The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. "Luceo Non Uro." THURSDAY, DECEMBER 6, 1934. QUEEN’S PARK

Southland Times, Issue 22497, 6 December 1934, Page 4

The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. "Luceo Non Uro." THURSDAY, DECEMBER 6, 1934. QUEEN’S PARK

If the City Council, when it referred to the proposal to re-estab-lish a municipal links under direct corporation control to the Queen’s Park Golf Club, intended to keep its mind open on this subject, it should learn a great deal about the affairs of the club, and also of the experience of the golfers in the days before the Queen’s Park Golf Club was vested with the full control of the golf links. As one Councillor remarked, the real issue is: are the golfers to be permitted to remain on Queen’s Park oi’ not? From the Council’s point of view it is necessary to consider what will be the’effect if the golfers are compelled to shift to some other place. One immediate result will be, of course, that the care of the whole area will be a charge on the ratepayers, and if the park is to be maintained in its present condition, this will represent a fairly substantial item of expense. The suggestion that the park has been madfe the preserve of about two hundred golfers is very close to nonsense, and the idea that golf played upon a public common excludes the public in its right to use the area will n.ot hold water for a moment. The most famous golf links in the world, St. Andrews, which may be regarded as the “Vatican” of British golf, is actually on a public common, and the public roam at will on that place. Being reasonable people, more concerned for public amenities than for such things as the strict letter of individual right, they do not interfere with golf on the links on important occasions, and they do not abandon any of their rights by their reasonable attitude. There is quite a lot of theory about the interference with the public on Queen’s Park, but if the Council holds that the public rights are in any way infringed, then it is its duty to remove the golfer from the park. If the Council considers that it is desirable to leave the golfers there, then it must consider what form of control is the best in the interests of the ratepayers, and of the links. No doubt the City Reserves Department is quite capable of looking after the links, but past experience has shown that direct municipal con-

trol is not successful, and with the possibility of changes in the personnel of the Council, the maintenance of a policy extending over more than two years becomes a precarious matter. It should be remembered that when the Council maintained the links and permitted the Queen’s Park Golf Club to exist for the purpose of controlling competitions, the results were entirely unsatisfactory. The Council lost money, the golf club languished. It was because the Council was faced with an annual loss that it proposed to the Queen’s Park Golf Club that it should take over the whole control of the links. While the Council was in charge, it was quite ready to accept the use of (he park for the pasturage of sheep; but very soon after it handed the financial responsibility over to the club it discovered that it was undesirable to pasture sheep on this public area, and the club, in deference to the Council’s wishes, abandoned this method of obtaining revenue. Since that time, the club has spent a lot of money in maintaining this large area, and there can be no doubt that its operations have resulted in a considerable improvement in the broad spaces of Queen’s Park under its control. Put bluntly, the corporation cannot maintain this area by itself without a considerable annual outlay, which must be supplied from the general account, and so sure as it removes the golfers from the park or forces them to abandon this area by undue interference, it will increase the charges upon the general ratepayer. At the moment the Queen’s Park Golf Club obtains the right to use the park at a nominal rent, but the advantages accruing to the city are considerable, and there appears to be no reason why the golfers should be treated differently from any of the other sporting bodies. It must be remembered that while a bowling club or tennis club pays a nominal rent the area under its immediate control is small, and the actual saving of the maintenance charges to the Council is negligible. On the other hand, the saving to the corporation in connection with Queen’s Park is large, and that fact should weigh considerably with a corporation desirous of protecting the ratepayers’ interests.