“Auckland Fed-up With City Council”

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 222, 8 December 1927, Page 10

“Auckland Fed-up With City Council”

PT. CHEVALIER BATHS

“AUCKLANDERS are fed a " d are almost unanimously hoping for the success of Dixi/ land, Ltd., in its plucky against a monopolistic City Couo. Early in the New Year \ uckl _~ ratepayers will be asked to vote on “ proposal to raise £12,000 for buila?- 1 baths at Point Chevalier. i n Tl® meantime the Marine Department decision concerning the Dixieland, Ltd., for a licence to her 1 at the Point, is held up. That there are many who consid., the City Council in the wrong is 11' closed by the following letter wrur. to the Editor of THE SUN bv Jr R. Harley Devereux:— * r -

“I have been delegated bv a lai* number of swimming write to you with a view to briadn, before the public the position vhhi has arisen in connection with Dixieland Baths.

"OUR BELOVED COUNCIL" “That supremely efficient body ot civic administrators—our muc !/ beloved City Council— supported th, setting up of a special commission when the Minister of Marine showed signs of granting to Dixieland, Ltd. 4 licence to erect, well below high-wam* mark at Point Chevalier, the £ n „ r swimming baths in Australia and New Zealand. The commission was "dnlv set up and the council had perfotte to make desperate attempts to pmr. that the proposed baths were unnecessary'; that they would not be properly controlled, and that they would not be in any way to the public'interesL The commissioner, aftehearing voluminous evidence adduced by the council, sent in a report emphasising the absolute necessity for the construction of swimming baths and therein virtually administered a severe reproof to the City Council. “In the face'of public opinion, and of the commission's report, howecer the council still refused to withdraw its opposition to Dixieland, Ltd.'s pro ject, and in a most unfortunate moment decided to build new baths itself out of the ratepayers' money. YVe are therefore shortly to be asked to allow the council to expend £12,000 of our money in the construction of oaths at Point Chevalier—baths which, from evidence adduced by the council before the commission, mus't be a fosmg proposition. “On the other hand, we have Dixieland, Ltd., straining every nerve to do for us, free of cost, that which the council wishes to spend £12,000 upon doing. “The record of the council in handling Auckland’s transport problems is hardly such as to give ratepayers confidence in its ability to manage new baths successfully—especially in view of the fact that one of the council’s witnesses was so definite upon the inevitability of muni-cipally-controlled baths being a financial failure.

“To put the matter in a nut-shell, Aucklanders are ‘fed-up’ with the council, and are almost unanimously hoping for the success of Dixieland, Ltd., in its plucky' fight against the monopolistic council. “If the latter wishes to regain some of the lost confidence of its ratepayers, let it recede from its untenable position and allow Dixieland to go ahead. In these days of hard times there are hard times there are better uses for our money than expending it in expensive and unnecessary commissions—to say nothing of loan polls.

“I must apologise for the length of this letter, which is written on behalf of a large number of swimmers and ratepayers, and which, therefore, will save you space in the long run. Auckland’s swimmers have not forgotten that the City Council would not fconcrete the mud bottom of the PamtU Baths until THE SUN opened its correspondence columns upon this subject, and for this reason we feel that you will give publicity to the position discussed herein.”