Gondola project

Press, 25 February 1986, Page 18

Gondola project

Sir, —Mr Finnerty argues that those who oppose the gondola oppose progress; but this begs the question. Perhaps there would be less opposition to the gondola project if it were sited somewhere away from a residential area, such as the Sign of the Bellbird down to the Tai Tapu side of the Port Hills. Noise and traffic do not enhance a community. If Mr Finnerty really believed it did he would probably live closer to his rollercoaster. So is he suggesting that the Heathcote Valley residents are less important than a gondola facility which will attract 90 per cent of its patronage from city teenagers and young adults visiting the ski slope and two twin toboggan rides? Such a project will not suffer by being located away from a residential area. Heathcote has community facilities and attractions which do not Impact negatively on the community. — Yours, etc., Mrs A. ADDISON. February 22, 1986. Sir,—M. G. Wilson’s amusing but fatuous exercise in semantics shows how misinformed he is about the Port Hills gondola project. Mr Wilson’s idea that the gondola will "clobber” the environment is wrong. Obviously it is in the project’s best interests to leave the environment untouched, so its design ensures that the impact on environment is minimal. Moreover, the gondola and restaurant only occupy a quarter of an acre of what is a very large reserve. The developers have also guaranteed to rectify any environmental damage. Various opponents of the gondola seem to think that the project will fail because it duplicates existing facilities. The smallest skifield in the South Island operates profitably, in spite of competition from 27 other fields. Jet boat operators succeed on the Waimakariri even though superior rides exist on the Shotover. The gondola’s viability is increased by duplicating a successful attraction. — Yours, etc., HUGO STEINCAMP. February 22, 1986. Pink and White Terraces

Sir, —No doubt the scientists Of-' are delighted to receive so many ' lovely chunks of the Pink and

White Terraces, but we should know that all were vandalised. Tuhaurangi, the Maori owners of Rotomahana, went to extreme lengths to protect their taonga but lacked the power to keep the greedy hands away. If nature had not destroyed the Terraces, the vandals were on the way to doing so. — Yours, etc.,

ELSIE LOCKE. February 22, 1986.