Poverty Bay Herald PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING GISBORNE, WEDNESDAY, JUNE 30, 1937 THE PARK DOMAIN

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19364, 30 June 1937, Page 4

Poverty Bay Herald PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING GISBORNE, WEDNESDAY, JUNE 30, 1937 THE PARK DOMAIN

The decision of the Borough Council to ask the Government to take over the Park Domain will not meet with the approval of the public. On the face of it, it is an admission of weakness on the part of the council and an attempt to evade its clear duty to the people by whom it was elected; in reality, it is a somewhat puerile attempt to call the Minister’s “bluff.” What the council seems to have overlooked is that it had a clear and definite mandate from the ratepayers to acquire the property for the people of Gisborne and to itself undertake the responsibility of maintaining it. Now, in direct opposition to the wishes of the people, the council solemnly decides to abandon its trust and dispose of the Park, providing, of course, that the Government is prepared to buy—and if it were, no one would be more surprised than the council itself. Some people might pride themselves that this sort of thing is astute manoeuvring, but in actual results it will inevitably be found to lead nowhere: it can only serve to increase the existing friction. And in the meantime the council is retreating from its perfectly legitimate stand that as the elected representatives of the people it is entitled to decide what shall, and what shall not be done with the people’s -property. Its original attitude was firmly based on a clearlyestablished principle, and now, just because it has met with some opposition from one individual, it coolly hauls down its colours, sacrifices a vital principle, and ofTers to dispose of a property for which it is the people’s trustee. By its decision, the council has not added to its dignity or prestige and it has made no useful contribution towards a settlement of the dispute. Whatever the Borough Council may say or do, there are two undisputed facts. The first is that the people of Giesborne desire lhat the domain should be owned by them and its control vested in the council; the second is that the domain should be used for racing, both in the interests of racegoers and for the benefits that would accrue to the public through obtaining such a profitable tenant. None of these objects will be attained if effect, is given to the council’s decision, and for this reason it is not possible, by any means, to justify it. The council can plead that it has been harassed into adopting the line of least resistance, or that it has been misled by statements made to it, but these are not valid grounds for shirking its obvious duty and submitting to the threats of a man who for the time being happens to be a Minister cf the Crown and, who, in defiance of the fundamental principles of democracy, seeks to subject the people to his unreasoning domination. The council should be the bulwark of the people against, any such attempt at dictation: instead, it has become a party to it. Even last night’s decision of the council was the outcome of a blind refusal to face the facts and was largely based on the repeated misstatement that the racing club did not desire to race on the park after this .year. The council knows full well that the racing club has reached no such decision, that the question has not even been formally discussed by its executive, and that the club is committed to its supporters to hold its meeting on the domain.

Despite this knowledge, the council, by implication at least, has made itself a party to an undertaking given to the Minister without the authority of •either the council or the racing club. The council has had no official communication from the club at all and its discussion and decision have no stronger foundation than a piece of corridor gossip between two or three individuals acting in an entirely unofficial capacity. Yet the council was told last night that the racing club was bound by this piece of gossip and that it could not again apply for permission to race on the Park. The club is not so bound; on the contrary, it is morally bound to continue to race on the Park if it is possible to do so. There was reference, also, to “wrangling” among racing club members. What evidence is there of any wrangling? The club lias not even met to wrangle and it has had the clearest possible evidence that both its members and the public arc determined that race meetings should be conducted on the Park property. It was further stated that the position was altered because of Ihe “enormous expense” involved in replacing the stand at the Park; yet it is obvious to any layman that this cost would be trivial compared with the loss to the racing club were it compelled to race on a course that is unsuitable and unpopular. All these ii relevant points have been dragged in with the object of further confusing the issue and providing tlje council with an excuse to avoid its obligations to the public. Until now, the council had nothing whatever to reproach itself with. It. had acted fairly and straightforwardly and the difficulties that had been created were due solely to assurances being given without its authority. Now further dmilar undertakings have been entered into and the council is making the

situation still more complicated by neglecting to define its position and by seeking an easy way of escape. The 'essential thing is for the council to get back to its original position and stand firm for the principle of its right to control the property of the people it represents.