THE ANDERSON'S DAY INLET.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 14684, 18 November 1909, Page 6

THE ANDERSON'S DAY INLET.

The desire of the residents cf Anderson's Bay that the inlet should oe reclaimed and thereafter set aside as a recreation reserve for the district will be generally regarded a.s so legitimate as to merit in so far as the proposal is practicable the fullest sympathy of the public. As it is, tlio inlet is an insanitary eyesore, and it is highly undesirable that ifc should bo allowed to remain any longer than is avoidable

in its present condition. If it could be transformed into a reserve, carrying arich sward and belted with suitable trcas and shrubs, and bo made available as playground, for which purpose it would, sheltered as it is o" three sides by a. natural amphitheatre that would alford a splendid coign of \antnge for the spectators of any spoits that were in progress, be exceptionally well adapted, it would constitute a magnificent asset- for Anderson's Bay and incidentally also for the citv, especially a s it might be expected to serve as an admirable feeder for the tramway system. It, i s to be regretted ill the circumstance that the proposal of the 'residents of Anderson's li ay that, tho inlet should bo reclaimed and reserved conflicts at tho present time with a proposal that is of great importance to the Otago Harbour Board— namely, that that body should be "iveti [ tho control of the whole foreshore of t tho harbour cf which it manages the | affairs. The desire of the Board that ! it should be entrusted with this control and that it should in this respect be placed on a. footing similar to that enjoyed, we believe, iu their respective localities by most of the other Harbour Boards in the Dominion, is clearly one which should in the interests of the community be realised. But if tho Harbour Board is conceded, what we conceive to be its due, tho right of control over the foreshore, then the inlet at Anderson's Bay will come within its jurisdiction. It seems to us, however, that tlvero should be uo objection to this on tho part of the residents of Anderson's Bay. On tho contrary, it must be patent that the Harbour Board is tho one body which is in a position to execute, whenever it is to be executed, the necessary work of dredging and reclaiming that must be performed if the desires of the residents are to bo fulfilled. Without tlie aid of the Harbour Board, on the other hand, thero can be no hope of the realisation of the proposal that contemplates the reclamation and reservation of the area. It is also to be recognised that the cost of reclaiming the inlet, as a whole, which is sixty-seven acres in extent, or a portion, of it for utilisation as a recreation reserve will inevitably be heavy, and that it would be unreasonable in any circumstances to expect tho Harbour Board to undertake this work unless it were to receive some quid pro quo. While the desire on the part of the Tesidents of Anderson's Bay to secure what would be an admirable recreation ground for the suburb is intelligible and laudable, the desire oil the part of the Harbour Board to secure statutory control over the foreshore must bo equally admitted to bo reasonable, and, indeed, dictated by the interests of the public !\s a whole. It is to be regretted that the one aim should clash with the other, but ifc seems to us th>t the conflict is not- of such a kind as defies the possibility of relief. The Harbour Board has, we understand, sought a. conference with the City Council and the Bay Town Board on the subject, and we hope that it may bo so arranged that representatives of these three bodies shall meet for a frank discussion of the questions that are involved, for it should not be an extravagant belief that in such a case an amicable understanding will be arrived at.