DOMAIN OUTLET FOR TRAFFIC.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21118, 27 February 1932, Page 14

DOMAIN OUTLET FOR TRAFFIC.

Sir,—The Mayor is to be congratulated on his policy of arranging addresses to citizens and the city engineer for tho historical summary of the past development of the Domain. Several points arising from the city engineer's address should, however, be noted. The first was the repetition of the complaint made by the Mayor that the plans of the proposed roadway had not been inspected by objectors to the scheme, and therefore 90 per cent, of the objections were based on misconception. It is as well to remember that no opportunity was given to tho general public to discuss the scheme before it was "un fait acciimpli, and the work was to have been proceeded with immediately. Further, it did not require any inspection of plans, elaborate or otherwise, for the trained observer to pick tho route of the road and to recognise its consequences and the infringement of the elementary principle of excluding traffic routes from recreational centres. Speaking for myself, I have now seen tho plan, and have heard the city engineer, but neither tho seeing noi the hearing has altered my conviction that tho roadway is but the first link in a traffic route through the Domain. The citv engineer seems somewhat confused himself as to whether the route is intended to relieve through traffic on all days, or only local traffic on sports days, and limitation by by-law is a poor weapon in the face of changing councils. With regard to the principal entrance to the Domain being in Stanley Street, surely this should have some relation to the trend of population and to main traffic routes. I am afraid the inquiry by the joint committee will lead to a great waste of time. Would not the simpler and more satisfactory way be to arrange a competition for the layout of the Domain Numerous professional and technical men now, unfortunately, have plenty of time on their hands, and would be glad to enter, and the plans submitted would make a suitable basis on which to prepare a final scheme. E. V. Blake.

Sir—The address of the city engineer on Thursday evening to the City Council and the citizens stated accurately the trusts affecting the Domain. It is vested in the City Corporation "s.s a place of public recreation and enjoyment for the inhabitants of the Borough of the City of Auckland, and the public generally.' And, as he pointed out, it is by statute "tinder the control and management" of the council. The council, therefoie, is trustee, and, as such, it is its duty conserve the interests of the beneficiaries and to resist any encroachments on the rights nf the -"inhabitants and the public generally." Moreover, as trustees, the council "should under no circumstances allow itself to be placed in a position in which its duty as a guardian and protector of the public trusts should come into conflict with its personal interests, in so far as those interests are concerned with tho providing of a new traffic outlet. When such _a _ conflict arises the council should, if it intends to persevere in its purpose of appropriating a part of the public property, abdicate its function as a trustee representing the public. Let us examine in a little detail the position of the council, having regard to its opposing interests in the matter. As trustee, the council should, in furtherance of its duty to the beneficiaries, advise His Excellency the Governor-General to refuse to consent to the alienation for traffic purposes of any part of the property, of which, it cannot be too strongly insisted on, the public of New Zealand are the real owners. As a local authority, having the control and government of the city, and, as such, being responsible, not. to the _ "public generally," but only to the citizens, the council would, of course, ask His Excellency to consent to the setting apart of a line of road through the Domain for traffic purposes. It is impossible to reconcile these two utterly inconsistent positions. Good faith and elemental business morality alike establish that the ccuncil cannot discharge its functions to both sets of masters. It appears quite clear that the purpose of the City Council is to provide a traffic outlet for light traffic. At the conclusion of his address the city engineer was asked, pointedly and specifically, whether the proposed drive was to be confined strictly and exclusively to the purpose of providing an approach to the Domain. His reply was not as definite as the terms of the question demanded, and the inference is, of course, obvious. admitted, however, that light traffic would pass through. It is clear, therefore, that a gravo breach of trust is intended and that the council contemplates a deprivation of the enjoyment by the public of a portion of the reserve. It is a lamentable circumstance that at intervals the ever-accursed lust for the alienation or diversion of public reserves attacks a section of the community. There is always one answer to this, and that is that the reserve is a public reserve. It is necessary for tho people to maintain unceasing vigilance to ensure that places of "public recreation and enjoyment" are not taken from them. It is unfortunate that the apathetic spirit which atrophies members of the public in relation to many affairs which affect them in their corporate character tends to destroy their sense of resistance to an encroachment on their rights. The present is an occasion which should impel them to oppose to tho uttermost the proposal to deprive them of a portion of their heritage. The history of the Domain shows how, in bygone and in recent times, portions of it have been alienated by stealth from their true purpose. Sometimes this was accomplished with all tho forms and ceremonies of an Act of Parliament, but it was none the better of that: it still remained a "steal." R. McVeagh.