THE FORESHORE QUESTION.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume III, Issue 457, 22 May 1890, Page 2

THE FORESHORE QUESTION.

Nothing further seems to have been done in regard to the action of the Harbor Board concerning the foreshore question, A letter from the Borough Council has

been sent to the Board, but as the latter body does not meet until June 12, the appeal from the Borough Council will not even be read until it is too late to make a withdrawal from the position,- and the Council, if it rests content with doing no more than it has done in the matter, will possibly leave itself open to blame for doing worse than nothing—for taking action which in itself is not likely to be of avail, but which may have had the effect of preventing the citizens taking up the matter and placing themselves in direct communication with the Marine Department.

It. is the duty of the Council to remain content with no half measures —its petition should be to the Marine Department. Seeing that it will be so long before the Harbor Board holds another meeting, that body cannot complain of any want respect to it—as the Council itself may well do against the Board—if the appeal is sent direct to headquarters. The members of the Board would probably prefer that to be done, because having accepted a deposit from the intending lessees, the Board would stultify itself in now turning round and seeking to undo that which they did despite of warning. The following is a copy of the letter addressed to the Harbor Board

The Council having observed that it is proposed by your Board to lease a portion of the foreshore on the Taruheiu river, for the purpose of a building site, has passed a resolution, objecting to the same on the following grounds : — 1. If the present intention to lease from high to low water is carried out the channel will be too narrow for traffic, and danger to the bridge will be caused thereby. 2. For the health of the town the river will be more beneficial free from buildings. 3. That the river should be kept free from buildings, for the benefit of the numerous pleasure boats using it. As the town increases the river will be of greater importance in this respect. But in the above the point vzhich wil at once appeal to the reasoning of the ratepayers is omitted—that is, the cost of opening the bridges. People unfortunately do not look to the future as they ought, and because the danger from a sanitary point of view is yet of the future, it is not given that consideration which fairly ought to be bestowed upon it. But the question of the cost of opening the bridges, if it does not already effectively appeal to the pockets of Borough and County ratepayers, will do so directly the work is begun and timber is taken up the river. The Council, in its letter, did not note the point, for the simple reason that from a legal standpoint any objection of the kind will not hold good. The river must be kept navigable, and there is no shirking the cost of opening the bridge? if it can be shown that vessels are engaged in commerce. But such expense should not be encouraged, and a paltry £23 a year will be a mere fraction of what the cost will be, to say nothing of the inconvenience to the settlers on Kaiti and Whataupoko. Even now the Turanganui bridge is a structure so frail that if it requires to be swung very often it is probable that a very large sum will have to be expended on it. The freezing works are now the cause of considerable expense to Borough and County ratepayers, but there is this satisfaction, that nearly every time a boat passes down it means that a valuable cargo is being shipped away, and that there will be a return in wealth to further develop this fine district. But there would not be much satisfaction in knowing that the ratepayers were being put to all the expense simply to give one business firm advantageover other firms. If the one site is allowed to be leased it will only be reasonable that other firms should have the like privilege, and the thoughtlessness of the Harbor Board in the first instance may lead to very serious consequences if the ratepayers simply trust the matter to Providence —and the Harbor Board.