THE HARBOR BOARD'S LEASING BILL.

Evening Star, Issue 5762, 27 August 1881, Page 1

THE HARBOR BOARD'S LEASING BILL.

Thk Legislative Council have thrown out, oa the motion for the second reading, the Harbor Board Leasing Bill. The Hon, Mr Waterhouse, who appears to have taken the lead in the rejection of this measure, is reported to hr.ve based bis objections on the ground that it proposed exceptional legislation in favor of a particular corporate body. The name of Captain Fraser was, of course, recorded with the majority ; and we may take it for granted that on this occasion, as in former sessions, the influence of that hon, gentleman has been very sedulously exerted in order to defeat the very reasonable desire of the Harbor Board to be left with hands free to manage their own property. Members of the Council coming from other parts of the Colony naturally enough give credence to a colleague who resides 02 the spot, and would never suspect for a moment that prejudice could so blind the moral perception ss to induce a disregard of the verities of fact. The persistent misrepresentation of Captain Fraser as to the expenditure and the character of the operations of the Board have ne doubt had their effect, and we are glad to notice that it was decided at the meeting of the Otago Harbor Board yesterday to lay before both Houses of Parliament a formal protest against “the “reckless and unwarrantable statements “made by Captain Fraser respecting the “Board's works.” It was possibly with an eye to this particular Bill that he took the opportunity of the discussion on Wednesday relative to the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire Into the question of harbor works on the West Coast to affirm that “ £400,000 had been squandered “ at Dunedin ; and tbe authorities there and “ at other places all thought that they knew “ better than Sir John Coodb and other “ eminent engineers,” The; implications intended to be conveyed were clearly that the money expended on the improvement of the harbor had been altogether thrown away, and that the operations of the Board bad been condemned by Sir John Coode ; whereas Sir John in his published report entirely approves cf tbe principles and of all the more important details of the scheme. The Bill is a very simple one, and has for its purport the remedying of a defect in the Harbors Act, 1878, in respect to the powerb of harbor boards in dealing with their endowments. The provisions of the Act are found to le of so restrictive a character as to be practically inapplicable to the lands vested in the Otago Harbor Board, For instance, the Board, whilst limited as to the term for which they may grant leases —la the case of rural and pastoral lauds twenty-one years, and of town lands used for building purposes fifty years—are not authorised to grant valuation to the outgoing tenants. The provisions of the Act do not entitle harbor boards to make pay ment, under any circumstances, of the value of buildings erected on land belonging to them, and consequently they are compelled to accept smaller rents than if valuation clauses were Inserted in the leases. As Mr Stewart pointed out when moving the second reading of the Bill in the House of Representatives, the Otago Harbor Board are thus especially affected, since the most important portion of the endowment consists of a city block centrally situated for commercial purposes, on which tenants would most certainly desire to erect substantial buildings of stone or brick; and “ there was “ really no inducement to erect bnildirgs of “ that kind unless the tenant received some “consideration at a future time.” The general provisions of the Bill are to the following effect: The leases of town lands to be limited to twenty-one years, at which period fresh rents would have to be assessed, so that the Board would thus get the benefic of any progress which the City might have made. The Board may covenant and agree to renew any lease for a further term of twenty-one years. If the tenant does not acoep-y renewal the incoming tenant to pay full valuation for ail buildings. There Is, further, a clause authorising the Board, on such terms as they may determine, to assimilate the terms of all leases held by tenants to the above-noted provisions, with the consent of the lessees, provided that the rent now payable is not lessened. We have briefly stated the whole intent and purport of the Bill, and it is not easy to comprehend how the m»jority in the Legislative Council, who yesterday voted Its rejection, can justify their action. We are quite aware that Mr Macandrew, who always passively sets himself to prevent any legislation which may tend to enable the Oiago Harbor Board to develop their resources and more efficiently perform their {unctions, has, on such occasions as have presented themselves, always paraded the bogey of the interests of the bondholders being effected by any meddling, one way or the other, with the endowments of the Board, which are held as security for the moneys borrowed. He was In his usual form when tbe second reading was under consideration in tbe House, declaring that he would not “ object to the second reading of “ the Bill, although on looking over it he “ was not clear in his own mind how far “it might not discount the future, Looking “ at it in that aspect, it would be the duty “ cf the House to take care that the interests “of the present bondholders were not injuriously effected.” The member for Port Chalmers —or wo much mistake him—has not confined his remarks on the subject to the faw words spoken la the House, but, we have no manner of doubt, has taken care that his conscientious scruples in the interests of the bondholders should be known nil understood by members of the Council. A comparison ©f the Bill with the Harbors Act shows that the former purports to limit the power now possessed by the Board, so far as leasing the endowments is concerned. By the Act the Board can lease town lands for building purposes for a term not exceeding fifty years ; but it is provided that if they lease f«r a term exceeding twenty • one years the rant is to be increased by 50 per cent. The Bill, however, limits the term to twentyone years, so that fresh rents would then have to be assessed. The Board, sa we have said above, would thus get 4he benefit of any progress the City might havo made, and the rents, which would probably now be £4,000 or £5,000 a-year, presuming a valuation clause could be inserted in the leases, might in the course of twenty-one y £ara _ aß Mr Stewart said—amount to £20,000 a-year, The bondholders could hardly have been prejudicially affected had the Bill became law, since better tenants and better rents would certainly have been secured.