Pictures in parks

Press, 16 August 1988, Page 20

Pictures in parks

Sir, —May I be among the first to congratulate our council on the brilliantly conceived scheme to double-charge ratepayers (perhaps outsiders quadruple) for photography in the park. Not only will this pay for informative warning signs and preclude the well-known blos-som-crushing stomp of wedding parties, but also develop the philosophical and legal acumen of gardeners. Penetrating questions such as when is a wedding party to be so judged — shades of dress, number of assembly and order of line-up, general mood, etc? Engagement ceremonial five minutes before wedding? Are multiple weddings discounted? Is a silver wedding on a sliding scale? Does sheltering from storm behind the McDougall Gallery incur a charge? Pledging a de facto troth? I would forecast that some sneaky photographers will secrete a permanent diorama of the park that they can use repeatedly and gardeners will require dawn raids to ensure the just payment. Our Japanese tourists will have their cameras ready to capture the ceremony of the daily changing of the “Gardens Guard,” but should be previously informed in their own language how much that snap will cost. — Yours, etc., H. RALF UNGER. . August 10, 1988.

Sir,—City ratepayers have yet another piece of trivial behaviour to add to the growing list of blunders committed by the Christchurch City Council. The issue of charging non-profes-sional people for the privilege of taking photographs in the Botanic Gardens would be too petty for comment were it not for the disturbing implications of such a move. In parts of Eastern Europe one is still forbidden outright to photograph “sensitive” objects or areas (including bridges and telephone wires). Allowing people to photograph something only if they can afford the prescribed fee can also be interpreted as a curtailment of personal freedom. No doubt Cathedral Square and city beaches are next on the agenda. No thanks. I suggest that council-

lors who voted in favour of this retrograde step should adjourn to the Botanic Gardens for a commemorative group photo because with a bit of luck and some discriminating voting, they will not be together after the next local body elections. — Yours, etc.,

R. L. MONTGOMERY. August 11, 1988.

Sir, —It is with dismay that I learn of the efforts of our “City Fathers” to coin a few extra bob. Having had a rash of objections against various innovative proposals (from council as well as community detractors) and, as a result, the axing of these revenue-generating proposals, on grounds that they were new (tower) or immoral (casino), has followed. The criticism of these decisions has obviously rankled our community protectors who have decided at last to use “new” schemes to obtain money for the city coffers in what is, to me, an “immoral” manner. The parks and gardens are for us and I hope that future objectors to “un-Christchurch” proposals are now aware of the very limited cash-generating resources left available to a very much stick-in-the-mud community and its council. — Yours, etc., C. W. MORRIS. August 11, 1988.

Sir, —There has been much publicity concerning the imposition of a fee for wedding photographs in the Botanic Gardens. As the average person seldom gets married more than once, I would not consider this fee to be of very great moment, save for its emotive appeal. What I consider a more serious financial imposition by the Parks and Recreation Committee of the Christchurch City Council is the Draconian increase in site rentals on reserve land occupied by this city’s sports clubs. I am aware of the committee’s reluctant retrenchment to a level of 50 per cent of the ludicrous levy first proposed, but certainly do not feel that the extraction of revenue from our financially struggling sports clubs should be attempted on the scale even now proposed. These sports clubs are supported by dedicated groups of people, including many ratepayers, on public land. They do much for all age groups and without the recreational facilities they offer Christchurch would be a much poorer place. The imposition of increased annual levies will affect all subscribing club members and will further erode the fragile finances of all our recreational clubs occupying reserve land. — Yours, etc., J. L. WYLIE. August 11, 1988.

Sir,—l am appalled at the latest showing of apparent rapacious greed by the City Council in charging for photographic activities in the Botanic Gardens. It smacks strongly of an Americanism, “anything for a dollar.” The employment of snoopers with radio-communication systems takes on the appearance of the “Keystone Cops,” with an added insult to the ratepaying users of the garden’s facilities. Is this another restriction of civil liberties enforced upon the citizens of this city? It is difficult to see how the council can justify such an action. It could be just another empire-building scheme to afld to all the other seemingly

overloaded empires under City Council control. I am sure it is time local bodies were called to account by being made to restructure with cost-cutting surveys being imposed in all other areas, including private enterprise and their employees, throughout this land. Many council charges could then, no doubt, be drastically reduced. Why should the council be exempt from the economic hardships and loss of income the people and the business communities of this city have been forced to accept? As for the present Botanic Gardens fiasco, I say to the City councillors, “shame on you!” — Yours, etc., G. B. GEMPTON. August 11, 1988.

Sir, —With the Government’s policy of accruing revenue at whatever cost to the individual, I hardly find it surprising that newlyweds will have to pay for memories of their wedding day. To quote Joni Mitchell: “They cut down all the trees, put them in a tree museum; and they charged the public a dollar and a half just to see them.”—Yours, etc.,

C. BOJE. August 11, 1988.

Sir, —Clearly it is time we had some new blood in the City Council. This ‘nonsense about charging people for taking photographs in the Botanic Gardens and throwing out non-payers is incredible. Imagine trying to explain a scene like that to an overseas visitor. I used to enjoy taking visitors and family to the tearooms for afternoon tea (and I am sorry, but we did take a few photographs), however, I am so disgusted at this petty display of greed that I.am sure we can find somewhere else to go. — Yours, etc., P. GRANT. August 11, 1988.

Sir,—The practice of charging for wedding photographs in the Botanic Gardens could cancel out the good will we try to foster overseas through our “sister city” scheme. Why not present the happy couples with colour postcards of parts of the gardens, the daffodils or cherry blossom for example, as a gesture of friendship on this important day of their lives, instead of antagonising them by close questioning to discover the status of their photographer? This would show true hospitality, and the reverse of the card could bear a wish that the recipients enjoy our gardens and would pay a return visit. The message could be printed in several languages, say, English, Maori, Japanese and Australian. The odd footprint on dug ground is easily repaired, but offence given is not. Should the newlyweds elect to consummate their nuptials in a convenient flowerbed, then a fee to put everything to rights again would not be out of order. — Yours, etc.,

W. A. SUTTON. August 13, 1988.