OPUNAKE HARBOUR.

Taranaki Daily News, 21 December 1929, Page 11

OPUNAKE HARBOUR.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —Possibly no other subject touched upon in your paper is so evergreen or so capable of stirring- up rancour as the above. It has been a means of dividing the community into camps, and when the particular votaries of each camp congregate then the harbour is sure to be the subject of discussion. My attention has been drawn to a letter in Wednesday’s issue from Mr. J. S. Hickey, and as I am the chief scapegoat I will do my best to answer truthfully and without reservation. His inferences as to what I am I will not answer Possibly there is a long- span in both Mr. Hickey’s fife and my own yet to be lived, and fate may so throw ns together that he may come to know me better and wish to recall unkind insinuations made. Where a direct question is asked I will do my best to answer truthfully.

Mr. Hickey asks how I can reconcile my attitude on the council with it on the harbour board. Ido not try to reconcile it. On the council I speak fearlessly on matters as my judgment dictates. On the harbour board every thing is in a state of utter hopelessness. Take the present work, to which such , strong exception is being taken. Previous to the ship touching the bottom or the rock since removed, small as the shipping was the revenue would have reached approximately £2OO net for the year, which would almost pay the secretary-harbourmasters’ salary. When the boat stopped calling this revenue, small as it was, stopped also, leaving the salary to be found out of reserve revenue or a portion out of the rates. Now what is the best thing to do? Leave the debris in the fairway and have no shipping at all, with interest to be found on £55,000, or spend, say, £l5O to clear the berthage, when the shipn : ”- - such and small as it was, ntay be resumed? Reasoning it out I thought the latter course the best. I realised, however, tha + the board has no money to waste or throw away and moved that we approach the Government for a grant to do the work. The work went on, but the request was withheld until certain members of the board insisted that it should go forward. The work at the berthage is under the control of Mr. C. A. Trotter, the Government nominee, and he has instructions that if the method of working or if the w ol ’k is not effective it is°to stop at once. The obstruction in the berthage apparently was a few boulders, which rolled in from the shore or east side of the wharf, and as the whole habour is to be sounded and recharted by representatives of tlie Marine Department at an early date it was deemed best to remove the obstructions, so that a clean report may be obtained.

Concerning the question as to whether the harbour may be completed without the £20,000 loan I really think that possibly it may not be with it, and, further, if it was spent that it would not be a complete success. On the other hand it may be such and astonish everyone who considered it impossible.. The ■ expenditure of the £55,000 certainly is a' scandal, but if by refusing the expenditure of £lOO obstructions arc left in the berthage, then the extent to which prejudice will go would also be a scandal. No one feels more sick of the whole thing than I do. I was and am prepared to forego my hostility to the thing to endeavour if possible to make the best of a very bad business. On Saturday . next an advertisement will appear in the Daily. News advertising the loan proposals and giving objectors a chance to protest. As there is a large petition in circulation objecting to the proposal it has been in my mind what is the best thing to do.. To accede to the request of the petitioners (for I believe the signatories are the majority of the ratepayers) and save any further expense on the matter or let it go to tlie Loans Board, when no doubt it will come before the. ratepayers, possibly with, many restrictions. If this is done, and the loan rejected, as I believe it will be it will be best, as it will clarify the position for some time to come.

A matter Which I should also like to touch upon ie the additions to the harbourmaster’s residence. An > unfortunate position arose. When the applications were called/ conditions and the size of the'accommodation were sent to the offices of the'papers in which the advertisement appeared, and it was assumed that any applicants either made request direct for such to the board’s office, or at the newspaper offices. It. so ■ happened, as it often does, that the one'first chosen by the board could (or would, not) accept.. This I. ,iM bnf. ■jgi'.’/i- ■' : ' ? & ogiobru: n< x l '--*

involved a delay. Only a few days l were available before the secretary was ■ leaving and it was essential to fill the position before he left. Captain Knowles, who had- a position- in the South Island was asked in a telegram if ho would accept and start under a week (we had previously wired the U.S.S. Company as to his suitability). He immediately left his then employment and came to Opunake. The board then found itself in this position —a harbourmaster, a decent man, with a wife and a family of boys and girls, and living accommodation of three rooms. What was the board to do? Discharge Captain Knowles and pay all his expenses, besides, possibly compensation for loss of employment, and call fresh applications for the postion? A meeting was called and the matter fully discussed.' The. position was extremely distasteful to me I know. Still it had to be met,, and itwas finally thought best to enlarge the house at a cost which would make the collective building £5OO, which amount was' originally arranged for to build residence and office. Tenders have now been accepted at £l2O odd for the work, which when completed makes the total house cost about £475, including the office.

I have lengthily explained this because I know that the objectors have taken stronw exception to the expenditure. However, whilst temporary make-shift is provided, yet as respectable men we must provide reasonable, accommodation for a man and his family, so I take my share of the blame for this inevitable expenditure. In conclusion, Sir, I may state that the whole harbour scheme is as nauseous to me as it is to any ratepayer whosoever. This can be readily understood when I mention that I am the second largest ratepayer in the harbour district, and any unwarranted expenditure will certainly effect my liability. It is unfortunate, yet I understand full well how quite impossible it is to report the full expressions of members upon certain phases of tho harbour. Were this possible then ratepayers would better know how reluctant to approve and how repugnant such expenditure was to certain members. Unfortunately it is the duty of a board to keep its port open and certain efforts to that end must be used. However, there are limits to any expenditure, and from last meeting I know that more than one member came away feeling that if it was to continue it would be more economical to close the port altogether and sell up everything. This ,may follow the result of the poll, because, it is useless for any body of men to think that they can do anything if the ratepayers are notin accord with it. Thus the matter mav solve itself. —I am,-etc., J. S. TOSLAND.

p.S—lt may interest your readers, Sir, to learn that Mr. Hickey’s quota of the capital expenditure of, say, £3OO to enlarge the house and clear the berthage is between 5s B<f~ and 6s. If Mr. Hickey feels that I am responsible for this loss to him I will gladly refund it to him so that he may not suffer any great hardship by any action of mine. J.S.T.