A conflict of values: nature vs infrastructure
Council and bird park continue to squabble
A road
planned to go through the middle of Shaw’s Bird Park has ignited controversy,
calling for a change of how we approach future decisions involving the
environment.
Shaw’s Bird Park opened to the public in 2018. The park is the private property of Margaret and Murray Shaw and is the culmination of 30 years of development accomplished by the two of them. It is located within the Glenview-Peacocke suburb of Hamilton.
While the park is an environmental asset to the city, the road planned for development is also undoubtedly valuable for Hamilton’s infrastructure. The road is a part of the Peacocke’s development, which the Hamilton City Council claims will support up to 20,000 residents.
Right from the start it has been surrounded by controversy. Since its opening, the owners of the park have been vocalising their protest at the council project that plans to split the park in two via a main road, destroying the park as we know it.
The road’s construction is contested by two polarising accounts of the situation. The Hamilton City Council claims that the Shaws agreed and knew about the developments. The Shaws oppose this position. Both parties have posted statements to tell their sides of the story.
The long-standing squabble between the HCC and Shaw’s Park hinders finding a solution that will benefit both parties.
If the two could co-exist it would be better for both.
Kara McNab, a previous volunteer at Shaw’s Park.
The park is an environmental resource for the city, providing education and rehabilitation of wildlife.
“I think it is one of the only places in Hamilton that educates people on the environment… Looking after a wide array of animals, not just birds.” says Kara.
It is also the home to over 500 native trees; fruit trees to feed the birds; three lakes and a plethora of native birds and other animals.
The controversy that surrounds the Park and the Peacocke’s development is an unfortunate collision of values. Regardless of outcome, either Hamilton’s environment or its future infrastructure will be damaged.
“I think in general when it comes to planning our cities we could do so much better with living in harmony with nature”, Kara noted. Her partner, Maihi Cooper agreed; “They’re signing deals years and years in advance expecting nothing to change”.
The whole situation highlights the need for something to change in the way we approach environmental decisions in the future.
