THE PARK.

Taranaki Daily News, 6 April 1921, Page 4

THE PARK.

PROPOSAL TO DISSOLVE BOARD. REJECTED BY MEMBERS. The Pukekura Park Board last night discussed the question of municipal control of the park, when a motion in favor of such a move, which had been brought forward some montTis ago by Mrs. C. H. Burgess, came up for final settlement. There was a full meeting of the board, and after a short discussion the motion was defeated, members being of opinion that the time was not opportune for the change. The resolution upon which decision had been postponed read: “That in order that the Pukekura Park Board, and all lands owned by this board, shall be vested in the Borough of New Plymouth, a petition signed by the majority of the members Of the board be presented to his Excellency the Governor-General, praying that he will be pleased to dissolve the board under the powers conferred upon him by the Taranaki Botanic Gardens Act, 1876.”

Mrs. Burgess said that the proposal had already been very well discussed, and all that she now wished was that the motion be put to a straight-out vote. NO ADVANTAGES. Mr. W. C. Weston said that he could not see any advantage to be gained by the move, as ,the borough was in such a position that no help could be given to the board. Such a proposal as suggested would really mean dissolving the present board and handing over the management to a board constituted on practically similar liries, possibly, however, without the same interest. He did not like the existing system of life membership, but it was equally as good as anything that would possibly be sub--1 stituted within the next few years. If there were any chance of a progressive move arising from the carrying of the motion he would support it. >Mr. P. Stainton said he was heartily in accord with the motion, but could not vote for it, as, in view of what the Borough Council had said, they would not be achieving the objects originally aimed at. These were two-fold: Firstly, to do away with the obsolete method of having life membership; secondly, to have the park controlled and paid for by the people who should carry the liability, and not by a certain few. The Borough Council, however, had given the board to understand clearly that they would not take the responsibility in the

way the board wished them ito do, as they had too much on hand airlady. Mr. Stainton expressed to Mrs. Burgess his personal appreciation of her action in bringing the motion forward, as discussion and interest had been promoted. If the motion was not carried at the present juncture, the change would only be postponed, and not avoided altogether. Mr. R. C. Hughes expressed the view that the only aspect that would justify the carrying of the resolutiou • placing the control frith the Borough Council would be that such a move ensured more effective administration and an increase in the revenue. With regard to the administration, however, the council had indicated its complete indifference, and had told the board that as soon as the park came under its control a public meeting would be called, and a citizens’ committee formed to look after the park. The council also said that it could not increase the existing subsidy. In view of these facts he would move to vote against the motion. TIME NOT OPPORTUNE.

Mr. W. F. Short said that the position of the Borough Council was such that it was not likely to take over the park and run it with the same enthusiasm as the present park board, or any other board, as the personnel of the council was always changing. The advantage, of course, would be that at some time the council might appoint an overseer, but there was no money to spend at this juncture. The chairman (Mr C. E. Bellringer) said he was thoroughly in accord with the general principles of the resolution. The system of life appointment in any body was out of keeping with the spirit of the times. He believed that the Borough Council was the proper authority to control the park, and that the park ought to be maintained out of revenue received from rates. This work .should be an integral part of the borough work; but the council had said that it was not possible to create a park department, which was essential to give t'he supervision that was necessary. At the present time the board did not have sufficient supervision, because out of the revenue they could not afford to pay for the services of a skilled man as curator. The time was not opportune for the change to municipal control, but it would come in the future, and he would welcome it.

(Mr. V. Griffiths said he was fully in accord with the resolution. They already had one of the most beautiful towns in the Dominion, from a botanic point of view, and if they were to keep up to date, and make New Plymouth what it should be. some systematic method of dealing with the town as a whole must be adopted. The motion was a step in the right direction, and for a start would give a board which was elected annually. This, he believed, was one of the main objects of moving the resolution. The time would arrive soon when the whole of the parks must be vested in the borough, though he did not think this could be achieved at the present juncture. Mr. Griffiths expressed his intention of voting for the resolution. FINANCIAL OUTLOOK. Replying to various comments on the motion, Mrs. Burgess said that even if the Borough Council called a public meeting and handed over the park management to a citizens’ committee the present members could still assist in the work, but would have a larger circle of opinion and more help. The finances of the present board were assured for the next eighteen months, but there was no guarantee as to what the position would be at the expiry of that period The people of New Plymouth would soon see the wisdom of having a park superintendent. Mrs. Burgess said she did not know of any work in which she had taken greater interest than the park, but she had felt all along that the constitution of the board was wrong. If the 9000 ratepayers decided that the borough should have a park superintendent, the request would have to be acceded to..

The motion was then put and was lost, those voting for it being the mover and Mr. Griffiths.