Editorial: Wharf cash best spent elsewhere

COMMENT

It is impossible not to applaud the intended public good behind the Auckland City Council's planned purchase of the western half of the waterfront. The area from Queens Wharf to west of the Harbour Bridge would be safeguarded from inappropriate development. And, all being well, the creation of what the council terms a "marine precinct" would enhance one of the shiniest jewels in the city's crown. But, equally, it is impossible not to question whether the $400 million that may be spent on the waterfront assets should not go to other more pressing, if less glamorous, projects. And whether the council could not achieve its objective of "sensible development" of the waterfront by other less extravagant, and less risky, methods.

Quite clearly, the council's initiative has been spurred by an unexpectedly strong public reaction to the Ports of Auckland's decision to sell the Westhaven marina. Emboldened by this response, and keen to cultivate votes in an election year, the council is now also eyeing the Princes, Queens and Hobson wharves and the Wynyard Wharf "tank farm". All are port company assets. And all have features that defy a must-buy rationale.

In the first instance, the proposal has thrown up the odd spectacle of the council bidding against a Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron consortium to buy Westhaven. At worst, this could prompt a ridiculous, and utterly unnecessary, bidding war. The aim of both bidders is to keep the marina in local hands. The obvious solution, both for the public good and for all users of the marina, is for the council and the yacht squadron to form a partnership. This would lower the cost to ratepayers and achieve the element of control sought by the council.

Other parts of the planned purchase package also raise questions. Princes Wharf has already been fully developed by commercial interests along lines that are eminently sensible. Queens Wharf is probably destined for similar development. What then, apart from a steady revenue return, would result from their purchase by the council? Should the council not use the money it plans to spend on these two wharves more wisely?

Any property development is also high-risk; it is best left to private enterprise. The previous council recognised this when it scaled back the Britomart project. Auckland's mayor says the council does not aim to become a property developer, but that would be the outcome if the Wynyard Wharf were bought. There, and effectively only there, would it have to set about creating the proposed "mixed use" of retail, residential and public open space. Given the virtual, or scheduled, realisation of this ambition in the other areas of planned purchase, it is fair to ask whether the "sensible development" of the Wynyard Wharf could not, in fact, be achieved by zoning and resource management. The council should never underestimate its power to influence development this way.

Above all, the council must pay heed to other spending priorities. John Banks makes much of the fact that the city's net debt is "zero" and that it has $4 billion in private property assets. But the council also has other major calls on its capital-raising capacity. One of these, of course, is the funding for roads and public transport. Another is the city's ailing sewerage infrastructure, the subject of much talk but little action over too many years.

The latter, in particular, may win little applause, and even fewer votes, in an election year. Nonetheless, the city's transport and sewerage infrastructures are clearly the council's overwhelming priorities. In an ideal world, the purchase of waterfront assets would also appear on a priority list. But in the real world, spending as much as $400 million for reasons that do not survive close scrutiny is hard to justify. Quite simply, Auckland has more pressing needs.