THAMES HARBOUR LOAN.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIV, Issue 4544, 26 March 1923, Page 2

THAMES HARBOUR LOAN.

(To the Editor.) Sir, Mr Rhodes, M.P., in his address’ to the Thames ratepayers last Wednesday gave some very plausible reasons why the scheme should be pushed through, but I am afraid his contentions will not stand seal ching analysis. He has the hardihood to assert that the scheme would be fully self-supporting, which, in my opinion, is a rash statement for even a» M.P. to make. Supposing a daily steamer service is inaugurated, it doesn t follow that much more cargo will be shipped than at present. A" little more revenue may be derived from an occasional visit of a Canterbury produce steamer, Which must of necessity be of small tonnage. Even if the larger £450,000 sclieme is eventually completed, the dairy factories in the radius of the harbour district would much rather get a weekly dispatch from Auckland freezers than quarterly from Thames—it would take three months to accumulate, sufficient butter and cheese to induce an overseas vessel to call, increased production notwithstanding. Mr Rhodes, when he made the assertion referred to above, must have had in mind the perpetuation of the iniquitous passenger tax of a shilling for adults and sixpence for children which exists at present; also the extra shilling per ton . on cargo, making the present wharfage three shillings per ton. The worthy member goes still further, and states that the rental from the land to be reclaimed will bo sufficient in itself to meet the cost of the whole scheme. What a flight of fancy ’ Even if the reclaimed land was on the foreshore of Auckland Harbour there would not be sufficient income derived from it, to pay interest and sinking fund,, which will amount to £3900 per annum, let alone maintenance, dredging x occasionally, and administration. In rav, opinion the work the embryo Waihou River Board intends doing in conjunction with the Public Works Department will fully meet the needs of the district. They intend to provide good navigation facilities between Puke and Te Arolia; also to dredge a channel from the fairway buoy to Puke to give 6ft at-low water,, which, will allow vessels of ISf.t draught to eyter the river on spring tides, and of 15ft draught on neap tides. There is ample depth at Kopu to float vessels of these draughts at low water, and plenty of room to turn. The dredging of the Waihou to provide 6ft at'low water is inevitable, and will be carried out very soon, as promised* by the Engineer in Chief of the Public Works Department. It, therefore, follows, Sir, that the Thames., people will have almost equal berth facilities at Kopu as those set out in the £60,000 s’cheme for Grahamstown, and at a fraction of the cost. Moreover, as soon as the new bridge is over *he Kauaeranga, Kopu will not be much farther from Shortland than Grahamstown, so why saddle the ratepayers and general public with a superfluous .scheme like, the one proposed ? Later on, if the Thames people are bent on providing still deeper berthage, as mooted In their larger scheme to 'cost £4'50,000, they could co-operate with the Waihou River Board and deepen the channel into Kopu to provide 30ft at high '-water. It would be much less expense <to maintain a deep channel into Kopu than into Grahamstown, as the enormous scour from the Waihou, when kept within half tide walls on the mudflats, will be sufficient to keep the channel operf without periodical dredging, as would be required at Grahamstown. ZANTHOS. „