FACTORIES ON RECLAIMED AREA

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXVI, 16 June 1932, Page 2

FACTORIES ON RECLAIMED AREA

(To the Editor) Sir, —With reference to the advantages of having a prosperous and active tobacco factory in Nelson there can be no possible doubt. Both the city and tobacco growing districts would benefit in many ways. It is only when wo come to the location of such a factory that any controversy arises. Two important principles are involved in the present case: (a) Whether it is desirable to allow factories to be erected on the reclaimed area north of Halifax street.

(b) The policy of the City Council in granting a free gift of rent, to a commercial company for a term of years. As regards (a), if there was oidy one site available for a tobacco factory in Nelson, namely, on the above-mention-ed area, the Council would be justified in granting a lease, but not free of rent, to the Tobacco Company. But I have been informed on very good authority that quite a number of other suitable sites have been offered to this Company. The choice of the Halifax street site appears therefore to bo due to the free gift of rent by the City Council for a term of years. Mr Neale, writing as a director of the Premier Tobacco Company, in his letter to the “Mail” of the 13th instant, naturally favours the prel- - treatment of this Company by the City Council. He is quite prepared to allow four acres of the total fourteen acres of reclaimed land by Halifax street to bo utilised for factory sites. lie cannot, however, be considered to be advocating an entirely disinterested policy, although it is not for a moment suggested that ho would allow his connection with the l proposed company to conscientiously affect his judgment. For a population of 20,000, a figure which Nelson will reach in the near future, 14 acres of public park is by no means large, as judged by areas allotted for public reserves in other towns in New Zealand and in other countries. This area also happens to be on the main approach to the city. To allow factories with their ugly smoke stacks, etc., to join a public reserve and to spoil the approach of the City is surely against all the principles of town planning. Now (b) involves the City Council in a. very questionable policy. It- establishes a precedent that may recoil with boomerang effect on itself. For a public authority acting as trustee' to the public to give preferential treatment in the form of a free gift of rent for a number of years to any particular commercial company is a policy that requires the most careful and serious consideration. Having established the precedent the Council will in all probability be approached sooner or later with applications for sites for the erection of factories, warehouses, timber-yards, business premises, etc., by Nelson and outside firms, all demanding with equal right that their rents should also be remitted for several years Should the Council, as will probably happen, refuse to entertain some and accept others, there will be always the great danger of the members of the City Council laying themselves open to the imputation of nepotism and interested motives —a position at all costs to be avoided. Finally, I find it very difficult to believe that the Premier Tobacco Company with a nominal capital of £250,000 who can afford to be so generous to its promoters in London as to present them with £IO,OOO cash and 30,000 fully paid up shares in the Company, can object to paying what would amount to a small rent to the City Council, a mere bagatelle in comparison with the Company’s award fot’ their services. Further, that the payment of such a small sum could influence its directors to build the* factory in another part of New Zealand. I am, etc., M. MONCRIEFF. The Port, 16th June. (To the Editor) Sir,— May I add a word or two on this question of a suitable site for a factory of this kind. lam in sympathy with Mr Walker’s atti/ude. It is not the place on which to build factories. A pre = cedent would be established for a factory area on the reclamation. Cider, fruitdrying, etc., might be desired. The proper place, it seems to me, would be the Harbour Board’s reclamation. The Premier Tobacco Company would save any rent the Harbour Board charged them in cartage of the finished product from the city to the wharf. This would help the Harbour Board, with no disadvantage to the city or company. It would be a calamity to both city and district generally not to have the factory built in this district. —I am, etc., H. PICKUP. Stoke, 14th June. (To the Editor) Sir, —I see several letters about the tobacco factory obstructing the view. Now, for over 60 years I have heard strangers say that the filthy mudflat is an eyesore to Nelson. I think a factory where our young people could find employment when finished with school, would be an asset to Nelson instead of them having to go to larger centres. People entering and seeing a school on one side and a tobacco factory on the other would say: “The town does not seem such a slow place after all.”—I am, etc., OBSERVATION. Nelson, 15th June.