Rudman's city: No one wants to know, so ferry passengers can't go

By BRIAN RUDMAN

For every contract, there's a lawyer waiting in the wings to find a way through it. In the case of the Ferry Building's public toilets, that wasn't very hard.

Despite the old harbour board's express insistence in 1988 that toilets be provided as a condition of its 100-year lease agreement with Challenge Properties, nothing was written into the terms of the lease underlining this requirement.

This has enabled the mysterious millionaire overseas owner, who subsequently bought the lease, to bolt the dunny door with impunity, leaving ferry passengers with nowhere to go when nature calls.

For waterfront identity Harry Julian, who was board chairman when the 1988 deal was signed, it's all "bloody ridiculous". He says providing public toilets "was definitely part of the deal. I insisted on it because there'd always been public toilets there".

Mr Julian knew this from personal experience. When he was a child, his boat-operating dad would walk him down to meetings along the waterfront. "He'd say, 'You can come with me as long as you keep your mouth shut and listen and we'll go to the toilet first'. I know the place so bloody well. Never go to a meeting with a full bladder."

His memory is backed by the documentary evidence. Delving into the board records stored at the National Maritime Museum, the May 1985 Ferry Building lease proposals put out to prospective leasees included public toilets as part of the special conditions listed. A report from Bob Albrecht, property manager, dated April 9, 1986, was even more specific. It goes on about delays in finalising a lease arrangement with the selected lessee, Challenge Properties.

He records "the provision of public toilet facilities within the building has always been a fundamental lease requirement and it is considered this requirement should be retained." He notes the counter-offer from Challenge.

"No public toilets to be provided within the ground floor retail space. The company [Challenge] proposes the resiting of a public toilet structure in the vicinity of the existing east side annex building. Rental income projections reflect this."

The final sentence reflects Challenge's thinking, which is backed up by Mr Julian's recollections. Challenge didn't want toilets taking up space in prime income-earning ground-floor sections of the heritage building.

It proposed instead to build public toilets as part of the ticketing and ferry company annex alongside. Rent from the new building and from the space in the ferry building originally earmarked for toilets was to offset the cost of providing public toilets. The Challenge proposal was eventually accepted by the board.

"They wanted to maximise the use of the actual Ferry Building for restaurants and we were happy as long as toilets were made available. My understanding was the toilets were being funded by the rental from the entire operation," recalls Mr Julian.

Unfortunately there's no mention of toilets - open or shut - in the lease agreement on the main Ferry Building, or in the 14-year licence covering the adjacent annex. In retrospect, how sad for the ferry passengers of Auckland. However, who would have thought you'd have to insist on such small print?

With the annex on just a 14-year "licence" is it not possible for the harbour board's successor, Ports of Auckland, to put pressure on the owners to do the decent thing when the licence comes up for review next year? Unfortunately, it isn't.

The Cayman Island-registered owner's solicitor, Marcus Macdonald, decided to turn the lease over early - last year, in fact, before the you-know-what hit the fan.

It was only after that he decided to close the toilets, claiming they were costing, at $65,000 a year, too much to run. This, despite my speculation on Monday turning out to be true, that the cost of running the toilets was built into the overall rental structure of the site.

As for the port company, it's wiping its hands of the whole matter. Spokeswoman Karen Beanland says it's "not really an issue for us. We have a lease arrangement with them and require them to meet the conditions of the lease. Beyond that ... we don't see ourselves as being in the business of providing public facilities. We don't see it as a role for Ports of Auckland to provide public toilets or to put pressure on our leaseholders to provide public toilets."

If not the port company, then who?