Poverty Bay Herald. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING. GISBORNE, FRIDAY, JUNE 24, 1927. THE HARBOR PROBLEM

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LIII, Issue 16375, 24 June 1927, Page 6

Poverty Bay Herald. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING. GISBORNE, FRIDAY, JUNE 24, 1927. THE HARBOR PROBLEM

The meeting held on Tuesday evening to allow oppositionists of the Harbor Board's policy to air their views can hardly be said to have pro- > ided the public with much material for serious thought. Beyond affording an opportunity for several speakers to give effect to the avowed object of expressing indignation, the only thing accomplished was to demonstrate rather forcibly that even the hoard's severest critics have no alternative to offer. On the other hand, even the speakers at the meeting were far from agreement, and showed that the opposition had no common ground. The chief spokesman entirely failed to elucidate the present position. The mass of figures which he divulged are difficult to follow in cold print, and could not possibly have clarified matters to the audience. His inability to foresee the ultimate completion of the harbor with the money available, and his failure to secure support for his objections to the hoard's policy, were given by him as the reasons for his resignation from the board. This speaker, however, was one of the members of the board which adopted the initial policy, and whatever responsibility is attaching to .the board through the policy not being within the scope of the authorised expenditure rests just as heavily upon his shoulders. Another member of the board who spoke contented himself with expression of his attitude of general opposition, without explanation or justification, except that he, too, averred that there had been undue extravagance. The criticism was by no means helpful; and no practical suggestions were offered to the board for overcoming its present difficulties. The remaining speaker was the chairman of the board when the loan proposals were submitted 10 the ratepayers, and when the present harbor works were initiated. He was not in accord with the other speakers—by one of them he was severely criticised. He made no complaint regarding the work which litis been carried out. His one disagreement with the majority of the board was that he advocated the prosecution of the present scheme to its completion, whereas the board, on the advice of the Government Enginoor-in-Chief, Mr. Furkert, has decided to complete the inner portion of the harbor with the funds remaining at its disposal. As chairman of the board, Mr. Smith went to the ratepayers with the proposals for an outer harbor, and was responsible for the commencement of (ho undertaking. il>} doubtless feels that to keep faith with the electors he must continue to advocate adherence to the original scheme. The fnaiu'ial position of the board, however, makes this totally impossible. The most the board could do would be to start the outer harbor, without the slightest possibility of completing it, or even of giving the district some return for the money expended. Mr. Smith could undoubtedly salve his conscience by asserting that he had done his best to carry out the mancnto of (he ratepayers, but that, would be poor satisfaction for the ratepayers, ami Mr. Smith could hardly congratulate himself upon having tried and lost, when, if he would only be a little less ambitious, he could not only fry, but, according to Mr. Furkert, succeed. Whore Mr. Smith, and the bulk of the public as well, have been misled is that they expected to obtain an outer harbor for £750,000. The only authority for that figure was Mr. Leslie Reynolds, and Mr. Reynolds was never given the opportunity (>*' proving that his estimate was correct. The board did not proceed with the harbor construction upon the figure of £7.10,000. TrUjP, the loan was carried on the assumption that that I would lie the cost, but—and this is possibly the crux of all the present discontent —when the present scheme was actually approved by the board the estimate before it was £1,2f>0,000 —£500,000 more than was authorised. The adoption of that scheme was advocated by Mr. Smith as chairman of the board, and supported by Dr. Collins as a member. How then can they complain when the expenditure of approximately half the amount has not produced a completed scheme? As far back as July. 102.'!, the engineer picsented his first comprehensive report to the board, and that report, embodying a scheme estimated to cost £i,2§0,000. was adopted by Ike board which had gone to the ratepayers with I proposals for an expenditure of half a million less. Three months later the board realised that its funds would not be sufficient for what if had set out to do, and a motion was carried to concentrate on the development of the inner portion of the harbor. Then the legal difficulty of proceeding with jm inner harbor, when the Act provided for an outer harbor, arose, and the Minister of Marine visited Gisborne and advocated the original scheme, holding that the district could well afford the extra expense. The estimate of £1,250,000 had been based on stone from Rakauroa or Hicks Bay, but in the meantime the deposits at Whangara Island and Whareongaonga had been investigated, and believing that this stone would lie suitable fhe estimates were reduced to within £1,000,000. That is the lowest estimate ever given the board by its engineer for the complete scheme, anil the figure wits contingent upon the cheaper stone supply. How is it possible then for anybody to expect to give effect to the wishes of the ratepayers with the sum available? If Whareongaonga is eliminated then the estimate reverts to £1,2;">0,000, unless stone can be found at a much cheaper cost than has hitherto been considered possible. One further reduction was made in the estimates, but this Mas not for the complete scheme. By eliminating a large portion of the dredging, the large breakwater wharf, and construction only a portion of the 1 outer breakwater, the estimate was reI dueed to £740,000, and this, it must ! K"3 remembered, was still dependent 'upon stone being obtainable at the reduced cost. It is upon this estimate j .that the board is now working, and if 1 the failure at Wh.areongao.nga is eliminated there is nothing official to indicate that the estimate has been exceeded except that additional dredg-

ing plant was acquired and the- land at Kaiti purchased. These two items represent practically £IOO.OOO and immediately increase the estimate to £840,000 for too much modified scheme. Knowing that tin:- is the correct position, neither Mr. Smith nor Di;. Collins can complain at having failed to secure the original scheme for £750,000, while Mr. Tomblcson, being well aware of the position from the outset, must restrict himself to general condemnation of the policy as a whole. The public may have a grievance at the present position, but not the inxiividual members of the board, for the present position is practically in accordance with the policy adopted by thorn. The publis may not have realised that the estimate whs increased from £7:10,000 to £1,250,0(10, but board members can hardly plead ignorance. r ihe board as a whole must accept full responsibility for the present position, but that responsibility is nor newly •acquired as the public appears to think, but dates back to July, 19211, when it decided to proceed upon the estimate of £1,250,000. The much increased figure was published at the time, and if ratepayers had any objection it would seem that then was the time for thorn to voice it, instead ofwaiting until the work was so far advanced. They knew nearly four years ago that they were not going to get what they voted for, but. by their silence, they indicated their contentment to leave decision in the hands of 'their representatives —the board members. What can lie gained by complaining now.' Wo can sympathise with Mr. Smith in his desire to have the scheme completed, but that is not possible as things are, and we can not share his optimism that the ratepayers at the present time would authorise a fori her loan. We do believe, however, that if the board pursues its present policy vigorously and j'ivos ti satisfactory coastal harbor at the earliest possible date, and that if that harbor proves a success, the ratepayers would be prepared to authorise such an extension of the works as might be found necessary. First, however, they must be shown something tangible for the money ahead}' expended, and this can only be done by concentration on the work suggestI od by Mr. Furkert.