OPUNAKE HARBOUR LOAN

Hawera Star, Volume XLIX, 22 January 1930, Page 6

OPUNAKE HARBOUR LOAN

RATEPAYERS’ OBJECTIONS. COPY OF PETITION. A petition objecting to the board’s proposal to raise an additional loan of £20,000 to complete the harbour works, signed by 19b ratepayers, was received, by the Opunake Harbour Board at its last meeting. The petition, which is addressed to the chairman ami members of the Local Government Loans Board, was discussed by the board in committee, and the board) decided not to publish it. The ratepayers are, however, of opinion that their views should be made public and a copy of the petition is as follows: 1. That your petitioners are rate! payers of the Oprrnake harbour dis-i tried. 2. That the total amount of the valuations of the px-operty of your petitioners situated in such harbour district as appeal ing on the valuation roll is £607,402, the total valuation of all property in the harbour district being £1,034,275. 3. That the sum of £55,370 19s 5d (exclusive of Government grants) has already been spent on harbour works at Opunake. 4. That the original loan of £50,000 was authorised for the purpose (iuter alia) of building a mole 90Q feet in length.

5. That although £55,370 19s 5d has been spent only 600 feet of the mole has been built.

6. That the harbour board now proposes to borrow £22.000 to extend the mole to 900 feet and claims that with the additional slid ter the port will develop a trade of 9759 tons of imports and 704 tens of exports. 7. That your petitioners aro strongly opposed! to any further expenditure upon the harbour for the following reasons among others :

(a) That we doubt whether the expenditure of £20,000 will complete the mole to 900 feet, and we further doubt whether the harbour will bq an “ail weather port” even with 300 feet additional shelter.

(b) I hat the district is already well served by railway and first-class bitumen roads connecting with the adjacent, ports of New Plymouth and Patea. Road communication to New Plymouth! in particular is being constantly improved by the deviation and re-grading of the highway and the port of New Plymouth is being extended so as to eater even more fully for the trade requirements of the province. (e) That even if made an “all weather port” the Opunake harbour would serve only a small district. (d) That the port will always he of negligible value as a port of export. (e) That in addition the oort will he of little use for certain classes of import trade, since overseas goods landed at New Plymouth can never he economically transhipped to Opunake. (f) That even if the further shelter is provided as proposed, the existing wharf, sheds, plant and road access are manifestly inadequate to cope with the volume of trade anticipated hv the hoard, and your petitioners fear that still further extensive expenditure would he necessary to enable trade to be handled in anv considerable volume.

(g) That as the railway does not connect with the wharf and could not be connected extent at considerable cost the usefulness of the port as a distributing centre is thereby further restricted.

(b) That the net revenue even from the volume of trade estimated by the board would be litle more than suffi-

cient to meet tlie annual charges on the additional loan, and as any surplus will be more than absorbed in additional costs of administration and maintenance your petitioners see no prospect of the present heavy rate being reduced. (i) That your petitioners fear that without the periodical expenditure of considerable sums the port might soon be rendered unworkable by erosion, sand drift or the spreading of the mole.

(j) That your petitioners believe that the hoard’s estimate of imports is greatly in excess of what can reasonably be anticipated in view of the actual trade returns of other ports somewhat similarly situated. (k) That if the hoard has over-esti-mated the trade as we believe, the [ additional loan will involve an increase in the already oppressive rate. 1 (1) That your petitioners fear that if "he irort is completed and captures any considerable portion of the import trade the consequent loss of business to the railway may necessitate the curtailment or abandonment of the existing railway services to Opunake. On) That even if the board’s estimate of_ trade is realised the bulk of the saving from reduced transport costs will accrue to traders and con- j sinners outside the harbour area, and f so will not compensate ratepayers for the heavy harden of rates that will still have to be carried.

(n) That any savings in respect of goods for within the harbour area will in many cases be too small to enable traders to pass them on to the general public in reduced prices. (o) That your petitioners would prefer to abandon the harbour scheme and shoulder the loss so far involved in the project rather than risk any increased burden through failure to realise the board’s- anticipations. ,(pl y'bat qfc a meeting of ratepayers of the Ommak-o harbour district hold at Opunake on the third day of November, 1925, a resolution was carried by 64 to 16 requesting the board to cease expenditure on further harbour works pending the report of the engineering experts of the Government. , (q) That sub.seqquently the chief engineer of the Public Works Department reported adversely on the scheme and your petitioners believe the board committed a grave error of judgment in ignoring that report and proceeding with the work.

(r) That in 1926 a petition signed by 162 ratepayers and representing over 60 per cent of the rateable value of the district was presented to Parliament praying that no further expenditure be authorised. (s) That after £50.000 had been spent the board obtained permission by section .39 of tbe Local Legislation Act. 1926. to borrow without a j>ol 1 and spend an additional £SOOO “for completing the said undertaking.” though such additional amount could not be sufficient to complete the original work.

(t) That your petitioners fear that future developments of road transport may further militate against the prospects of small harbours such as Opunake.

_ (u) That projected improvements at New Plymouth are likely to further restrict the arpa which can show a potential saving through trading via Opunake. (v) That on genera*! grounds we believe the police of building harbours for coastal trade only in close proximitv to deep-sea harbours such as New Plymouth and in districts well served bv other transport agencies is unsound. ’

Your petitioners therefore nrav that tbe board withhold its sanction to the proposed loan.