Wellington Scoop
Network

E-Mail 'Trouble at the port' To A Friend

Email a copy of 'Trouble at the port' to a friend

* Required Field






Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 5 entries.



Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 5 entries.


E-Mail Image Verification

Loading ... Loading ...

13 comments:

  1. Elaine Hampton, 30. November 2016, 11:12

    Another nasty cold to be caught by ratepayers, who had no say in the building of this entity on reclaimed land! Too clever by half is the phrase that comes to mind, especially when the decisionmakers’ pockets are not affected.

     
  2. Mark Shanks, 30. November 2016, 11:26

    Empire building using ratepayers as guarantors. Reminds me of WIAL. Councils are public entities. They are not private businesses.

     
  3. TrevorH, 30. November 2016, 16:21

    Time to wind up the Regional Council. Not a cent more of ratepayers’ or taxpayers’ hard earned money. The buildings can be used for landfill.

     
  4. Cr Daran Ponter, 30. November 2016, 19:01

    There should be no impact on ratepayers in relation to the office buildings on Port land as these are covered by insurance. If there is a concern about an impact on rates, then that lies with the affect of the earthquake on the Port’s operational areas.

    Several warehouses are going to have to be demolished and I suspect that the container wharf will have to be be largely rebuilt (from the piles up). The impact here is that the Port is likely to have to borrow funds and will not be paying a dividend to the Regional Council for some years (a dividend which assists to offsets your Council rates).

    The upside is that we may get an opportunity to look at the better configuration of Port operations (e.g where the ferry and cruise terminals are based) for the medium to long-term, and also to look at the Port – CBD interface, which in my view serves as a very poor introduction to Wellington City.

     
  5. Hel, 30. November 2016, 21:41

    The cost of insuring these buildings in the future will be astronomical if they are insurable at all; this will mean increased cost or risk for the ratepayers. These buildings are in danger of becoming untenant-able lemons when the leases come up for renewal; this cost will also fall on the ratepayers as will the guarantees to AMP. To suggest there will be no impact on ratepayers is hard to credit.

     
  6. Morris Oxford, 1. December 2016, 7:26

    Daran, I cannot share your affection for the effect “of the earthquake on the Port’s operational areas.” This sort of thing is far too serious.

     
  7. Lindsay, 1. December 2016, 8:20

    Daran: that’s a great idea about reconfiguring the layout of port operations. Cruise ships should be berthing alongside the CBD and not way out in an industrial area. The Interislanders too. And the container wharf has been an ugly blight on the landscape since it was created so long ago. Tell us more about how these changes could be made.

     
  8. City Lad, 3. December 2016, 10:01

    Mayor Blumsky was keen to move the container port facility to Ngauranga and to use the existing reclaimed land for housing development. Thank goodness this never happened. Loss of life would have been considerable in the early morning quake.

     
  9. Guy M, 4. December 2016, 0:08

    City Lad – rubbish. Housing on that site would be suffering from some liquefaction, same as the port has, but there is no reason for loss of life. NZ house construction may leak occasionally, but they generally don’t kill people in earthquakes.

     
  10. Casey, 4. December 2016, 8:56

    Daran. The impact will be be felt by ratepayers as the loss in income from all Centreport activities will result in no dividends being paid to the GWRC for some time. Ratepayers will be forced to pay for these losses in higher rates.

    Instead of the new GWRC council as first order of business voting themselves a pay rise, they ought to have been looking at the cost impact of the earthquake and what projects will need to be halted in the short term. Again we see poor leadership that is devoid of commercial nouse in my opinion.

    The Statistics Building damage may be covered by insurance, but insurance doesn’t cover betterment which is what that building needs. There is insufficient mass in its foundations and to correct this the owners will need to pick up the tab. One has to wonder why the building was built the way it was when nearby is the Railway Station where it was recognised that lack of mass in foundations on reclaimed land was an issue that needed to be mitigated against. Hence the hundreds of tonnes of concrete added to the foundations in 2003 – 2004.

    Nearby is the Central Telephone Exchange, also on reclaimed land, which was recognised in the early 1990s as being at risk in a major earthquake. A substantial sheer wall was added on the Whitmore Street side, as well as a massive concrete slab under the street that ties into its foundations.

    The damage done to both the Statistics Building and the BNZ Centre in 2013 ought to have been a wake up call, not that Centreport appear to have acknowledged the design shortcomings. The Customs building is of similar construction.

     
  11. City Lad, 4. December 2016, 10:20

    Guy M should refer to this article’s photograph of the destruction of CentrePort’s reclaimed land. And be reminded there would have been some high-rise residential buildings there too.

     
  12. Cr Daran Ponter, 4. December 2016, 16:35

    Casey: Don’t believe everything you read in the papers – the base rate for Councillors has stayed the same – it is set by the Higher Remuneration Authority.

    I don’t deny that there may be some financial effect from the earthquake on the commercial buildings….I am simply saying that my bigger concern though is with the Port operations and the cost and opportunities of remediating the damage cause by the earthquake.

     
  13. Tony Jansen, 14. January 2017, 8:46

    The city continues to face major infrastructure challenges and all the GWRC have done, apart from feed from the public trough, is give the rail passenger services to an overseas multinational thereby ending any chance for integrated ticketing. Oh and encourage lowball tenders for split off bus routes, and support CentrePort’s ridiculous harbor dredging fantasy at a minimum cost to the ratepayer of 42 million dollars…do I have to go on?
    I am sorry to say but there are too many career politicians feathering their own nests instead of people who are there to serve. It would be funny if you weren’t doing so much damage to the city and our future.