THE FUTURE PUKEKURA? 1

Taranaki Daily News, 21 September 1931, Page 8

THE FUTURE PUKEKURA? 1

(To the Editor.) Sir,—It seemed as though ugliness and jangling commercialism were expressing themselves in the very places where they should be most foreign when I took a walk to-day commencing at the Fillia Street gully and skirted the whole boundary of Pukekura Parkl Once upon a time when we were young we wandered through this sanctuary of repose and stillness and wondered what it was that appealed to our child minds. Now that we have grown a little older we know that we are the richer for having sensed the contrast of tinsel and false values'with sheer loveliness. And how refreshing was the contrast! However true or loud the praises sung by visitors, that was not the power that swayed, us. It was something like a calamity for one who owes even more than he can appreciate to the spell that Pukekura Park had weaved around him to see slaughter every few yards along what should be one of the finest walks in the world so near to civilisation. Nowhero appeared reason nor propriety for the destruction not only of old and foreign trees but of young trees at regular intervals. Denseness is a thing of the past, and the fever seems to grow. It was something like a nightmare, with no awakening to find release, to see piles of limbs and trunks and stumps beneath rows and groups of pines, which, themselves were so near to extinction. I wish I was exaggerating, but. I am not exaggerating. I suggest that if all who loved the park were to have seen what I saw this morning there would be such a justified outcry that the majority of the board responsible for this unreasoned destruction would resign—wanton as they are. .The park board has a policy. That was evident to anyone with eyes.' What is its policy? Every lover of the park with whom I have- discussed the matter expresses the view that the board should be actuated by the principal desire, to preserve and maintain its original beauty, make denseness denser, where commensurate with forester’s principles, so that even if the town and fashions change, Pukekura Park shall wax its peculiar beauty and never wane. Trees grow old, as all know. Yet we have it from those whose business it is to know (and everybody who does not presume clings to his special calling) that the oldest trees in the park are good for many more years of healthy life. If it is the board’s* policy to preserve. rather than revolutionise, it seems difficult to reconcile the fact with the ugliness and scantiness now so evident. VV e have read the reports of the boards meetings, but they have been tit-bits with the real long-view policy, the real aim concealed, or at least not directly presented. I can state that I speak for many others when I make this request through the Taranaki Daily News: that the Pukekura Park Board publish a statement ot its policy looking several years ahead and dealing particularly with the main issue of whether it proposes to preserve or to revolutionise; to transform a park into a garden or to protect and seclude its characteristic sylvan appearance. Members of this board, like members of every public body, must be given credit for service; yet, just because they serve, they are not to be above criticism. The park board is elected somewhat arbitrarily, and there is no great enthusiasm for seats. It is to be hoped that the board, whatever its opinions, will pay due regard to public taste. I feel sure that there is no desire to see Pukekura Park hacked and hewed until something new and experimental 13 made from something old and mellowed. It is a pity that positive proof of that assertion could not be- secured, but it the board considers otherwise, I am not alone in feeling that it will have committed an error in judging the feelings of the over-whelming majority. At least thirty people I know have expressed fear that the board will do something worse than it has done. It is to be hoped that a statement of the boards vision of its policy through the years will be published and favourably dispose of contention and show it to have been groundless. ~ T should also like to know whether it is a “fact that tho hoard, or some members of the board, discussed a proposal to slaughter the pines fringing tho Victoria Road boundary with a view to adding to revenue by leasing, for lo g terms building sites “over-looking u • kura Park’s main lake, with a : ma ° ficent view of flower beds and the tea kiosk.” Was tho matter ever dm cussed and, if so what was tho result? The board has tho power tomake or mar, and the latter may bo done before tho public has time to P™ test ' await with interest the °L °J board’s policy in toto. On behalf of thirty residents.—I am, etc., SINCERE. New Plymouth, September 17, 1931.