HARBOUR BOARD AND COMPANY.

Evening Star, Issue 20328, 9 November 1929, Page 20

HARBOUR BOARD AND COMPANY.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —The progress of the new fertiliser works at Ravensbourne is being watched closely by the public, and there is apparently a fear in some quarters that the Harbour Board is about to enter into an obligation to erect a wharf and dredge a swinging basin at a heavy cost without adequately protecting the interests of its constituents. The board, it may be said at once, is comprised of hardheaded business men who hare the interests of the harbour at heart, and the public may rest assured that it will only be after the fullest inquiry into facts that are not necessarily available to the man in the street that the board will commit itself.

The construction of subsidiary wharves for manufacturers is a new development in the harbour, and the significance of it is not generally appreciated. In the present case the new company will, after the erection of its works, pay a rental of £325 per annum for six years, £475 per annum for the following seven years, and £620 per annum for_ the final seven years of its lease. This same land is to-day bringing in the board probably not more than £SO a year. On the rent ,jn the final period, capitalised at 5 per cent., the land will have capital value of £12,400, .and on the experience of the past the tendency will be for the value to increase.

The greater part of this value is, of course, created by the deep-water berthage, and these figures- alone, in my opinion, justify the undertaking of the board to provide such deep-water berthage. The board’s revenue will also be increased by the dues on the cargoes handled. If the company reaches an output of 30,000 tons of superphosphate, which is a moderate percentage of its capacity, the dues payable to the board will ho between £4,000 and £5,000 annually, and this need not necessarily be revenue that the board would get in any case, as the establishment of the new works and the introduction of a lower range of competitive prices for fertiliser must create an increased demand by the farming community. From these figures it will be readily gathered that the board stands to benefit very materially from the successful establishment of the new works, and that it is fully justified in providing this pioneer in Middle - garbour development with every facility. It may be asked Supposing the company fails? But if the shareholders are prepared to find £200,000 to £300,000 for the development of industry it may be fairly argued that the enterprise must have in it the elements of success, and surely it would be a mean and near-sighted policy for. the board to take up the attitude of not providing the facilities until the industry was securely established. Such an attitude would inevitably lead to stagnation. Between the city and Sawyers Bay there are a number of sites such as that secured by the new company, and it is a thought worth pondering on that in years to come many of these

sites will be occupied by industries each having its own deep-water berthage and contributing considerable sums annually to the Harbour Board. It only requires the successful establishment in one case to act as an illustration and encouragement to others, and from this point or view the board will show some foresight in doing all in its power to assist the, successful establishment of the new company.—l am, etc., Greater Dunedin. November 9.