Untitled

New Zealand Mail, Issue 769, 26 November 1886, Page 22

With one exception, the result of Tuesday night’s meeting of the City Council in reference to the agreement with the Harbour Board was generally satisfactory. The long-standing controversy respecting the righl of reclamation on the Te Aro foreshore has been prejudicial to the interests of both parties, and to the citizens whom both sides represent. Many desirable and some necessary improvements depend upon the settlement of the old dispute as to the Corporation’s right of reclamation. That the strict legal right possessed by that body did include powers of reclamation which, if fully exercised, would have inflicted serious injury on the harbour, there is practically no doubt at all. The difficulty has been to make Councillors see that the full enforcement of that right would, by damaging the harbour, operate most injuriously against the highest interests of the city. Shortsighted persons have been unable to extend their vision beyond the mere narrow view that if so much of the harbour were reclaimed it would be nominally worth so much money, forgetting that this would be dearly gained at the cost of the slightest injury to the harbour or diminution of its convenience to shipping. The harbour is to Wellington's trade and prosperity and future prospects what a man’s heart and lungs, are to his vital economy, and can as little safely be tampered with. We should have preferred to see the Marine Engineer’s Bft line of frontage adopted, but failing that, we are very glad that the City Council has agreed to fix the reclamatiop limit permanently at the 12ft line. The point in the agreement, as amended last night by the Council, which we mention above as open to exception was that relating to the accommodation for the boating clubs’ sheds. It seems unquestionable that to grant for this purpose the area proposed in the original draft of the agreement would have the effect of depriving the harbour of a length of quay berthage which was relied upon to replace a berth that the contemplated reclamation would abolish, and might impede the free approach to another berth. For this reason the site eastward of Cuba-street, ultimately decided upon by the Council, would be preferable, although not free from objection, as tending to limit the approach to the new berths. But if it be the fact, as urged by the boating men of Wellington, that the more eastward locality would be so seriously exposed to north-westerly weather as to be rendered often inaccessible by the class of boats used, then undoubtedly the objection is a strong one. Paramount as the commercial interests of the harbour must necessarily be, we fully recognise that the importance of the boating interest in such a port as Wellington cannot properly- be ignored, and should be taken carefully into account in completing the arrangements as to the foreshore. But isit clear that no alternative course. is feasible? Could not some provision be made to the northward of the Queen’s Wharf for the accommodation of the boating clubs ? If this could be effected it would probably be the best solution of the problem, and we should be glad to learn from the representatives of the boating fraternity whether they see any insuperable objections to this way out of the difficulty.