On Monday it will start ripping off the concrete deck, leaving the ugly piles to rot. So much for the council's draft Central Wharf Strategy, which called for, among other things, public input on the future of Marsden Wharf.
Outmanoeuvred and ignored once again, Mr Brown was reduced to harrumphing his "disappointment" that Ports of Auckland "would fail to mention it to their shareholders, political governors or the wider public at a time of considerable public interest".
Perhaps if the mayor hadn't junketed off to Christchurch for a cricket match last week on the day his councillors voted narrowly in support of reclamation, and instead led from the front against further despoliation of the inner harbour, the port bosses might now be treating him with more respect.
Instead of visiting Hagley Oval, Mr Brown would have been better off checking how his Christchurch City Council counterparts govern Lyttelton Port Company which, like Ports of Auckland, is 100 per cent council-owned.
Last week, for example, the cruise ship industry was lobbying in Christchurch, as in Auckland, for better port facilities. In Auckland, successive politicians have bowed to their port company servants and said "yes sir, three bags full sir, whatever you want sir".
To hear on Radio New Zealand the response of Christchurch City Council finance committee chairman Raf Manji to a similar request was a revelation. He replied that his council was looking seriously at whether it should direct the port to construct a new wharf. Direct!
"As a 100 per cent shareholder we can obviously direct them to make that type of investment," Mr Manji said. "Or the council can do it in a different way. We can work with private investors as well. So it's not necessarily something the port will have to do themselves. So commercially it might not stack up for the port but commercially for the city it might well stack up."
Now that's the adult relationship you might expect between a 100 per cent owner and a valuable income-earning asset.
Then there's Tauranga, where there's what you might call a symbiotic relationship between the local port company and its 55 per cent majority owner, the Bay of Plenty Regional Council.
Since 2002, councillor John Cronin has been a board director. He's one of two independent directors - and the sole politician - appointed by the council to the seven-man board.
Mr Cronin says that in his time, the majority shareholder has never "had to pull rank". He says "politicians should keep out of it and let it run as a normal commercial vehicle".
But he adds that the two council-appointed directors "act as a moderating brake to both sides".
It's a model that encourages dialogue. It and the Christchurch model seem better than the toxic relationship in Auckland.
That Ports of Auckland, when it does decide to talk to its owners, often turns up with an expensive glass-tower lawyer in tow, has to stop.
In November 2013, Mr Brown said just that in response to port company chief executive Tony Gibson going to the mayor's office with top lawyer Mai Chen the previous month threatening legal action over, you've guessed it, the council's opposition to further port reclamation.
In a follow-up letter to all council-controlled organisations he reminded them they were all members of Team Auckland. He said that with amalgamation, "there was a clear public expectation that the days of councils using ratepayers' money to have lawyers and planners fight each other in court were over." He added, "We do not need to replace this [fighting] with the council and CCOs following a similar process."
Well Mr Mayor. Having warned them, and been ignored, what's your next move?
