EVANS BAY SQUABBLE

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 115, 17 May 1930, Page 11

EVANS BAY SQUABBLE

COUNCIL AND BOARD

PUBLIC IN THE DARK

By "X."

It is probable that much of the high feeling that exists at present over the Evans Bay reclamation scheme would never have arisen had the public been taken, even to a comparatively slight degree, into the confidence of the Harbour Board and the City- Council. Several fairly comprehensive statements have been made from time.to time by members of the Harbour Board as to | the past history of the reclamation scheme, and all these generally agree that in the beginning the idea came from the City Council, not from the Harbour Board. Unofficially (if a board member may at any time speak unofficially, whether at election or any other time) members have given assurance that the bathing area in Evans Bay will be fully safeguarded, but oflicially nothing direct has been announced to that effect. There are, of course, other considerations of real importance, for instance, the possible depreciation of a number of homes and residential properties about the bay following upon the establishment, of an industrial area at their front doors. However, it is round the bathing area question that the argument has waxed most fierce. The City Council lias told the public nothing of its attitude except in the most general, even casual, fashion. Evans Bay has been mentioned in open meeting only on rare occasions, and nothing has been reported that would clear the air. It was made known last year, for instance, that the Harbour Board had inado "certain proposals" regarding the bathing area for the consideration of the council, but those proposals were read to the councillors in committee, and were not subsequently made known. Presumably they were classed under the heading of "finance and property." It was _ announced that a special sub-committee had been set up to consider those proposals, but no report has. been made in open meeting of the opinions of that committee, which, it was gathered from inquiries' made from time to time, was not called together for x a matter of months after tho receipt of the board's proposals. The sub-committee has met, but not recently. VITAL DIFFERENCE OF OPINION. Members of the board, speaking quite unofficially, have expressed' surprise that the suggestions put forward in the letter to the council wore not welcomed with hearty thanks, and, speaking equally unofficially, members of: the council have said that the proposals really amounted to offering the council what it did not want and asking it to pay for it, moreover. Probably there is a misunderstanding between beard members and councillors as to what the proposals really mean. But, any efforts to ascertain for publication what tho proposals aro have been mot with replies that the wliqle matter is still under consideration. The Foreshore Protection League, say members of the board, is barking up the wrong tree, but the right tree has not liocn pointed out. Rightly or wrongly, they propose to continue barking. The curious aloofness between the council and the board over this question of plans for Evans Bay—tho past history has been!more or less .agreed upon-^taken into account with seyeral instances where tb,o two bodies, .both working for tho advancement of Wellington, city and district, have sparred with each other over matters which might have been satisfactorily concluded in much less timo than was occupied (as Waterloo quay control, compensation for Thorndon esplanade, control of boating sheds, rating of board properties, purchase, and sale of water to shipping and sewerage and drainage matters) may quito honestly be mistaken by some people as evidence that the much stressed spirit of cooperation has at times been overborne by a spirit of rivalry from which local bodies are seldom entirely free, and somewhat confounded 'by misunderstanding largely- following upon the transaction of much public business in committee.' If it is that such an inside misunderstanding exists the understanding of the outside—but still somewhat interested—public is simply nowhere.

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —I notice in the "Evening Post" what the chairman of the Harbour Board (Mr, J. W. MacEwan). makes reforenco to, which I will now take the trouble to answer. In the first case, I should consider Mr. J. W. MaeEwnn's remarks arc designed, to stop him. signing petitions which are going to be presented. He refers. to what they have offered the City Council and they would not accept it. Why doesn^t Mr. MacEwan publish what he offered, and the conditions that he stipulated? He offered,the City Council a tenure for fourteen years, and stipulated what they would do with it, and if the Harbour Board wanted to they could take it away immediately the City Council put the necessary bathing sheds up. Does he think any sane body of men would accept a proposition liko this? Again, he refers to 32 miles of foreshore, intimating that all that 32 miles was suitable for bathing and aquatic sports.! He knows, as well as the population of Wellington knows, that the only safe bathing ground around Wellington is Evans Bay, where yatchsrnen can play around x and practise this wellknown sport. Again, ho mentions that the princi-' pal use of the Harbour Board must be for shipping. This I agreo to, but is not the way he puts it bluff? He says to build wharves they must have sheltered water. What difference would it make if he reclaimed Evans Bay up to the Patent Slip? How would that help to keep sheltered waters? Mr. MaeEwan talks of sheltered wharves in Evans Bay. What about Oriental Bay? I, as a level-headed thinking man, would say, well, if they have stopped extending wharves down the Lambton side of the harbour towards Petone, well, the next side they would use would be Oriental Bay, to keep all the shipping together, which is only reasonable from Clyde quay. I will assure him that this petition is going through Parliament. —I am, etc., BATEPAYEB AND .VOTER. 17th May.