THE HARBOR CONFERENCE.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 14936, 14 June 1919, Page 8

THE HARBOR CONFERENCE.

i Mr. W. D. Lysnar lias issued. the fol-j lowing statement of the above:— As one | who for years past has Realised, .'■ and j, again and again publicly stated, that. our Harbor Board was working on >wrong lines and merely wasting " the time -and public funds of the Board, J I frankly thought tha.t at lasfb there was 'a prospect of the Board getting on to sound 1 lines of business when it called, the con- ' f erencc to confer with" representatives ! or local bodies and others oii 3rd February last, but I exceedingly regret to say that the hopes cherished as likely to i result from that conference have again vanished, and once again I take the ■ opportunity of warning the well-wishers of this district, and urging them to watoh very carefully the manner m which the Harbor Board handles this ! question In my judgment, the old ; party that has messed our harbor affairs 'up is still dominant. : In the past I consider this district . has ;been misled and fooled by the Board disregarding I consulting engineers' advice, 1 and then i using other engineers' advjee to carry I out the Board's wishes; and disseniinat- } ing untrue and misleading data. I my- ; self have had to pay a man to "wade out 1 into the river and standv..k> have his | photo taken m order £o disprove the i Board's figures, which showed ther© was l/tiwe'lv© feet of water at that spot, and Hi is unthinkable that ; the old tactics | should again prevail, and I desire to sbrongly stress the necessity of not ignoring the past, but taking a very serious lesson from it. Why, may I ask, should the late conference nave- been so plainly opposed to certain data being gone into ! and supplied to the public if ii i were i not the hand of the old party still pro-' I vailing? However, as tlhe conferieniie [would not support the request for the | correction of the erroneous data put for,- --! ward. I have no alternative now but to j more fully expose some of the inaccu- ! racies of the data that was put before the conference, particularly by the "B 0) Committee, whion was composed of some of the commercial gentlemen, who m j the past I regard as being to a large | extent responsible for the messing up ; of our harbor affairs, and unless the Board can take a better .and . broader grasp of the whole position, it becomes a very doubtful question as to whether, j if the Board is not strengthened; with some new bloody they slioUid be' trusted i wpfch the caxryjng- through of any new j harbor scheme, however good and neces- ! sary it may be, for a good scheme can j easily be spoilt. I will not attempt to ; show up wk the inaccuracies^ ftfvjthte "B" Committee?s report, but I ; froiil<&.| point out four- of the main ones:— "ia > ' . (1) The report acknowledges' tMt the revenue from all sources .m February, 1 1914, was £34,537; they say at the end of ten years they expect It to be not less than £44,516. ' Thas is practically an increase of only £1000 a year, while the Board's revenue for the preceding fceu years before 1914 had increased to more than double this. Surely^' ittt>w' tbfat the .war is ended, this distoifcs jean be depended upon to progress 1 -at ja&r'eii a greater rate m the nextfeten years than wag the. case between 1904 and 1914, yet the committee have only allowed that it. will increase by Jess than half.' \ ■ ', (2) The committee say that the value 'of the : present rateable district : is at over £15,000,000 capital, and they go on to say that they assume at the final adjustemnit of the rating district it will be as low as £10,000,000. That 'is reducing our present rateable value' down by £5,000.000 V and they , further sajy "that on this basis if c their" estimate of the revenue is sound; " that it my be taken* with some confidence that the. rate required would vary from one halfpenny to one penny m the pound." I have no hesitation m saying that both the esti . mate of the revenue and the rateable value are ridiculous and clearly unsound. It was stated ■'-. jj!t , the, conference that since the committee had made this re--pont thafe^e unimproved value of! W&ikohu alone^had been revised, ; and it was two and a-half times greater .than before, yet the oontmjttee i\ave reduced their present valuations by " £5,000,000. , I ask what earthiy justification have they to suggest that our capital value should bo reduced m, this manner? (3) Again, the report states -"that for many years while no rate was levied the port charges were sustained^ at a .much higher rate than is at all customary when revenue- ia derived from: the* ordi* nary port charges, together with ft rate upon property .' T Now, I say this is: a deliberately misleading and untrue* staitement, and it really means thai, the part charges are already too nigii ancfi[ could not be increased when we ■ get ap; outer harbor. The Waikohu repwaentataves went to some trouble to .'ascertain -the facts on this and some of the'i dther heads that I specially asked'information should be given upon, ". atic^ 'iliey, supplied information to, the .conference which showed that a. vessel of ;4Qo])'-ton* would have to pay for one day" At the ports named,- the . following amounts : Gisborne, £42 ; " Timafu, with : ail* 'outer harbor, £84 6s 8d; Dunedin, £200, together with 6d per ton on cargo handled ; Auckland, £70 16s Ba, and 6d per ton on cargo landed; Lyttelton, ?£IOO, and Wellington, , £37 10s, and is pei ton on cargo landed. This ' clearly dis* proves the,, committee's statemont.. (4) The committee attach a statement which shows the probable progressive actual expenditure from' year' loj year up to the fifth year, when it is estimated the whole loan will be expended. This shows a deficit of £37,400, -which they say is to be met by rates* . ; 'Hero again, this is both unwarranted and misleading. To start with, they assume we will have to pay 6' per cent, fbr ,bur money, which is certainly hot justified, judging by the comparatively recent harbor loan of £200,000, which was obtained, including sinking fund, at sjf ' per cent., and if the same rate is taken, this deficit of ' £37,000 would be reduced tb £22,400, which is, 1 suggest; a y serious and marked " difference.. In- suggesting that the rate would have ;to be struck for this balance, they entirely overlook the fact, that -their previous statement about; the* port dues payable by ships is wrong, and that there (Should be sufficient revenue derived from the ships to more than- ..liquidate the;; whole of this balance, and consequentls' there would be no need for any rate. ]$ut this iB not all. The committee have* omitted to point out that .the lightei^ige, 1 If only taken at 75,000 tons^ would make a saving of £37,500 per. annuril. In addition there would be af further f saving of about £31,500 by oversea cargo, being discharged at Gisborne instead of at outside ports as at present, and aJ3O I there should be a very substantial rei ductipn of wharfages if we are to follow the lead of other ports that' enjoy 1 the benefits of an outer harbor, and if this only amounted to 2s per tori: on the cargo actually handled m 1914 it would represent £11,717. Consequently m these (three items the public! would have a- direct saving of £80,717, which the conference and committee have ignored. This would pay interest and sinking fund on £1,000,000 at the 1 same rate as we have pot the present (harbor loan, which would amount^ to £55;<500? and leave, a surplus pf. £2,5,717 nei^, annum to good. ' . ■*'*"•■ 3 £>l : It is rflally difficult tp understand, why there should be any ' opposition 'to' having the Pa Hill estimates brought up to date m view ot the present increased cost of labor and material. These estimates were made m 19Q7~8jby