SOUTHERN ENDOWMENT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 27567, 8 December 1950, Page 8

SOUTHERN ENDOWMENT

Sir, —In his reply, Mr Thomas Anderson has covered a lot of ground—almost a Cook’s tour. He asks many questions, a lot of which are red herrings. He could and does answer some himself, although his answers are his own manufacture. He has files available to him and I have not. He associates me with" “ Matilda, while I have nq idea who that person is. He claims I distorted the facts when I quoted a Harbour Board member as saying that reclamation would be uneconomic to the board. That statement was published in the press—l checked it. It was definitely made. So • far it has not been denied. . If Mr Anderson knows the law of the land he would know the provisions of the Harbours Act. If he would consider that law and the facts, he would get th# true position regarding the 50-50 basis. He would know that it has not applied to all land reclaimed by the board. He would know it does apply, and can only apply, to certain particular pieces of reclaimed land. The law does exist. Others —including other harbour boards and the City Council—have been and are prepared to accept that law and work under it. He says that prior to the last council, the city contributed on a 50-50 basis. Here he slips. These contributions were made in respect of certain particular pieces of land as the law provides. H* knows, or could find out if he does not, that this 50-50 basis has not operated in all cases in the past. The Act show* when the City Council can and when It cannot contribute. Mr Anderson has asked a number of questions, many well wide of the subject. Here are several pertinent ones for him to answer: Is the law of the land on harbour reclamation as I have indicated? If not, what is it? Will the reclamation of the Southern Endowment be economic to the Harbour Board, if it does not get substantial contributions from the city ratepayers’ funds? If, as he claims, both the city and the province will 'benefit from this reclamation, why does he not claim a share of rates from all borough* and counties in the province, and why does he concentrate on the city rate-, payers alone?— l am, etc., W. S. A. Sir,—lf “ Freeholder ” cares to communicate with the secretary of the Otag* Harbour Board he will receive the dat* and figures he desires, and upon receipt of same, I would suggest he secure also from the town clerk the increased valuation rates from the same locality, publish them, and let the public judge the comparisons. Will he also inform the public why the last council, before it was nearly annihilated at the, election, suddenly and swiftly passed an amount towards the Leith Valley highway? What Christchurch, with no harbour, does, or Wellington, with its very valuable waterfront reclamation (both with Government and council assistance), or what Auckland has done in the manner of reclamation, mostly made up by the depositing of refuse (not by reclamation through dredging, excepting a little near Orakei) is no concern of mine, as I am only interested in the Southern Endowment, a portion of which the Harbour Board allotted to the City Corporation for the depositing of refuse, which now will cost the city a considerable sum to cart a long distance. I would ask “ Freeholder ” if he would like to see the city progress like Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch, to compare tfie population and then wake up and urge the co-operation of both local bodies. —1 am, etc., Thos. Anderson. Port Chalmers.