NAPIER HARBOUR QUESTION

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume I, Issue 84, 22 March 1911, Page 5

NAPIER HARBOUR QUESTION

THE FINANCIAL ASPECT. (Continued from Saturday’s issue.) Coming to the comparative annual expenditure on the two proposals, Mr. Nelson says :— The engineers allow £5OOO for ordinary maintenance of the Breakwater works. I am increasing this to £5500 on account of the extra wharf, sheds, etc. The ordinary maintenance of the Inner Harbour improvements will be nominal, as there is practically nothing to maintain, most of the cost of the work being represented by dredging. The allowance for maintenance dredging has been arrived at as already explained, plus the allowance made by the engineers, £6500 —making a total of £12,620; an amount which appears to me most unreasonably large. The figures total up as follows:— Comparative Annual Expenditure.

Breakwater Harbour. £ Interest and Sinking Fund on £350,000 at 5 per cent. 17,500 Maintenance of Works and Dredging 8,500 Extra cost of handling cargo at Breakwater Harbour as previously shown ........ 14,000 £40,000 Inner Harbour. £ Interest and Sinking Fund on £300,000 at 5 per cent. 15,000 Maintenance of Works .. .*. 1,000 Maintenance dredging inside and entrance channel .... 12,600 £28,60(f

As the value of the land reclaimed has not so far been taken into account all rents collected from the tenants of the reclaimed land must be credited to the Inner Harbour Scheme. This will be an increasing amount annually, and should in a few years be sufficient to pay the whole of the interest on the loan. . Besides this, it must be remembered that these Inner Harbour Improvements will enormously enhance the value of the Board’s property, a claim which cannot be made for the Breakwater* Harbour.

In view of figures presented, and the great value of the reclaimed land, it appears unnecessary to recapitulate the whole of the arguments “for” or “against.” It also appears unnecessary to urge that it is not too late to mend our ways. The question now to be decided is, “Where can we make the best harbour for the least annual expenditure ?” In answering it we must not allow the consideratiorrof what has already been spent to have any weight. If it is decided to proceed with the Inner Harbour we shall have the satisfaction of knowing that the construction of the Breakwater was a - necessary preliminary to the improvement -of the Inner Harbour.

We must do something, we cannot go on as we are, frittering away money on a structure which will probably be abandoned in a few years’ time. If the money asked is voted, and the Breakwater works proceeded with, what will the position be? The existing Inner Harbour works must be maintained ; the TutaeKurf river has got to be dealt with ; the embanked roadway to Westshore will have to be constructed, as the existing bridge is on its last legs. How will it affect the wool and produce merchant 1 The majority will certainly have to reorganise their present storage arrangements, and at considerable expense too. What is the object of going so far out of our way to put ourselves to all this inconvenience and expense ?The obvious thing to do is staring us in the face, and yet we refuse to do it, simply on the grounds that “we have asked advice and we must follow it.” It may be regarded as the constitutional thing to do, but to my mind it is preposterous that the body of men composing the Napier Harbour Board should make such an absolute surrender of the right of private judgment. I cannot think that the members were convinced by the report, in fact I have not met a, single person whose previous opinion has been changed by it. There can be no other conclusion but that members regarded the acceptance of the advice as the constitutional thing, and so they accepted it. “We cannot go on getting reports indefinitely,” they doubtless said to one another. The utter folly of the suggestion ; would any man of ordinary capacity adopt the same argument in regard to the conduct of his private affairs? Certainly' not. Anyone called in to report under such circumstances would have first to secure the confidence of his patron. Have Messrs. Maxwell, Williams and Mason done this?

When you are told that the completion of the Breakwater “will save thousands,” ask “how many thousands it is going to save them.” Insist on having a clear statement on how much we may expect to save, and what it is going to cost to save it. You will then discover* that there is a large balance on the wrong side of the ledger. In a brief address to the ratepayers, which I published recently,, the saving in lighterage was given at £B5OO gross. This was at the time the latest estimate available. Since then the Board in its manifesto announces that the saving will be £13,500 a year, from thw must be deducted the lightering nF the produce of the North British Freezing Works, which must continue to be lightered in any case. This amounts to about £2500 which reduces the published figure to £ll,-000. I am told by the secretary that in assessing this figure, £3oo®. has been allowed for haulage to the Breakwater, so that £ll,OOO a year must be taken as the net saving in lighterage. The net result of completing the Breakwater Harbour would then be as follows:—•

Revenue. Lighterage saved .’.£13,500 Less North British Lighterage £2500 — 11,000 Deficiency -................. 15,000 £26,000 Expenditure. £ Interest and Sinking Fund on £350,000 at 5 per cent. 17,500 Maintenance o fworks and dredging 8,500 £26,000 It will thus be seen that the deficiency to be made up out of rates will be £15,000 a year. There is one other source of revenue which the Board claims; that is from increased dues on shipping. This the Board first estimated at £4500, but the amount, according to the Board’s latest statement is calculated to be only £2OOO. The item, however, is one which should not be admitted in this connection any more than an increase in the wharfage or dbher port charges should be admitted ; all such charges have eventually to be paid by the public. The net saving in lighterage, is of course, a direct gain, but the point is that it is going to cost us £26,000 jto .save £ll,OOO, or every £1 we save costs us £2/7/3. If the Board can refute this let it do so by a similar statement in plain figures. I have studied the Board's recent manifesto, also the one published in connection with the last Loan Poll, but nowhere do they give us a plain statement of the net result of the

proposed expenditure. It contents itself with generalizations instead. We. are told all the magnificent savings that are going to be made “per ton” and “per bale.** This “saving of thousands” which we are told about will be dearly bought, there is no doubt whatever .about that.

Th|! Board admits that it -has been spending £llOOO a year on the. breakwater out of revenue. De-

mand that this frittering away of the ratepayers money cease at once and insist on having an entirely independent report on the whole

question. We want the subject investigated, in every detail, and we want it investigated first hand. It must be an independent investigation by an independent engineer. We don’t want a re-hash of previous reports. Don’t mind the expense, spend four or five thousand on it if necessary, but get it done well and at the earliest possible moment.