Richard Moore's Straight Talk Columns

Harbour island a future money-spinner

9/2/2011

WASN'T the Bay of Plenty Times Weekend's insight into Tauranga in 2050 an eye-opening glimpse of our future?

It was in the new-look Saturday edition and for anyone interested in the city it was a revealing read.

In the article Wave of Change, the Times had important people in the community telling us their vision of Tauranga in 39 years time.

In 2050 I could be 89, however, the chances of me getting to that ripe old age are slight but I am still interested in where we are going.

Ahead of Tauranga is change and the boss of the Chamber of Commerce Max Mason was pretty forward in his future thinking.

Mason says our city and population will change with property values and rates rising.

Fair enough. We have limited space and, of course, when things are hard to get their value jumps.

But Mason makes an interesting suggestion.

He believes that if people don't like paying more rates then ``they may have to live elsewhere, in a less attractive area.''

Pardon?

He goes on: ``They need to accept they are part of the population problem and it's expensive to live in paradise.''

Crikey. Population is a problem?

I always thought population meant people ... kids, families, that sort of thing.

Is the business chief suggesting that poor people shouldn't live here? Or that people are a nuisance?

A city is its people, Max.

We all know that land is at a premium in Tauranga and its coastal environs so how can we make it more affordable? It isn't as if we can manufacture more land ... can we?

Well, one reader of this column thinks we can and has come up with a potential solution that should be looked at objectively.

Cedric Sutherland reckons Tauranga should create a mid-harbour island between the harbour bridge and the Matapihi rail crossing. This, he reckons, could be the new, more central heart of our city and relieve the pressure on land prices.

If we take his idea a bit further the central island can be connected to the mainland with bridges, including rail links, so that access to it and through it makes getting around Tauranga much easier.

Can it be done?

Well, have you ever heard of Sulphur Point? That's reclaimed land. Between 1965 and 1990 some 90ha were added to the city at Sulphur Point and the port area to cope with increasing demand for space. The edges of the island could be concrete blocks, stone walls ... whatever works, but the land would come from a close, plentiful source. Our port is going to be dredged to make it deeper so it can cope with larger vessels. The sands taken from there could be transported a few kilometres away to our new island in the making. It would be cost effective, re-using resources and providing us with a tonne of new habitable land.

By my quick calculations the between-bridges harbour could cope with a 500m by 2000m man-made island that could provide up to 1 million sq m, or 100ha, of new land. It could be used for medium-rise homes, parks, a truly central business district, a new sports stadium, whatever our city needs.

What about the cost? Well, let's do some sums.

A section of 600sq m in Papamoa goes for around $220,000. An island of 100 ha would provide about 1666 blocks of land. Skilful fingers on a calculator work out that an isle of that size would be worth something like $366,520,000.

Wow. That's something to think about isn't it?

Something else to ponder on is Tauranga's ageing community. We already are up to the rafters in fogies (who, as I age, get younger and younger) with 18 per cent of the city aged 65-plus. So we need to not only attract younger people but provide things for the elderly as well.

And who is going to pay for that?

Well, if I may quote Max Mason again: ``What government agency makes the decision to pull the plug when I've been taking my last breaths for three months on scarce taxpayers' money?

``It becomes a moral choice. Is that money being best used for the common good?''

Bloody hell. It's Soylent Green all over.

Mason's comments suggest a be-useful-or-die attitude that I am not comfortable with.

Old people have already paid taxes throughout their lives and deserve to be looked after and not be put down because they cost too much in a bean counter's eyes.

I am sure that no sensible person would want a government agency's finger on the drip of life if they happen to be in hospital.

Cost-cutting through state euthanasia is one of those lines we do not wish to cross.

Maybe we should erect a small Statue of Liquidity at the entrance to Tauranga harbour.

On it we can have a plaque saying: ``Don't give us your tired, your poor or your huddled masses. We just want the rich buggers.''

richard@richardmoore.com