KEY POINTS:
Ports of Auckland has tossed a bucket of cold water on the idea of a people-centred town basin at the foot of Queen St, taking in Queens, Captain Cook and Marsden Wharves.
In its 2008 Port Development Plan, the company concedes "Queens Wharf could be released within approximately
18 months of agreement being reached with a purchaser ... conceivably ... as early as 2009-10". But of neighbouring Captain Cook Wharf, the port has no intention of letting that go for at least 10 years, and the fate of little Marsden Wharf is even grimmer.
As part of the port company's plans to extend the Bledisloe Container Terminal southwards towards Quay St, Marsden will have to be demolished.
What's really alarming about the port company's grand plan is the secrecy involved in this major redesign of the waterfront.
Three years ago, I cheered when the Auckland Regional Council returned the port company to full public ownership by buying back the 20 per cent of shares in private hands. What appealed most was that it ensured control over future waterfront redevelopment returned to the public.
Yet here we have a plan into which there has been no public input, unless you call controlled briefings of the finished document to various stakeholder groups meaningful consultation.
If you think a decent debate over the possibilities of a visitor-centred town basin was in order, then what of plans to extend Bledisloe Container Terminal into the Waitemata Harbour as far out as Fergusson Container Terminal, then in-filling the harbour area between them, to end up with a total industrial zone totalling 115 ha.
That's a reclaimed area one and a half times the size of Auckland Domain.
And as Alex Swney, chief executive of central Auckland lobby group Heart of the City points out, rumbling about this vast waterfront wasteland will be "a sea of cranes twice the height of the ill-fated national stadium".
If there was a debate about this, you and I weren't invited to take part, which is odd seeing we are the owners of the port company, and the voters who choose who represents us on the ARC.
Heart of the City are grumpy at the lack of debate as well, even though they did get one of the briefings I referred to earlier.
Mr Swney says their "main gripe about this plan is that it is an Auckland Ports-centric plan as opposed to a plan for the most efficient import and export requirement for the northern half of the North Island".
He says "a myriad of confused agendas sees POAL having to return a dividend to fund the passenger transport shortfalls of their master, the ARC, and conveniently they rationalise a plan that expands the industrialisation of our waterfront at the expense of public access".
The report also makes clear that turning Auckland's port into the international hub port for all future North Island shipping will put new demands on the city's already groaning road - on which 90 per cent of containers travel - and rail systems.
The document declares that "POAL's vision is to be the best port in Australasia with world-class performance". It further states that it is likely one major hub port will develop in the North and South Islands, each handling all the international shipping for that island and that "Auckland is the most viable and logical option" as the North Island hub.
Of course Port of Tauranga has been arguing black and blue the contrary case. What is obvious is that both these port companies, and others, are busy bolstering their corners with expensive outlays of shareholders' - read ratepayers as far as Auckland is concerned - dollars. What is also obvious is that when the shipping giants choose between the port companies, there's going to be a lot of surplus near-new infrastructure going to rust.
I guess I should raise half a cheer that the port operators have succumbed to public pressure to open up Queens Wharf. But even there, there's a giant catch. The publicly-owned port company wants to sell the wharf, presumably to the ARC or Auckland City at a commercial price. Then it expects the purchaser to dig deep into ratepayers' pockets yet again and build a multi-million-dollar cruise ship terminal on it. From which the port company will take the profits.
If there's not enough in any of the above to warrant a round of public debate, I give up.