OPUNAKE WHARF

Taranaki Daily News, 2 December 1933, Page 9

OPUNAKE WHARF

FATE AGAIN DISCUSSED POLICY OF HARBOUR BOARD ARE RATEPAYERS AGREED? OPPORTUNITY TO PROTEST The fate of the Opunake wharf was again the subject of discussion, at times somewhat acrimonious, by the board last night, when Mr. T. P. Hughson, whose notice of motion at the previous meeting to rescind the resolution passed by the board “to dismantle the wharf” had lapsed owing to his non-attendance, brought forward a motion asking that a public meeting be called to discuss the matter. The chairman (Mr. J. S. Hickey) and members who advocated the policy of ' dismantling the wharf with a view to saving what they could saw no reason to alter their policy, but in order to give the ratepayers an opportunity to voice disapproval of their action if they wished, carried an amendment agreeing to attend and give any further information to a public meeting if such were called by a body of ratepayers and to abide by the decision of that meeting, though the chairman and Mr. W. A. Sheat made it clear that they would at once leave the board if it were shown by such a meeting that their policy was not approved. Mr. Hughson said , that by the Press reports his notice of motion had been dealt with at the last meeting. He apologised for his absence from that meeting owing to urgent business. At the same time, through no fault of the board, he had not received notification "'w.of the meeting. Despite the fact that 'the notice of motion had been dealt with he still felt that something should be done. He also noticed that at the last meeting members had. criticised his actions in appealing to the Town Board and the Retailers’ Association for support, but as a ratepayer interested in the harbour project he had felt it his duty to appeal to them • PUBLIC OPINION SOUGHT. He also understood it had been stated at the meeting that further notice of motion would not be received, but though he doubted whether that could legally be done he would not press the point. With a view to obtaining an expression of public opinion, which he considered desirable in such an important matter, he would move that the board call a meeting of the ratepayers of the harbour district, to discuss the of the. wharf. In the past the board had called public meetings to consult the ratepayers on matters that were not nearly of so much moment,. and he held that it had a right to consult the ratepayers before taking any action in such an important matter. He would reserve any further statement for such a public meeting. In seconding Mr. G. Prosser said he would abide definitely by the decision reached at a ratepayers’ meeting. The chairman was emphatically of opinion that there was no reason to deviate from the opinions expressed at the last meeting. There was no necessity for the board to call a meeting on the subject as the ratepayers were perfectly satisfied with the. proposed action. If not any group had a perfect right to call a meeting as had been done before, though he could not see that their proposal to salvage the wharf wasi any different to the hundred and one; things local bodies had- to do. The board did not propose to make a wreck of the .harbour, but was endeavouring, -to salvage what-it could, and it should- be.. obvious to the critics that nothing else could be done. If any substantial section of the ratepayers was dissatisfied with the proposal and wanted the wharf to. fall down, or. to undertake further "expenditure in maintaining the wharf, it could, appoint Someone to the board in his place ,as he would not remain for five minutes. . However, until the ratepayers expressed dissatisfaction he would take it that they did not want any alteration. His opinion was that the ratepayers were not dissatisfied. Mr. Sheat said the board had already , decided upon a course of action, and if it called , a public meeting it would look like weakening. He saw no reason why they should weaken. He considered that it would be waste of money to call a > meeting, as the ratepayers would very emphatically endorse the board’s policy. He would not shirk addressing any meeting but would willingly place the facts before any dissatisfied section of ratepayers,' as there appeared to be a mild sort of opposition, if they called a meeting. He was surprised that Mr. Hughson should make such a point of calling a public meeting on this occasion seeing ■ that once when Mr. Hughson had called a public meeting to discuss a matter of policy, Mr. Sheat alleged, he had ignored the wishes of that public meeting. Mr.: Hughson gave this statement a strong denial. MR. SHEAT WOULD RESIGN. If Mr. Hughson was sincere in his desire that the ratepayers should be consulted, that was the time when he should have respected their wishes and not deft / mand that the board call a meeting now when they desired to pull the wharf down before it fell down, said Mr. Sheat. If a meeting were held and there, was a strong feeling, in favour of retaining the wharf he was prepared to abide by the action of the ratepayers, but he would at once get off the board. The chairman: Me too. Mr. Sheat said that if the majority of the ratepayers wanted the wharf to be allowed to fall down or to spend money in keeping it up they would have to put someone else in his place. However, he did not think the ratepayers favoured such a proposal but would endorse the action of the board in its endeavour to save a few pounds from the wreck. He did not think the board should take any different action until it had some definite evidence of such a desire instead of merely an agitation that/was being worked up by a few. / Mr. Hughson: You had definite eviJL. dence from the letters of the Town ' Board and the Retailers’ Association. Mr. Sheat said they had not received any official request from the Town Board. The letter had not been addressed to the board. The chairman: If it had been it would have been ignored. Mr. Sheat said the Town Board as a local body had no right to criticise the actions of another local body elected by the ratepayers to deal with harbour affairs. The letter from the Retailers’ Association as representing the opinions of a group of ratepayers, had ben acknowledged. He /considered the only way to obtain a true expression of opinion from the ratepayers was to take a poll and give all an opportunity to vote, but no one would suggest going to that expense. It was obvious that the board must save what it could from the wreck. He was satisfied from his contact with the ratepayers that most of them had their minds made up in favour of the board’s policy. A. Mr. Hughson did not agree that Mr. Sheat had accurately gauged the feelings of the ratepayers. He was certain that

the ratepayers would not be willing to have the wharf, which cost a lot of money, demolished when it could be saved for a few pounds and might be utilised in the near future. The ratepayers had a right to be consulted, and he certainly thought they should be. He felt, however, that the majority of the board was against his opinion. Mr. Hughson said that for years as chairman he had held the confidence of the board and had never tried to dominate the position in any way. He held that his opinion in regard to the ratepayers of the district should be considered before any disastrous damage was done. Mr. Hickey said the matter was entirely in the hands of the ratepayers, who could call a public meeting, but he was satisfied that nine out of ten did not want the wharf. Mr. Sheat pointed out that since last meeting ratepayers had had the opportunity of calling a. meeting. The chairman moved as an amendment “That if any section of ratepayers is dissatisfied with the proposed action of the board and calls a public meeting the board will be only too pleased to attend and give any additional information required.” Mr. Sheat: Add “and to abide by their decision.” The chairman agreed to that addition. The amendment, however, would place the onus on the ratepayers to come and identify themselves with the harbour, he said. Mr. Sheat seconded the amendment. Mr. Hughson said the amendment was rather an alternative for which all could \ote. It was a question whether the board should call the meeting. Mr. Sheat said the amendment gave the board an opportunity of explaining matters if necessary, which voting against the motion would not permit. The amendment was carried. Messrs. Hughson and Prosser voting against it, but in being put as a motion it was carried unanimously.