Foxton Wharf.

Horowhenua Chronicle, 8 July 1913, Page 2

Foxton Wharf.

The Proposed Purchase j LEVIN BOROUGH COUNCIL'S LIABILITY. Mr 13. It. Gardener., as Mayor < 1' Levin ami a member of the '.Foxton Harbour Board, made a statement to the Levin Borough Council last night concerning the advisableness of acquiring Foxton Wharf from the New Zealand Government. He said it was no use mourning over the fact that the board, years ago. had allowed the wharf to pass into the Government's hands: the position had to 1)0 faeed that the Government had the wharf to-day. rwnd that the board must buy back the wharf: the question was whether the Government would abate its exorbitant price of £28,7(10. In offering the wharf even at- this price the Government Railway Department alleged it was generous, asserting that capitalised at 3} per cent, the wharf was worth £'•"> 1,000. Air Gardener went on to quote figures showing the financial stability of Foxton wharf. In a term of some live years its income had jumped from £1200 to £"1787. Further, the Foxton Harbour Board, if it acquired t-lie wharf, could administer things m<j< equitably for the district than the Railway Department was doing: to him it seemed the department was trying to kill the port of Foxton, in the "i'.'iteiests of the railways. He knew that tradesmen of these parts who used Foxton as a port made an absolute saving of from 25 to -10 per cent. On sugar, for instance. 10s per ton could be saved. .Besides. the larger the port of Foxton could be made, the more industries would be created in these parts, and the moie trade I'pr saddlers, horseowners. farriers, ami so on. AYheii the w hari was held by the board, and properly worked, the installation of the Levin to Greatford railway Mould be expedited. Touching on the subject of the guarantees, Mr Gardener contended that they would be merely nominal: the figures he had quoted in regard to revenue .showed that there was no likelihood of any deficiency arising in the board's revenues. Of the guarantee. Levin's share (based upon a valuation) probably would not come to more than £20 per annum. Thu purchase of thu wharf would be just as safe as Levin's gas undertaking had been. There had been prophecies of troublo then, but the prophets were never in evidence now. Ami the wharf proposition was an oven sounder one. The local bodies' representatives on thu board would surely see that sufficient revenue was raised from wharf dues, etc. On the question of price, Mr Gardener suggested that if the wharf were secured the purchase price should be not more than £ 1.0,1100. As one member of the Board he hoped the Railway Department would accept that reasonable offer. The alternative was to get an Order-in-Conncil from the Government, authorising the council to put up a wharf for itself.

Councillor Blenklioru askod why the Wirokiuo riding was not included in the scheme.

The Mayor answered that .Shannon's goods all came by rail, and the. proportion of Wirokiuo riding altogether was so small that Eoxton Harbour Hoard did not consider it worth while to include Wirokiuo riding in the bill.

Councillor Mleiikhorn further asked if there was not a risk of a small borough like Levin being crushed in such a district; outvoted by a combination of Pnlmerston bodies, and involving an exceeding of the guarantee of £28 per annum estimated as Levin's. lie meant that extra works on the harbour might be entered upon.

The Mayor answered that the bill l»ofore Parliament was merely a proposal to borrow a certain sum for a specific purpose. Besides, harbour boards could borrow only by special Act of Parliament, .:lnd on their income. Councillor Mathoson asked how much l'oxton was guaranteeing. I lie Mayor; I think they guaranteed L'L">7 on a former occasion.

Councillor Mathoson then remarked that with this .sum at stake Foxton would be vitally interested in keeping down expenditure, and would combine with Levin to combat any opposite endeavour on the part of any Palinerston district bodies.

Councillor Dempsey asked would all the revenue 'now being made bv the Government be derived' by the board; and would that be available before the guaranteeing bodies woultf be called upon. 'I lie Mayor said it would lie so. Councillor Prouse said tlie risk was that in years to come, after the board had spent all its money, it would come back and say "Are V ou Koing to let the whole thing drop'for want of a little more money!" He had sympathy with the proposal, but lie was not going to put other people and himself into this to be pinched. However, if it was to be onlv a guarantee liability of £20 per an--1111,11 .he would not stand in tho way. He was chary ol these things, but he thought they might be too canny at times.

Councillor .Franco said this was the thin edd of the wedge to create a special rating area. If they kicked up a row to-night they would get tho rating area altered so as to let in the rich swamp lands as well a.s Levin Borough. He would not like t<J -we his home mortgaged to provide (the Mayor: "Twenty pounds a year!"') No. Jl( ,t that; hut to bolster up J'oxton. Ho was sure that it this was started the board aventtially would ho taking Levin further. 1 here were- rating areas in Xow Zealand for harbours wherein the people were very sorry they had been attached. Levin's natural harbour

was Wellington, not Foxton; larger ships and deep-water harbours were the trend of modern shipping conditions. Councillor Matheson said that from the point of view of tho tradesman it was very- much cheaper to bring goods from Foxton than "Wellington. Councillor Lancaster said everyone would agree with him that Levin was a dear place to live in; and if they could save money by going in--Ito this scheme it should be done. At the sanio time, he did not liko to see Shannon and tho AVirokino riding excepted. Couneiljor Mackenzie would like to know exactly what would ho tho liability of Levin if it wtint in lor this scheme. He would like to support it. but ho did not care to commit the place to anything indefinite. The Mayor repeated that tho bill before Parliament only affected a £'20,000 liability. Before more could be raised another Act would be necessary. * Besides, one of the first charges would be against the board's revenue, and this would be available for meeting interest* charges, etc. Councillor France moved a motion as follows: "That this council will not support the Foxton Harbour Bill in its present form, and that slips be taken to object thereto." Councillor Blonkhorn said he was not wholly in favour of the motion, but he seconded it because ho believed it would be advantageous to have the proposal discussed in" all its bearings. On division, the motion was rejected by live votes to three, the minority being Councillors France, Blonkhorn and Mackenzie.