My position is fairly straightforward. I'm pro business, want to see the port do well and believe that it's an important part of Auckland's infrastructure. However, I also think that Auckland's greatest long-term asset for our people and for tourism is our beautiful harbour, which has already been substantially narrowed by successive reclamations.
The proposed northern expansion would have reduced the harbour's width by over 10 per cent and materially diminished views from the city out to the gulf and islands. The predominant purpose of the proposed expansion is to store imported cars. While visually unattractive this also seems to be a very poor usage for some of the most valuable real estate in the country. It needs to be remembered that the port is a very long-term asset and any planning for it should not be done in a rush or behind closed doors.
I believe that the proposed independent study is a sensible step forward and will hopefully provide us all with facts so that we can have an informed debate about the questions that need to be answered, including:
• When taking a long-term view (50 years plus) is the port in the right place or are there any other viable options? No modern city would choose to have a port as its front doorstep, and many have moved them, but because of cost Auckland may have no choice.
• If the port remains where it is, it may have to accept that it will eventually become space- constrained and have to focus on higher value cargos and shed low value cargos to other ports. Is this feasible? Can other ports handle it?