The Motueka Star PUBLISHED TUESDAYS AND FRIDAYS. "Te Oranga Moti Iwi." FRIDAY SEPTEMBER 20, 1901. UNDEMOCRATIC ACTION OF THE NELSON HARBOR BOARD.

Motueka Star, Volume I, Issue 12, 20 September 1901, Page 3

The Motueka Star PUBLISHED TUESDAYS AND FRIDAYS. "Te Oranga Moti Iwi." FRIDAY SEPTEMBER 20, 1901. UNDEMOCRATIC ACTION OF THE NELSON HARBOR BOARD.

The Nelson Harbor Board appears to be developing autocratic and unscrupulous! tendeuces entirely inconsistent vvitL the sympathies and interests of a y democratic people. They recently ■embodied in their policy a high handed Tproposal to appropriate the self supporting Motueka wharf, whether the Motueka people were willing or not. But now that they find the people of Motueka and of the Waimea claim to have a say in the matter and have strong objections to the stealing of their property, some of the members of the Nelson Harbor Board are beinobrought to their senses and are repenting at thou- leisure, including even Mr li. MeKenzie and 31: John" Graham, M.H.R. It seems to be characteristic of the leading public boo es in Nelson to slumber in respect to matters affecting the public weiiare until r< u.-ed by the rude hand of necessity: and then e.ther t omove listlessly as if they were dreaming, or else rush about rashly as if they weie raviog; riding roughshod ove,-ail considerations of rights and «-oii!-te.-.y; whether in regard to indtviduals, public bodies, <n- the ratepayers who have elected them on the assurance that tliey would place the 'iityrests of the Cummuuity before their -,novate intero>ts and hobbies. A remari-able in.-ttiuce of' the overbearing int ■lerauee and folly of the Noh-on Harbor Board clipped up at their lastmeeting held on tne 3rd inst; when they refused t > consider and tr ed to-strangle by hangh g up an important proposal by Mr Ji.se ph Taylor for the improvement of Nelson Harbor. Mr Taylor had w.-.iteii a letter which the Chairman of the Harb >r Board read With obvious leluetanee, a,s follows: — Dear Sir: As a ratepayer, I beg to ask whether the Harbor Board has finally and irrevocably committed itseif to any scheme lor the improvenn-n: oi Ne.)son" '1 arbor ; and in case I he question is still open, they will consider an alternative proposal which I won Id be willing to make : ratis for improving ihe Harbor in a way which-would provide an adequate outlet lor all iutiire railway a.-: well as shipping traffic, and leave io: ibe Harbor Hoard a per j niancnt. asset worth o,'J. 70,000 after paying | ; il costs ol'construction : thus accomplishing a much larger scheme without any necessity lor additional taxation, and proyiding an asset which, will guarantee securing a very much larger loan, at the same time as it will reduce the extent of the loan 1 necessary. I shalfbe willing to give the datu on ! which my estimates- are based, and will point out its relation to previous proposals showing how it provides for the extinction olits own liabilities, in a way which no other scheme doss. As my scheme .is essentially of a comh rative character I may point out that by i.ie nooureof the case its promulgation was ! S possible to any previous stage in the ussion ; and therefore, I trust its conization will not be refused on the md oi being late. Faithfully yours. Joseph Taylor. From the nature of this letter it will at once be obvious why the Harbor Board hung it up by passing a resolution that it be. read " this day six months "; and why the full text of such an important public document lias not been published in the Nelson newspapers for the information of the : ratepayers and general, public. It is v '.ear that Mr Taylor has propounded ■ a, sci erne which, if ventilated, would ; be m . e likely to be accepted by the ; oi Molson,. t. ~n t. e '

> posal of Mr L. Reynolds ; and the mere consideration (to say nothing of the acceptance) of Mi- Taytor's plan would militate against the ehancos of ■ Mr Urnbam's Empowering Bill, and against the hobby of certain members of the Harbor Board who have swallowed bolus bolus the unsupported and ; futile proposals of Mr Leslie Reynolds. According to report, " The Chairman said it would open the door to endless proposals if the Board con--1 sidered lectci-scf this sat, especially as admittedly it was a, criticism of *tho adopted plans/' Well, and if such a course did "open the door to endless proposals ?" Is it not the duty of the Board to consider various proposals before finally deciding to adopt auv scheme involving such an enormous outlay ? Is there real danger of the Board being inundated with sehomes of this kind ? Are theie more than half a dozen engineers or persons in ] the district who either could or would attempt in any way to deal with the subject ? And even if there were half a dozen radically different proposals, would it not be" the Harbor iioaru'* wiser course t > consider them ail before deciding "finally and irrevocably" t< adopt airy ? Are not the permanent interetts of the public t:> be preferred before the private interests of individual eugii eets wi o have been handsomely paid f:,r their plans? Mr Hanhy eodoosed the Ghanaian's t emarks, and moved that the consideration of the letter be deferred till that day six months. " He moved so out of no disrespect to the writer-, but the position was that the Board were practically e.-mmitted to a scheme which the Government bad so far approved, and time was important; in fact, there was urgent necessity for as early action as possible. It was possible, if the Board began to discuss other schemes, that the engineer would throw up his brief/' Ah! there's the rub! The Harbor Boa-, d, as we stated in a previous issue, have committed themselves hastily to one man's scheme ; and that scheme has been even adopted and incorporated into Mr Graham's Bill, which he is anxious to push headlong through Par - 1 anient prior to the next geneml election : in spite of the fact that Mr Reynolds' proposal differs widely from the plan of Mr Napier Bell, and has never yet been sanctioned by the rateptyors of Nelson. But has the Board c mmitted itself to Mr Reynolds' scheme ? Only a. few minutes before reading Mr Taylor's letter, the chairman stated that'" Mr Reynolds informed him that as soon as ;t was definitely decided to make the cut and the exact site settled, the Citv CJ nincil could take stones from that a:-ea to any extent toey liked, as he had no particular use for the stones." l>oes not this prove that previously it was not " definitely deeded to make the cut?" and. therefore, was not defi \itely decided t , ad .pt Mr Reynolds plan ? And even if it had been decided before to adopt Mr Reynolds scheme is that scheme to be pursued in spite of others which with less outlay would obviously give a better result ? The ' schemes of the only two experts who have been consulted professionally dif- ' fer radically. There is therefore sufii- ' cient reason for consulting a third party ; such as Mr Taylor, who, though - not a. marine engineer, has 1 on ; f ■■• ! ! years a certificated min'-'g and roe- \ { chanical engineer, and 1 as had eo- 1 - ! ' siderable experience in matters r - "' lating to even marine engineering. ' Mr Taylor maintains that the prob- 1 iem of improving Nelson Harbor is a c problem properly for the general en- i gmeer rather than for the marine * special, t. ; and contends that if 1 is j 1

scheme were adopted, Nelson would become an important coaling station for foreign going vessels. While coinciding practically with Napier Bell's scheme so far as concerns the site for cutting through the Boulder Bank, Mr Taylor's proposal difiers radically from both Bell's scheme and that of Reynolds ; inasmuch as it Includes the construction of a ship eanal across the mudflat to the foot of Trafalgar street ; which would give an area < f fruitage "a. >d reelrniaWm %[ e value cf which would ray many times over the whole cost of construction amounting to .£75,000 and then 1 ave' asubsatntial r-redit halanc. Mr Tavtor did not ask the Harbor Board to adopt his sceme ; tut only to consider it ; and the Board's action in refusing even to allow Mr Taylor's scheme to be put before them is highly undemocratic, and not likely to be sanctioned by the ratepayers cf Nelson.