FREEMAN'S BAY RECLAMATION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 11605, 20 March 1901, Page 7

FREEMAN'S BAY RECLAMATION.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—When a public meeting is called to discuss a proposition to be laid before it, and tlio majority of those attending it will only hear one side of the question, that meeting is said to bo "packed:" that was the character of the attendance at St. James' Hall to discuss the Freeman's Bay Park question. With your permission I propose to review some of the statements made by various speakers. First, as to the -cost to the ratepayers", His Worship the Mayor stated it would'be £1020 per annum, plus the sinking fund of" £380 a year, making a total of £1400. To this must be added the amount which the harbour would lose by accepting £500 a year in place of a rental which they would otherwise receive. , ... ~. , The next speaker, Mr. Upton, must, I think, be rather foggy in his mathematics when ho told us that Freeman's Bay is exactly in the centre of Auckland,' so that the Calliope Dock-is exactly in the centre of Devonport. Following. Mr. Napier stated that nearly all'the allotments (52) were taken up, whereas as a matter of fact they havo not yet been even offered to the public, and those pn the eastern side are" still under water. The next speaker, Mr. James Patterson, failed to get a hearing because he opposed the proposal. Mr. Farrell told the meeting that for many years he had taken an interest in "the Freeman's Bay Park scheme, but I should like to remind him that for a long time he has been on the Albert Park Committee, -and yet the lower slope of Bowen Avenue, which might be made a thing of beauty and a joy for ever, has been so entirely neglected that it has become an eyesore and a rubbish heap, and this was assigned as ; a, reason, by the City Council for wishing to exchange it with the general Government for the site of the new ] olico barracks. I will now, with your permission, give my own views on the question, which I saw it would be useless to put before that meeting. It is admitted by all who have considered the question that a great error was made in laying off the city in not making Queenstreet and other leading thoroughfares at least 50ft wider, and that such narrow streets as Shortland, Swanson, Durham and High Streets were egregious blunders; that the surveyor did not look sufficiently ahead, and could have had no idea that Auckland would ever become such an important city. We are now in the same position with regard to the future. I have not the slightest doubt that when the Central railway shall have been completed and the line extended to the north of the province and the northern part opened up by bridges and roads, Auckland will become, if it is not already, tho most important harbour and city in the whole of New Zealand. Holding this view, I maintain that tho Harbour Board, as trustees of the public estate, have no right whatever to alienate a single acre. The value of the property they hold is incalculable. Mr. Parr told the meeting that in 10 years' time the ground would be worth twice the present value, in 20 years three times the value, and as to the end of 50 years he was satisfied that once the people of Auckland got their feet on the recreation ground, it would always be a recreation ground. This alienation is what I object to. Looking into the not very ' distant future, I see the Freeman's Bay site a wet dock, surrounded by large and substantial bond and free warehouses, where vessels can discharge end load their cargoes, for it is • very evident that the present makeshift system of berthing at ihe Queen-street Wharf must be superseded m the future by a much more comprehensive and business-like arrangement. Just imagine for one moment any important seaport town in England giving up 16 or 20 acres in such a position for football and cricket. I am at a loss to understand how clear-headed business men with any view to the future of the port can for a moment entertain the proposal. Would any private individual part from it on such terms if it were his own property ? If not, why should he do it as a trustee ? Mv suggestion is that the Harbour Board should lease a certain portion of it on the eastern and western sides, in allotments, sav for 40 or 50 years, without the option of renewal, lay the remainder down m grass and leave it open for cycling, cricket, drilling, etc., the City Council to lease it from year to year at a nominal rent, recouping the cost of lighting, etc., in any way they may think fit. Tins arrangement will save the ratepayers any cost, and the lessees can have no claim for vested rights, -I am, etc., James Btjbtt.