The Foreshore Question.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume IV, Issue 472, 26 June 1890, Page 2

The Foreshore Question.

AN APATHETIC BOARD. Ths following proposition was moved by Mr Sigley at the Whataupoko Road Board's meeting on Tuesday last, but strange to say did not find a seconder, as, although the members considered the frequent opening of the bridges was objectionable, they thought the matter had gone too far to bo affected by any communicaton from them to the Harbor Board. “ That this Board heartily approves of the action of the Borough Council in opposing the leasing of the foreshore above the two bridges, for the erection of warehouses, &c., thereon; when there is ample extent available for such purposes below the Turanganui Bridge; and concurs in the opinion of the Council that much trouble and expense (which it is possible to avoid) would be caused by the frequent opening of the bridges to allow cargo boats to pass up the river. Serious inconvenience would also be experienced by a large number of the residents of North Gisborne by the traffic being interrupted, and the progress of that district would consequently be checked. For these reasons, it is hoped the Harbor Board will reconsider the matter, and not lease any portion of the foreshore in the localities referred to, without, at least, giving further consideration to the injury likely to be done thereby to the district mentioned, and to the ratepayers generally; a copy of this resolution be sent to the Borough Council, and to the Harbor Board.”

The mover pointed out that as trade increased, the demands to open the bridges, so that vessels could pass, would also become more frequent; the evil would be a growing one. The injury likely to be done to the progressive districts of Kaiti and Whataupoko had not been sufficiently considered by either the Harbor Board or the County Council, and although the latter body had passed a resolution expressing approval of the leasing of z the foreshore to Messrs Common, Shelton and Co., the effect of that, upon the districts named, was not thought of at all, and indeed to the general body of County residents who were scattered over a wide area, it was a matter of indifference whether the bridges were opened or closed, but to the residents cf North Gisborne the matter was of much consequence, and the mover thought that if traffic across the bridges was allowed to become very much interrupted, it would have an injurious effect on the value of property in the suburbs to which the bridges directly lead, besides interfering with ordinary traffic, and the children attending school, and that the interests or wishes of a single flrm should not be allowed to interfere with the public convenience in the manner anticipated.