable. — Yours, etc., P. G. WALLER. February 21, 1986.

Sir, — I thank Ron Hazlehurst (February 21) for his response. I support the gondola project because Christchurch desperately needs additional high-quality tourist attractions to compete effectively with other South Island locations which area reaping more than a fair share of the income derived from tourism. The opponents of the gondola are concerned that the gondola may prove to be a white elephant because a similar attraction already exists in Queenstown. Such concern is unwarranted. The continued rapid growth of tourism ensures the survival and profitability of new tourist attractions which duplicate existing facilities in other locations. Contrary to Mr Hazlehurst’s opinion, a casino linked to the gondola would be successful. Christchurch receives overseas tourists on high incomes, many of whom complain that Christchurch lacks sophisticated venues where they can spend their money. The freespending tourist’s dilemma would be partially solved by allowing a gondola, restaurant, and casino on the Port Hills. — Yours, etc.,

HUGO H. STEINCAMP. February 22, 1986.