THE OTAGO HARBOUR BOARD

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20322, 2 February 1928, Page 2

THE OTAGO HARBOUR BOARD

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, — The report of the proceedings of the Harbour Board appearing in your issue of January 28 will have been read by citizens with serious misgivings. It appears to me that there are few members of this board who have a true conception of the services that their office entails. The responsibility assumed by the chairman (Mr J. M. Dickson) in denying Mr Loudon the opportunity to present his motion upon the subject of shed and berthage accommodation savours of the autocrat. We do not send representatives to this board to have their intelligence and activities submerged by standing orders or by the arbitrary ruling of any chairman who happens along. Members are there to make all possible effort, individually and collectively, to administer the affairs of this port for the benefit of present and future citizens and for the general welfare of Otago in the years to come; and any effort or proposal made by individual members should and must be welcomed and honestly investigated. Only by this means can enthusiasm and interest be maintained. Of this port it can be truly said that it has been in a continual state of travail, and that its present features and general arrangement are simply the result of the exigencies of the hour, penurious circumstances, and the ever-increasing requirements of modern shipping. It may be that - a lack of vision has been a dominant weakness of past administrations. Vision is not given to everybody, but the mental attitude expressed by the word “ caution ” is a sure rampart in public administration against faulty and visionless activities; and it is quite evident that wo have actually arrived at a stage in the development of the port that requires the closest investigation. An investigation is absolutely necessary, and a final general arrangement should be the objective of the board —one which would ensure some liberal measure of elasticity, and would serve Otago for the next 100 years. This city may have a greater future than is generally anticipated, and it must be patent to all that the layout of the Upper Harbour is an essential factor in that future, and for that reason should be the subject of serious thought right now. Posterity demands it; it is its heritage, and it is our duty to lay the foundations of all future development with “ a permanency capable of efficient and economic expansion.” I could enumerate many mistakes of the past. For instance, has any vision been shown in the last layout of the steamers’ basin? Note the meagre margin allotted for wharves, sheds, and roadways—maybe large enough in its day, but planned without thought of the future, and recently large compensations were paid by the board for the resumption of land and the demolition of buildings to widen Rattray street so that shed and wharf accommodation could be increased. And what then? It is found that the new sheds are not wide enough to accommodate deep sea shipping. The same happy-go-lucky policy is exhibited at Birch street wharf and environs. The layout of Victoria wharf with its larger sheds and adjacent open areas is on a more liberal scale, and shows evidence of thought for the future. It is in this region, evidently, that Mr Loudon saw some hope of improvement and advance at a minimum, cost, and which has led to the production of his motion. With your permission I now restate the motion vetoed by the chairman: — (!) That, in view of the altered conditions of the Frederick street area consequent on the construction of the Highway and the railway overbridge at Hanover street, the whole question of wharf extension and shed accommodation be reconsidered and fully gone into, and a report submitted to the board at the earliest opportunity. (2) That a special committee consisting of the chairman of the board, Messrs Gow, Captain M'Donald, Hayward, Munro, and the mover bo set up for the purposes of such preliminary investigation and report. Your readers will see that the essence of the motion is really to provide an Investigation Committee to examine the position, and, though the result of such investigation may incidentally modify the policy of the board in respect to works already authorised, what of that. It such investigation proves that modification -is necessary, then the end justifies the means. It is now quite apparent that we have for the most part of a year more sheds than ships.” Is a new shed at Rattray street really wanted at present? Why sink precious money in any work which is not immediately required? ihe steamers’ basin, as it has been known, ra n eventually afford berthage only for coastal shipping. It is altogether too meagre in capacity for berthage and land facilities for overseas shipping. It is consequently evident to students of the position that a concentration of money and energy should be made by the board and its staff to provide in the region of the Victoria wharf t a first-class deep sea berthage. There, it is obvious, the primary essentials for import and export trade are at a minimum cost, viz., railway facilities and space to use them, unalienated harbour lands and proximity to the Victoria channel and swinging basin, upon which deepening operations will commence with the advent of the new dredge. It is surely obvious, without recourse to much serious thought, that we cannot spend large sums of money in excavating a long deep waterfront with swinging basins throughout for the use of deep sea shipping when that end can be accomplished within smaller compass in a more suitable locality. It is not only the primary excavations that are costly, but the maintenance, together with necessary shore equipment and supervision. For these reasons, and there are others, I hold that it is the imperative duty of the board to explore every proposal which may make for permanency, efficiency, and economy, and I am sure that all earnest citizens of Otago desire that the board will, without fear or favour, allow Mr Loudon to proceed with his motion and make the investigation therein suggested. —I am, etc., Advance Dunedin. February 1.