GISBORNE DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION.

Gisborne Times, Volume LXIX, Issue 10854, 25 March 1929, Page 4

GISBORNE DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION.

(To tho Editor.) , Si,- J_Now that the Gisborne District ’ Development Association has taken on definite being the first duty of its members will be to see that the apathy tlmy so greatly deplore in other people in respect ol public affairs does, not gradually creep into their own ranks and bring to nothing the efforts and intentions of it s promoters. It would be too much for our sense of humor or sense of the ridiculous, if the body formed for the “foster ng of civic pride” and the “creation td a sense of ' citizenship,” and “to combat a path v in Ioc«.l affairs,’ in a. few months itself died of that public inert a which it has intended shall henceforth be destroyed. S'r one thing I consider to be a weakness in connection with tin*. G IJ.D.A. is that as yet the Association has given the public no clearly defined ideas of the constructive and progressive policies it intends shall he pursued in the development of the d strict. Perhaps it has not had time in which to prepare such things, but that clear definitions of its; intentions are necessary must be obvious to-all. The “Objects” of the Association distributed at a public meeting recently held are too vague and general to g ve an idea of any fixed line of action the promoters ma.v have in mind. That progress is aimed at I have no doubt, but the methods to he followed are not- diseased. This is undesirable, as tinassociation cannot flourish without public' support, and public- support w 11 not be forthcoming as long as the people are left in the dark as to the nature of the develojv mental policies by which progress is to he achieved. A typewritten jiage of generalities is worthless. “Io take such steps a.s appear desirable” as expressed by clause I of the “Objects” i.s insufficient to win any degree of public confidence. D fferent people vary in their ideas as to what steps are or are not desirable, and. until the association states definitely its lines of action, many people* will refrain from giving t the support it-' well-meaning promoters .no doubt deserve. Doubt seems to exist in places ax in whether the association is to display initiative in the public welfare, nr ’whether it is merely to give itofficial support or condemnation to movements that may or may not meet with its approval. A )jenisal of the “Objects” only enhances the doubt- in this regard, and T believe that even people who have joined the movement are of op'nien it is only to function in a co-operative or ex it cal capacity. If that is- so its obiect of existence would certainly belie its name. A “Development. Association” that. functioned only to approve or crit/cise the work of other bodies if unprepared to act w.th vigorous initiative in development can Imrdlv justify the retention of its title.’ the measure of initiative it intends to show should be stated in ordei- that public doubt on tlie point should be cleared away.—l am, vours. etc.. “POVERTY BAY.”