As a resident of Canberra for 30 years, I am vigorously opposed to the proposal to build an immigration bridge over Lake Burley Griffin (''Clamour to scuttle bridge proposal'', March 31, p1).
The bridge would add clutter to a pristine area and impinge on the beauty of the natural landscape for no useful purpose.
The advocates of the bridge presumed from the beginning of their campaign the bridge would be built.
They promoted it prior to any announcement or process for community consultation, or any information about what would be involved in its building.
The heritage values the lake would be compromised by a bridge because it would impose a built structure on the natural scenic beauty of the lake.
Most important, the damage to the heritage values of the lake would take place because of a structure that has no utility whatever.
A bridge is not needed to cross the lake at the site proposed.
If an immigration memorial is found to be needed, one should be found elsewhere that does not interfere with heritage values.
It is presumptuous of the bridge promoters to have proceeded with a campaign without public support and prior to a serious public inquiry.
The campaign assumes the bridge would be a good thing without any evidence that the community agrees or has been involved in any decision.
If an application for approval of the bridge were received by the National Capital Authority, the public should be well informed as to the design, cost and maintenance together with alternatives to the bridge and alternative designs.
David Pfanner, Hughes
The Canberra Times editorial (''A bridge so far lacking support'', April 1, p10) has got the questions about the proposed immigration bridge right.
So, also, has the bridge's proponents, Immigration Bridge Australia, as well as most people who have been involved in the debate over this proposal.
Simply, there is a compelling case for a national monument to all that immigration has added to the rich fabric of our society.
It's the answer to that case that is wrong.
As proposed, this bridge would symbolise nothing other than what it would detract from the life, usage and heritage values of the lake.
Reading the submissions to the current parliamentary inquiry reveals clearly the strong support, from all points of view, for the concept of a monument to immigration.
This support is accompanied by overwhelming opposition to the proposed bridge as the means of achieving the intended result.
We must create a significant and positive national monument, but I sincerely hope that in selecting the form it is to take, your editorial's comment that an ''immigration bridge looks more likely with each passing month.'' proves to be wrong.
J.P.D. Hodgman, Deakin
April Fools' Day is the correct day for the battle of the giants to commence per Letters to the Editor about the Immigration Bridge. The two giants are the supporters of the bridge on the one hand and the National Trust and its worthy supporters on the other hand.
I say, let the battle commence and to the victor go the spoils.
I note that Brett Odgers, chair of the ''Walter Burley Griffin Society Canberra chapter'' (''Clamour to scuttle bridge proposal'', March 31, p1) is attributed to have stated that the $110 price tag ''made the structure exclusive to those who could afford'' it.
Let me in, let me in to this exclusive group.
Now to the battlements.
Canberrans choose your giant and let the battle commence.
Beryl Legge-Wilkinson, Canberra
Email a friend