The New York herald., 1922-01-31
LIFE OF MEYER INQUIRY
EXTENDED BY THE ASSEMBLY
Continued from First Page.

Continued from First Page.
"
at public wharfage piers. which in turn
have been sublet to ships entering the
port. Charges made to ships for berth
ing privileges. 1s20-1921, show that such
ships paid for their docking privileges
from 54 to 792 per cent. more than the
Dock Department received. The Dock
Department charges are In part regu-
lated by law. and are in many cases not
more than 25 per cent. OF the present
market value Of the privileges granted"
Citing specific examples OF dock
abuses. the report states that the Mari
time Shipping Company, a concern with
out capital and owning no ships, occu-
pied pier on the East River for
little over year at an annual rental
OF $4,000. and was able to make a net
annual profit Of $4,000 by renting
berthing privileges alone.
Likewise, Sabbatino & Co., "a concern
composed of young saloon keepers
helper and ships clerk without capi-
tal." received a large number of per-
mits and banked over a million dollars
through profits Of from sc to 400 per
cent. by subletting to ships eager for
space at the city's docks. It is declared.
No attempt has been made" the COM
return to the city for the use of its
property, or an income sufficient to cover
the cost of carrying it's investment"
Millions are raised by taxes annually
to meet the interest and amortization
of dock bonds and expenses of mainte-
nance, while income, readily obtainable
without sacrifice and more than equal
to all charges. is wasted.
Ships frequently berth under leases
issued years ago at a quarter or even a
seventh of the charge to ships berthing
under recent leases or permits. Like
inequalities prevail in payments for
privileges currently granted under the
subleasing system. The highest return
now received by the city on the assessed
valuation of dock Is for Pier So, North
River, 12.1 per cent, and the lowest re-
turn for Pier 81. North River, IL per
cent. Inequality and not equality Of
cost Is the rule"
Hits Long Term Leases.
The committee nnds that one of the
principal causes of the INADEQUATE
revenue accruing to the city Is the policy
Of long term leases In vogue in the
Dock Department. and approved by the
sinking fund. While restricted by law
to ten years, clauses are often inserted
extending leases from thirty to ff'v
years Some of the inequalities charged
against this system are shown by the
committee as follows:
The Thirty-irst street pier in South
Brooklyn Is leased at rental OF as
cents per square foot, the contract being
made In 1910 for period of twenty
years. The two adjoining piers at
Twenty-ninth and Thirtieth streets pro-
duce rental of 36 cents per square foot
and are tied up for twenty-four years.
while pier at Thirty-third street rented
to the Luckenbach company in 1919
1920 gave a return of $1.09 per square
foot.
Commenting upon these leases the
committee states: ION the basis Of tho
present approximate value Of a dollar
per square foot the city loses $350.000
a year on these three piers and will con-
tinue to lose like amount annually for
the next ten years. The loss to the city
on these three piers from 1920 to their
expiration will approximate $4,000, ,000."
Lack of Judgment in leasing the new
piers on Staten Island will cost the city
100000 annually. In the opinion of the
Meyer committee, while three modern
piers constructed by a private corpora
tion and adjoining the city piers on the
south side yield q gross annual return
or 2l "a per cent. on the assessed valua-
ton. With one exception the city has
leased these new piers on ten year leases
at an estimated rental Of 7h per cent.
of the cost of construction.
Complains of Contrasts.
ALLOWING for possible increased cost
because of recent construction and pos
sible lack of economy In construction be-
cause done through a. municipality,
there seems to be no reason why the