PAPAKURA PARK

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 8, Issue 471, 10 October 1919, Page 2

PAPAKURA PARK

A " Dis-counter " Blast

Sik, —I would be pleased if you could spare a few lines for a little stunt on my own, in reply or comment rather, on a letter signed Wm. Richardson, which appeared in your Tuesday's edition. To begin with, a good, fair discussion is of benefit, but when the writer of the " counterblast " wlio is a successful business man of Papakura," undertakes to belittle those who do not agree with him, 1 wish to remind him that it is no real support to his side of the question, and discounts any merit it may hive, j would remind him that I was not on tie Board when the Glasgow leases were sold; but I remember well that when one of the ex-mem-bers (Mr Stewart) wanted a loan of £2OOO for roads and bridges, Mr Richardson voted in favour of the amount being reduced to £1250, which was carried. A very " progressive " policy for Papakura. JNow he would lash out with a couple of thousand pounds for the re-purchase of the ratepayers' own land, this park adjoins and faces his property, by the way. This " swamp " is a continuation of the property owned by Mr Wm. Richardson, and on which he erected three three-stalled " shacks" as the) are called by the coalminers—for people to dwell in day and night. Well, the same sort of land should be good enough for a park. houses are opposite the " swamp site." Commissioner Dr Brookfield bought a town lot on another road facing tho "swamp site," and the chairman of the Board one just across the road from the same site, and ex-Commissioner Markwick has just completed a residence on the " swamp site:" that is not a bad indication as to the merits of the position. The East Street site would have been accepted at a certain Board meeting, had not the "energetic member'' threatened to leave the meeting which would not then have had a quorum. Another member perhaps ftorn want of experience threatened to do likewise. I think the ratepayers ought to be furnished with their names.

Generally, "Dub Squibs/' remarks about the selection of a park were appropriate and impartial, and I would welcome him in our midst. What on earth is the use of Mr Kichardson advising the ratepayers not to take outsiders' advice, but to be advised by him especially. Re the growlers not taking their place on the Board, each of them have served long, and I hope, well. However, let this euccesful business man, who has ample time, take his place on the Board, as he says we should. As to his remarks re the names criticised by him in his report, I am not going to defend them. "Good wine needs no Buah."

Now, is Mr Kichardson prepared to sacrifice in value £SOO towards a park, as Willis Bros did ? If so, we will alter our opinion of him; and now I challenge him to adduce any figures that will warrant the ratepayers paying £2OOO for the privilege of losing the revenue of £3OOO for all time. Tut! tut! William, produce your figures. E. S. Cole. Papakura, October 9.