Jump to content

Queens Wharf Dolphins - Give us more ammo


Recommended Posts

Looks like the Commissioners are struggling with all the inputs so they have taken the 15 day extension option, they are allowed to do.

 

Decision is now due on or before Tuesday April 23rd

Link to post
Share on other sites

^

 

after all he gave a cast-iron guarantee

 

that if winston1st got into gov. the port would move north

 

he'll need plenty of 'deep contemplation' before breaking that promise

 

but he wouldn't lose sleep over it

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is basically an "the Emperor has no Clothes" situation.

Punuku are funding a large number of other capital expenses to increase POAL's operating revenue, i.e. Punuku are funding the wharf extension (Dolphins). You will note of course that the former Auckland Regional Council purchased Queens Wharf off POAL (about $40 mil I think), of which POAL are now generating revenue via cruise ship berthage fees. There is an awful lot of smoke and mirrors. 

 

Its interesting when someone without any obvious vested interest calls it out, i.e. a rather boring and analytical funds manager type...

 

(from the link in P's post)

 

An investment chief has questioned the Ports of Auckland's dividend policies, saying it can only pay Auckland Council's annual return by borrowing more.

Chris Gaskin, a portfolio manager at Devon Funds Management, challenged the idea that the port should be retained because it paid regular money to the council.

"The port doesn't really pay a $50m dividend to Auckland Council. It has nothing left over to distribute. The port borrows from the bank to pay the council. It would probably be cheaper in terms of the rate payable or interest cost if the council just borrowed another $50m from the bank itself," Gaskin said.

Gaskin said that last year, the port's net debt increased from around $297m to $384m.

"This is because, even before paying a dividend to the council, there was less money coming in via operating cash flow than was going out in investing cash flow," Gaskin said.

"To give you some context, the metric that is typically used to assess the amount of debt a business has, is net debt divided by earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation. This ratio for Ports is now 3.9 times, which is high.

"The same ratio is only 2.6 times at the larger and more diversified Port of Tauranga, and only 2.2 times at the Port of Napier which has wisely decided that 2.2 times is a sensible level of debt, and are planning to partially list on the NZX with the council retaining 55 per cent," Gaskin said.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fake news.

https://www.noted.co.nz/currently/politics/ports-of-auckland-make-or-break-decision-for-the-coalition/

Chief interested party is Auckland Council, which owns 100% of the Ports of Auckland. It has consistently defended its right to the port’s undiminished annual dividend of more than $50 million – to the point of vowing to build a multistorey waterfront car park for more revenue.

Never seen a $50 million return out of POAL ever.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like the Council prefers corporate welfare over the wishes of the ratepayers. 

 

The f**king arseholes just stole another 100mts of the harbour and at a financial cost to the ratepayers far in excess of what it needs to be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like the Council prefers corporate welfare over the wishes of the ratepayers. 

 

The f**king arseholes just stole another 100mts of the harbour and at a financial cost to the ratepayers far in excess of what it needs to be.

Just wait till poal/council enforce what they threatened a few years ago. No sailing/racing on the Waitemata harbour. And I can see this coming in to play once bigger ships arrive.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Queens Wharf decision sinks Auckland mayor Phil Goff's campaign promise - harbour development objectors

 

Consent has been granted to develop a 90m extension of 2 concrete dolphins into Auckland's Waitematā Harbour, allowing huge cruise ships to berth, despite a passionate and active opposition.

 

There were 329 submissions on the application, 44 in support and 284 opposed.

 

Mr Goff stressed that the extension was temporary, with commissioners stipulating in their report that it be removed after 'no more than 15 years when Captain Cook Wharf becomes operational for cruise ships'.

 

Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron general manager Hayden Porter said the structure would be a navigational hazard in the already-crowded part of the harbour. "It's decreasing the amount of usable space within the harbour for, ultimately, very few visits per year.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolute ars*holes.

Goff, POAL, the whole bunch of useless troughing pr*cks.

Stated a couple of years ago that "we hear what you are saying" re filling in more harbour, then this.

Hiding a wharf extension by calling it a dolphin, because lying is second nature to them.

Or possibly first nature, not sure how that works.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

25 km from Gt Barrier, already have rights to dump there.  What is the current effect on the crystal clear water? Marine scientist was worried about noise.

 

 

map https://epa.govt.nz/news-and-alerts/latest-news/epa-gives-go-ahead-to-extended-disposal-operation-off-great-barrier-island/

 

reports and advice so you don't have to rely on the media https://epa.govt.nz/public-consultations/decided/coastal-resources-limited/reports-and-advice/

 

I have not read through yet.  If I can get up the steam I may or I may not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The decision to allow Council to steal 100mts more of the Auckland harbour is going to be appealed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you seen the price increase 75%

 

An extension at the end of Queens Wharf to tie up large cruise ships has nearly doubled in cost and is being appealed by several groups deeply upset with Mayor Phil Goff's support for the controversial project.

The Weekend Herald can reveal the cost of building the 90m fixed gangway and two concrete mooring structures fixed to the seabed - known as dolphins - has blown out by 75 per cent from $9.4 million to $16.9m.

On top of that, council's development agency Panuku has spent $1.7m on professional fees for the mooring dolphins and will have to lawyer up

To continue reading this article

 

Sorry Herald Premium.11th May

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting to see that article as much of the paperwork says 15 million. 

Maybe the council is aware how sh*t it is at costing things so works out a cost and adds a tidy 75% to that to add accuracy???

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...