LETTERS

Auckland City Harbour News - - OPINION -

What I did was point out the wide range of the cost es­ti­mates and draw at­ten­tion to the quan­tum of costs and their im­pact on ratepay­ers.

The pos­si­bil­ity that the costs may be taken from other projects does not di­min­ish the over­all cost to ratepay­ers and would no doubt meet op­po­si­tion from pro­po­nents of the projects af­fected.

It should also be noted that the Board ad­vo­cated to Auck­land Coun­cil for fund­ing to be in­cluded in the 2015-2025 Long Term Plan.

I also called on the board to pro­vide cost es­ti­mates for the aquatic cen­tre if they were avail­able so that an ac­cu­rate eval­u­a­tion could be made of the re­de­vel­op­ment op­tions be­ing con­sid­ered.

Dr Haynes refers to master plan­ning as ‘‘an as­pi­ra­tional plan­ning ex­er­cise’’.

But board mem­ber Graham Easte has been quoted as say­ing ‘‘We are go­ing to re­de­velop Cham­ber­lain Park’’ and ‘‘The sta­tus quo is not an op­tion’’ and on April 22 the board re­solved (on a ma­jor­ity vote) to ap­prove, in prin­ci­ple, a re­design of Cham­ber­lain Park and to ap­prove four sce­nar­ios for con­sul­ta­tion.

An amend­ment to in­clude the sta­tus quo in con­sul­ta­tion was lost.

This strongly sug­gests that Cham­ber­lain Park re­de­vel­op­ment is an in­ten­tion, not an as­pi­ra­tion, in spite of there be­ing a ‘‘None of the above’’ op­tion in the phase two con­sul­ta­tion.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from New Zealand

© PressReader. All rights reserved.