The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED DAILY. MONDAY, JULY 26, 1920.

Gisborne Times, Volume LIII, Issue 5542, 26 July 1920, Page 4

The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED DAILY. MONDAY, JULY 26, 1920.

WHAT WILL THE HARBROR BOARD DO? Tl?e Harbor Board is to-day called upon to settle a very important matter. As is well-known to the ratepayers, the Board recently adopted tire amended scheme put forward b y tlie Harbor 'Commission. It lias, however, since been made plain, as a result of a conference of local body delegates and other prominent citizens. that the great bulk of public opinion is hostile to .the scheme. In brief the grounds of hostility are mainly, that it is- too big and would prove far too costly; that it would take far too great a period to construct; that it would be situated unnecessarily far from the business area; that it fails to take advantage of any of itlie existing harbor works; that it could not be used until the whole of the work was completed; and that whilst it was being constructed the district would he in peril of losing it s present very inadequate harbor facilities or in order ! t-j retain them might be put to very j considerable additional expenditure j which would be only o'f a temporarily reproductive character. On thelse ; grounds alone the Harbor Board has, I we hold, no option but to .retrace its j steps. In the face of the decision! of the recent conference, the Board would merely he courting ignominious 1 failure by persisting in putting for- | ward the Harbor Commission’s plan. None of its members could hope successfully to take the platform in support of a loan proposal in connection with such an unpopular scheme. Let it not be overlooked that the hostility to which we have referred is that of prominent citizens who are anxious that the Board should provide this district with a suitable outer harbor within its means. As that is the viewpoint of friends of harbor progress it can. undoubtedly, be taken for granted that the Board would also have to reckon upon keen opposition—it will arise no matter what scheme is ultimately brought down—from the “stick-in-the-mud” section _ of the community which never misses an opportunity of working against progressive movements. So far the Harbor Commission’s scheme lias practically escaped criticism under another and a very important heading, viz., questions of design, securing materials, construction. and estimated cost. There is, for example, ground for doubt as to whether the main breakwater, as- designed by the Commission, would he of adequate strength, even if it were possible to secure very large- blocks for use in its construction. Let ns make a few comparisons in order to emphasise this point. Messrs Coo do. Son and Matthews’ plan December 1907) shows a slope in connection with the breakwater they proposed of. on the side facing the sea. 3 to 1 down to a point at 15 feet below low water •and of II to 1 below that point. On his part Mr Leslie H. Reynolds, for the Pah Hill breakwater plan (August 1908) provided for a slope on the sea-ward side of 3 to 1 from top to bottom. Then again Mr Marchant’s plan (February 1907) showed a slope for the sea-ward side of his proposed break-water of 2.1 to 1 from top to about 11 feet under low water mark and II to 1 from that point- to the bottom. In the cross-section of the Harbor Commission’s altered scheme, however, the slope on the sea-ward side of the suggested .break-water is shown at only If to 1 for the whole of the distance under low water mark with 2 to 1 above same to tho top and on the harbor side of 11 to 1 from top to bottom. This, of course, is a matter of harbor engineering, but we would draw attention to this aspect of tho comparisons—either Mr. Reynolds, for I .instance, or the Harbor Commission is considerably astray as to what is really needed to meet the requirements. It is certainly a matter upon which the Board should make some enquiry, because, if Mr Reynolds is.m the right, a very considerable amount under that heading alone would have to be added to. the Harbor Commission’s estimate in connection with their scheme. What this journal would in particular like to stress upon the Board is that if it brings forward a scheme which silences- the- very reasonably objections that have been made to the Harbor Commission’s scheme it can depend upon a loan nol] being carried. This district, should not, and, we trust, will not hesitate- over sanctioning the construction of a suitable new harbor. and it is perfectly well understood that at-least one and -a half ■million would require to be expended in order to provide such a, harbor. But the Harbor Board will he consulting the wishes of the public if it decides at to-day’s meeting to rescind its former resolution adopting the Harbor Commission’s scheme.