TWO HARBOURS: A COMPARISON

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22398, 20 October 1934, Page 25

TWO HARBOURS: A COMPARISON

ro THE EDITOR. Sir, —During a recent discussion on harbour matters a speaker was heard to say that Timaru had one of the best harbours in the Dominion, and he could not see why Oainaru should not have aspirations to the nossession of a harbour equally serviceable. Now, Sir, what are the essentials of a successful port? To my mind they are: —(1) A sufficiency of trade, both inwards*and outwards; and (2) a rating district large enough to supply the necessary rates without imposing undue hardship upon the ratepayer. Most reasonable men will, I think, agree as to the importance of these two considerations. 'There are, of course, many others, ihcluding distance from neighbouring ports, facilities for safe berthage in all kinds of weather, harbour management. etc. It is my present intention to deal with the above two points only, at the same time keeping in mind the heading of this letter. 1. The Local Authorities Handbook shows that the total tonnage of cargo handled during the year ended September 30, 1933, by the two ports was: Timaru 122,486 tons, and Oamaru 28,252 tons. These figures show that the cargo handled at Timaru was over four times greater than that handled at our port. 2. Coming now to my next point, about the necessity for a large rating area, the 1934 statistics show that the rateable value of the Timaru Harbour Board district is £19,681,953, while that of the Oamaru Board’s district is only £6,240,794. The figures speak for themselves, and no comment of mine is necessary to show the folly and futility of trying to keep pace with Timaru. According to information in my possession the rate levied by the Timaru Board is one-sixteenth of a penny in the £, while that levied by the Oamaru Board is nine-■thirty-seconds of a penny in the £. A little calculation will show that the Oamaru ratepayer is required to pay 4J times as much as the Timaru ratepayer. In other words, a Timaru man pays, say, £4 in rates, but the Oamaru ratepayer, with a similar valuation, has to pay £lB. One wonders how much longer our ratepayers will put up with such a heavy impost! I propose now to give some illuminating figures taken from official sources showing the amount of money spent upon these two harbours, together with their respective assets. The total amount expended from inception to September 30, 1932, was: Timaru £608,507; Oamaru £786.136. Oamaru has therefore outspent Timaru to the tune of £177,629. Still unsatisfied, the Oamaru Board proposes to bury £40,000 at the waterfront immediately, with the intention later on of repeating the performance! The assets at September 30, 1932, were: Timaru, £487,493; Oamaru .£302,400. Notwithstanding an expenditure of £177,629 in excess of that of .Timaru. the assets of the Oamaru Harbour Board are £185,084 less than those of the northern town! IE the Oamaru Board cannot boast of a harbour equal to that of Timaru, it can at least outdistance its rival in the matter of spending other people’s money.—l am, etc., J. S. Adams. Otekaike, October 19.