FLOOD DAMAGES.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20703, 29 April 1929, Page 14

FLOOD DAMAGES.

TO THE EDITOR. iSili,—Along with other sufferers, I appreciate Mr Loudon’s stand at the last meeting of the-Otago Harbour Board, in insisting that the letter of M., Stevenson,' Ltd,, should be brought before the board. With regard to.that firm’s claim, a lapse of 10 days occurred' before an answer was received. Mr Loudon ’ is quite correct AIT correspondence bearing on claims for damages should come before the full board and not before a committee consisting of the chairman and secretary. Allow mo to quote my liriiis letter, which reads as follows: ’ ‘ Wc bes to bring under your notice the damage we-have ■ sustained'to,our properties in Willis, Tev.-sley. and Rattray streets by the flooded water from the Leith' contour'. . . : Wc fire of the opinion, that the flood ing.ot our properties, from tho Leith was caused by the recent raising of the concrete wall on ■ the channel on the Logan Park side of the Leith from Forth street bridge to- the. bridge over the highway. The effCct of this raising of tho wall on the Logan Park side has been to throw a vast quantity of water into the streets , -ind flooded our property to a. depth of about three feet. In consequence of this we have suffered extensive damage. We are' anxious to. know what your board Is prepared to do towards compensating us for the loss we have sustained. Mr H. Paterson, who wo understand is acting tor your board, was shown over our property on Wednesday, April 3, by our Mr Stevenson and Son, and was surprised at the. extent .of the damage lone by the flood waters from the Leith. We look to you to compensate us foi - the damage, and, with that in view, wt are prepared to meet your board, or its representatives, to discuss the‘whole position. Apart from other aspects, we think that the fact that we are one of your tenants. entitles us to some special.consideration. Now, let me give your renders the secretary’s answer to this letter: — Subject to .your communication (0.n.8., 2G775) of the Oth .inat.. with respect to the damage you have sustained In. consequence of the recent flood, I am directed in say that wo cannot accept any liab'Hty in the matter, as we do not consider that any action on our part in.any way contributed to the flooding of your property Members, naturally, - regret very' much the consequence of the .flood, but we suggest, that your lease does not place you in any different relation, so far as tho board Is concerned, than other unfortunate sufferers. Consequent on the'foregoing, we do not see that anythlng-can bo gained by-your waiting on the board. ■ We trust that ultimately yon will find that your loss is not so extensive as you suggest.. I will leave it to your readers to. l judge between my firm’s letter to the board and the secretary’s answer to. ours. Ours shows a spirit of, conciliation, but the secretary’s answer is only what'one could, expect. . We will- prosper on the members’ “natural regret’’ concerning ,the consequence of the flood, and on their reference to our lease, etc. Our regret is that the board’s neglect and unbusinesslike methods of dealing With the works on the Leith contour have set a part of Dunedin back, years.- What our firm ; is most concerned about is the future. It appears

to me that ■Mr Moller" and the secretary do not realise what may happen in the future. I agree with Mr Loudon that the public seeks an independent report on the-Leith from the top to the outlet. How can we expect the board's engineer to condone «nv fault on the part, in face of She claims against, it for damages caused by its negligence. Mr Loudon is fair when he says the Harbour Board was the biggest landlord in New Zealand, and that some redress should be. given to its tenants J*° «ave suffered loss through the flood. Mr Moller put a. damper on this suggestion by pointing out that the board's solicitors had advised it that it had no legal authority:to waive rents. Let. me remind Mr Moller that.solicitors' opinions differ at times. It all depends on how opinions are asked for. Mr Loudon's answer to Mr Moller was commonsense—that legislation could be obtained to give the board power to refund rents in cases like the present. We all realise that when an alteration or amendment of any public bodies' laws is desired these can always be obtained by that body applving to Parliament for the authority, and "in most cases this authority is granted. Mr Moller s reference to values jumping up shows how far he is prepared to go in his attempt to justify the wrongs of the Harbour Board. Sir, anyone who has a Harbour Board lease for 14 years knows the conditions with which ho ha s to comply. It is quite wrong of Mr Moller to make the remarks that tenants are not prepared to pay increases in rent. Why, we have no option. For proof of this, let me give ft case hi point. Miss. C. Murdoch, who is claiming flood damages from the board, gave me a copy of a letter she sent to the board. It shows that in respect of a quarteracre section in St. Andrew street and Bow lane, the rent was, after 14 years,-raised from £25 to £75 a 5-ear, an increase of 200 per cent., or equivalent to 14 per cent, per year This alone is proof that the chairman a remarks were uncalled for. May rsuggest that.all tenants of the Otago Harbour Board get together at once and _ see that the Election Association ticket for the Harbour Board is returned with Mr Loudon at the top of the poll- I may not agree with Mr Loudon m all things, but I am sure we must all recognise that he has served the ratepayers of. Dunedin well in.the past as their representative on the Otago Harbour Board, and we appreciate the stand lie took at the last meeting of the board.— I am, etc., > ■ ' . Malcolm Stevenson. Governing Director, M. Stevenson, .Ltd.