FREEMAN'S BAY PARK.

New Zealand Herald, 12 March 1901, Page 6

FREEMAN'S BAY PARK.

A CITIZENS' MEETING,

SCHEME HEARTILY APPROVED.

POLL TO BE TAKEN.

A meeting of city electors was held in St. James' Hall last night to consider the proposal for the city acquiring a site for a public park on the Freeman's Bay reclamation. The Mayor (Mr. D.Goldie) presided, and the hall was well filled, the tone of the meeting all through being unmistakably in favour of the scheme. The Mayor, in opening the ! meeting, said the city had at present three parks. The Albert Park was costing about £400 a year, the Western Park about £150 a year, while the Domain was self-supporting. At present there was some £770 odd at the credit of the Domain account, but that would soon' be spent because a great deal of fencing and similar work was now being done in the Domain. The proposed park in Freeman's Bay would be 16| acres, and it would be surrounded according -£o present arrangements by about .52 small allotments, covering ever four acres. That, was one of the most serious objections to the scheme. The cost he calculated as follows :—Rent to the Harbour Board, £600, which he thought too high ; interest on the cost, viz.. £8000, at 4 per cent, £320, and the up-keep would be at least £200, making a total of £1020 per S annum. Besides that they had to provide a [sinking fund for the £8000, and if they were to pay back that sum in 21 years the cost would be £380 a year. But they were not bound to pay back the £8000 in 21 years. They could, at the end of 21 years, borrow again, but at the end of 50 years, when the park passed out of the city's hands the £8000 would have to be paid. Before throwing the meeting open for discussion the Mayor read a letter from Mr. P. A. Vaile, who said he thought every inch of i the reclamation from Patteson-street to the harbour, and from the Gas Company's property to Custom-street, should be secured for the purposes of a public park or recreation ground. The question should not be considered as a deal between money-making institutions, Auckland had too few beauty spots in a city which, from its natural advantages, should have many, and it would be a shame and a scandal to Aucklanders if they allowed this area, which might be converted into a beautiful little park with a lovely water frontage, to be surrounded by grimy warehouses and manufactories. The financial aspect of the matter could easily be overcome if the Auckland Harbour Board and the Citv Council both rose to the occasion. Mr. J. H. Upton said they were met to provide means whereby the great mass of the population of Auckland may be materially benefited. If it were merely to be an object of beauty he would not be there to advocate it. That would not be sufficient reason. ' Auckland had already some parks which served to a large extent that particular function, but the city had not a park which was a place of resort for the young people where they might spend their time in the spirit of true athletic sports. After pointing to the number of public parks which had come into existence in the Old Country in recent years, particularly in Birmingham, where there are 17 parks, Mr. Upton said he had consistently advocated this scheme since he saw that Freeman's Bay- was to be reclaimed, and he had never heard , any rational objection to the scheme. . The Mayor had said there would be allotments all round the park. • Well, he (Mr. Upton) stood there to advocate a park for the holders of small allotments. Where could young people who were huddled together go unless into the streets or into the public-houses ? He wanted to see a central place of resort provided in the city, where young people could go and enter into their recreations, and be believed that could be most amply provided for . at • Freeman's Bay. They had the Domain, but it ■was not enough; the town had outgrown it, and if they did not provide another place of enjoyment for the young people Auckland must take a place behind every progressive city in the world. It would be a shame and a disgrace to the present generation of Aucklanders if they passed away without providing plenty of recreation ground for the young people of the present and future genej rations. New Zealand had a milder climate ! than England, and therefore a larger outdoor population; if they did not provide plenty of outdoor opportunities they would lead the young people into temptation. He held that the situation of Freeman's Bay was good; he knew of no better. It was on the seashore, and if they wanted to provide a perfect recreation ground for a maritime town like Auckland, it must be alongside the sea, where yachtsmen could take part in the entertainments. Then there was always fresh air near the water. But the main reason why Freeman's Bay was the best situation for a public recreation ground was that it was situated exactly in the centre of Auckland, and in the midst of the mass of the population. The situation was such that the great artery from one side of the town to the other ran through it, and there were streets running, down to it exactly like the fingers on one's hands. No place could ever have been devised more accessible to the mass of the population. As to the size of the park, he entirely sympathised with Mr. that the whole reclamation should be used** but they must be practical; the Harbour Board had said they would give 16£ acres, and he was for falling in with that, offer. It would be exactly three acres bigger than the Domain Cricket Ground. When the young people were not at their recreations, the park would be a good parade ground ,for the volunteers. Then, on the question of expense, he held that the city could not only afford it, but that it would be a shame and disgrace to admit that they could not afford it. The rent was to be £500. He thought that was rather handsome. The Harbour Board might have taken a broader view of their duty. The people who -l ived round the foreshore were largely concerned in foreshore occupations, and men in foreshore occupations ought surely to get some special consideration from the Harbour Board. It was ungenerous, illiberal, and narrow-minded, but, after all, it was only £500 to be added to the in-! terest of £320. He did not anticipate any expense in maintenance, because he was not advocating a beautiful park, not flower beds, but a cricket ground and a football field. The cost then would be £820 a year, and he might point out that the Mayor had made a mistake about the cost of Albert Park. The value of Albert Park at the present time was not less than £30,000, and at 4 per cent., they had an annual value oil £1200 in addition to the £400, referred to by the Mayor, making £1600, Was there a miserable soul who would do away with Albert Park because it cost £1600 a year? What then would be the cost of Freeman's Bay Park to the individual. The valuation of the city was about £352,000 a year, and a man with a hous" worth £20 a year would pay Is a year for the park; a man who lived in a house worth £100 a year would pay' 5s a year for the park. He felt sure nobody would hesitate about paying that; if they did, it was the duty of the citizens to compel them to pay. He moved. "That this meeting approves the proposal of the Auckland City Council, viz., to accept and take a lease from the Auckland Harbour Board, of about 16| acres of the reclaimed land in Freeman's Bay, for the purpose of a public recreation ground, and not sub-let the same on lease, r-nd to enable it so to do,; to borrow a sum of £8000 upon the security of the revenues of the City of Aucklandy subject to the existing loans secured thereon, and to be repaid within 21 years from the date it is borrowed, and requests the Mayor to cause a poll of the electors to be taken upon the said proposal." Mr. W. J. Napier, M.H.R., seconded. He said the park had already, on the suggestion of the Harbour Board, been named Victoria Park, after our late venerated Queen. If the citizens secured the park they would make a good business bargain. According to the Government valuation and the valuations of the. best land agents in the city the rental of the ground at the present time, which might be obtained because learly all the allotments were taken up, was 62500 a year for business purposes. It liad been a hard struggle at the Harbour Board)to get the proposal advanced to the present stage, but Mr. Farrell. Mr. Julian, Mr. Stichbury, Mr. Glover, and himself had stuck to it through thick and thin. It was learly eight years since he first proposed it the Harbour Board that the Board should land over this site to the City Council. Wet dankets had been thrown on it periodically, jut he was now satisfied that it would go jefore the electors, and that the scheme vould be carried by ai\ overwhelming ■ majority.

Mr. James Patterson said he had the backbone to oppose the resolution. The site was" not suitable, ■ and he believed r even? if they put the | park there' half {the} people vof Ponsonby would still go to the Domain. (Laughter.) V v The situation was too low, and would be nothing but a puddle in winter. Then they had no guarantee that it would remain open to the sea for any length of time. He did not wish to deprive Ponsonby of a park. He would support a park for Ponsonby at Surrey Hills. Freeman's Bay was not a healthy situation. : It was a place for business, and not for a park. Then the cost of it would be more than the cost of the Albert Park, the Domain, and the Western Park together. (Laughter.) The park would cost about £1200 a year, and even if the. place was suitable it was not worth the money. (Laughter.) It would be a very good thing for the Harbour Board for a'good many years to come, but a bad thing for the ratepayers. : , ; ;" The next speaker objected to the site as unhealthy, and his successor on the platform supported the scheme, but urged that the citizens should take care that the park be kept open to the water. Mr. R. Farrell said he had'.for many years taken an interest in the Freeman's Bay Park scheme. . The Mayor had not stated how the cost of the park was to be met. If they made a charge of 6d on 15 special occasions every year, and got an average of 5000 people there would be a revenue of £1850, and he found that the attendances at Potter's Paddock ranged from 6000 to 12,000. He felt that a parochial spirit such as had been shown in opposition to this park was ruining the progress of Auckland. In every way . there was nothing to equal the Freeman's Bay site for a recreation ground. Two mistakes had been made in Auckland with reference to recreation grounds. In the first place the level ground at the Albert Barracks should never have been let for residence sites, but should have been kept as a recreation ground, and in the second place when Surrey Hills was offered to the city a portion of it should have been secured for a recreation ground. The city would make another mistake if it refused this offer.

Mr. P. G. Ewington said they should not regard this as a mere matter of expense. It was a matter of civic life and vigour. The site was to his mind most suitable. It was near a dense population of the workers of the city, easily accessible, and the only place available for a public park which had easy access to the water. This was a matter of humanising those people who could not afford the rents to give them proper breathing spaces. It was a question of now or never. If the citizens of Auckland allowed this opportunity to pass he believed they would regret it for ever. If they seized the opportunity coming generations would call them blessed. Mr. Jno. Mitchell,, architect, the meeting should make perfectly certain that there was to be no going back on the agreement to keep an open space to the sea. The main drain was an objection, but not an insuperable difficulty. There would be no difficulty at a comparatively small expenditure to make provision against any offence by means of the septic tank system. On the question of expense he thought it would be perfectly reasonable, on the principle of betterment, that the surrounding properties whose values would be increased by the parkshould pay increased taxes. The site would be most convenient for the children of Chapel-street, Beresford-street, Nelsonstreet, Napier-street, and Ponsonby schools. The Rev. Canon Calder said he was very much interested in the sort of boys growing up, and he was afraid that the grandchildren of the people who came from England were not to be so good as their grandfathers. He was anxious that the boys should have a chance to have a good hard calf on them. Those who were brought up in England had a harder climate than the boys of Auckland, and it was perhaps better for them. It was not altogether the fault of the boys that they were not so good as their fathers. This recreation park would give the boys a chance to learn how to use themselves. Mr. G. Knight spoke in favour of the park, but said the Harbour Board should give the site to the city at a peppercorn rent.

Mr. C. J. Parr said there could be little or no rational objection to this ground being set apart for a park. Its situation could not be beaten in Auckland, and Auckland was badly off for parks. The area of Auckland was 1726 acres, and they had 24 acres for recreation, viz., 13 in the Albert Park, and 11 in the Western Park. On the financial question he thought Auckland could afford it. The city had; endowments worth £10,000 a year, and in a few years the leases of the land about Albert Park would be falling: in, and the rentals would be doubled, and in some cases trebled. Then the income of the City Council was increasing every year. Last year they had an increase of £2000 from new buildings; this year the increase would probably be close on £3000. He was on the committee of the City Council that met the Harbour Board on the question, and he thought the Board met them fairly well on the whole, considering the liabilities the Board had to meet. In 10 years' time this ground would be twice as valuable as.it is now, and in 20 years' time three times as valuable, and as to the' end of the 50 years he was satisfied that once the people of Auckland got their feet on that recreation ground it would always be a recreation ground. (Applause.) • Mr. P. E. Cheal supported acquiring the park from the point of view of an advocate of municipal ownership. Mr. J. T. Julian also supported acquiring the park. There was much opposition in the Harbour Board, but Mr. Napier stuck to it tenaciously, and eventually it seemed as if the park would be secured for the city. He would have been better satisfied if the Harbour. Board had accepted half the rent, but the park would be cheap to the city at the rental proposed. The Mayor pointed out that the Harbour Board had pledged theselves to always keep 99ft between the park and the sea. He agreed with Mr. Mitchell that any danger from nuisance could be cured by the septic tank system. As to Mr. Upton's valuation of the park it would have been correct if the city had paid £30.000 for it, but the land was a gift to the city. With reference to the falling in of the leases, he thought many of them were for 99 years, and he feared that neither Mr. Parr nor himself would see the end of them. Mr. Upton said the Albert Park was an endowment, not for the city, but ultimately for the' education of the boys and girls of Auckland. He had not the slightest doubt that the city would secure Victoria Park, and they could raise no nobler monument to the memory of Queen Victoria. The Mayor then called for a show of hands, when the motion, as submitted by Mr. Upton, approving of the scheme, and calling for a poll of .electors, was carried by an overwhelming majority, only a few hands oeing held up against. . The Mayor intimated that the poll Would be taken on April 1.