OPUNAKE HARBOUR.

Taranaki Daily News, 28 August 1930, Page 5

OPUNAKE HARBOUR.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —Though reluctant to encroach further upon your space to deal with anonymous defenders of the Opunake Harbour Board, I cannot entirely ignore “Egmont’s” latest effort, inasmuch as concludes with a direct question to myself. I am not surprised that “Egniont” .describes my letter as “most un.:r.'convincing.” Anyone who is stupid •/ / ' fcZ*' rS I -f, j j . i • {>.'• \ -fi rfrr': ' s’ 7 i r J’?'

enough, to attempt at this hour of the day to make out a case for the Opunake harbour is obviously beyond being convinced, no matter how cogent the arguments advanced The case against the- harbour is clear as daylight, but even so it requires a certain minimum of intelligence for its comprehension, and “Egmont’s” lack of that minimum is a misfortune for which ho can'hardly be blamed. Fortunately for ratepayers, it is not necessary to convince “Egmont” iii order to prevent further waste on the harbour. Its fate was settled definitely, and I believe, finally, by the Loans Board. We managed to convince the Loans Board —why worry that “Egmont” is unconvinced?

“Egmont” implies that I have made no suggestions as to how the rate could be reduced. “Egmont” should read my letters before pretending to reply. Had : he.done so he would know what I have proposed. It is common knowledge that the board is frittering away several hundreds of pounds a year which could go to reduce rates, if the board genuinely desired a reduction. If “Egmont” doubts my word, let him consult, the board’s balance-sheets for recent years. If, at the same time, “Egmont” would like a good tip regarding future developments at the harbour, I predict that the board when next it meets will take steps in the direction of securing a parttime secretary, as long since suggested by opponents of the board. “Egmont” writes: “'Granted the board levies £4286 in rates, does Mr. Shcat seriously think that amount will be collected in the course of a year?” Of course, I don’t. I know the board too well for that. I know that at last audit well over £GOO of rates was written off, mainly because owing to the dilatoriness of the board, they had become irrecoverable. The Government auditor demanded that they be written off. Had the board been attending to its main business of rate collecting instead of fathering forlorn schemes for making Opunake a great maritime centre, it would have seen to it that the bulk of these rates were collected. But the harbour already has * enough enemies. Why alienate the few remaining supporters by suing for their rates? “Egmont’s suggestion that I declined to enter a controversy regarding statistics of other ports because “nothing would be more embarrassing” to me, is on a par with his general level of futility. If “Egmont” had really desired to argue the matter with me, why did he not do so 12 months ago, when I was literally demoralising the board by the publication of irrefutable facts concerning other ports, which made the board’s claims look ridiculous? Why did “Egmont” wait till our propaganda against the port had done all the damage it could by materially assisting in blocking the loan scheme? I come now to “Egmont’s final question.: “Would. I support the port ini every shape or form, provided no further expenditure, on harbour works is allowed? In the event of shipping using the port under existing conditions, would I do my utmost to further the. trade of the port?” Unfortunately, I have no option in the matter of “supporting the port.” As a ratepayer I must pay my annual rate. Not being a keen harbour supporter, I have no hope that if I ignore the rate it will be allowed to become statute-barred. As for the latter part of the question, I am surprised that one who claims to know all about the port should ask such a question. Mr. Hughson, Mr. Vickcrman, Mr. Hardy, Captain Knowles, Mr. Tosland and the Northern S.S. Co. all agree that io. its present state the harbour is useless. Mr. Tosland’s expression, if I remember aright, was “useless to God or man” It is nearly 12 months since the Arapawa grounded and cut off the promising trade, which at that time averaged the impressive total of 17 tons per trip. The board has since made no effort whatever to secure a resumption of the service. Indeed, if another boat ever ventured to come into the port it is exceedingly doubtful if it would every go out again. Why, then, ask questions relating to what I would do “in the event of shipping using the port under existing conditions?” Even if the port had any prospects the obligation to make a success of it would rest upon those who have advocated its construction. So long as they accept ■the failure of the port as an established fact, what possible obligation can I be under “to do my utmost to further the trade of the port?”—l am, etc., W. A. SHEAT. Pihama, August 2G, 1930. ■ - »■'»< • * i ll ’’ ’ - > 1 ’'<• • j