The Porirua Wellington Web Blog- August 2005
This blog is about political and community issues in Porirua City and the Wellington Region. It is the view of one person, and you are not hearing the other side! For current material please visit The Porirua Wellington Web Blog - Current Material
Porirua City Councillor Robert Shaw
RE STANDING ORDERS - GETTING THINGS DONE IN GENERAL BUSINESS
Having an item discussed in General Business at a Council committee meeting
cannot resolve anything. It is not possible under Standing Orders to move motions
in General Business. This absurd rule was put in place many years ago when
I had developed the habit of moving motions in General Business. The rule
was invented to support the ruling hegemony. Now that ruling hegemony is no
more, it stays on the books to frustrate everyone. The officers like it - they
argue that decisions should not be made without their considered advice. What
absolute nonsense.
r
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
EXTRACT FROM STANDING ORDERS
152. Minor items not on the agenda may be discussed at a committee
meeting. Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting, that
item may be discussed at that meeting if:
a) that item is a minor matter relating to the general business of
the Council and within the terms of reference of the committee;
and
b) the Chairperson explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a
time when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed
at the meeting; but
c) No resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in
respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent
meeting for further discussion.
153. Items of General Business at committee meetings should be
conveyed to the Chairperson or called for by the Chairperson prior to
undertaking the business on the agenda. Matters for General
Business arising during the course of the debate should only be
considered with the consent of the meeting.
WALKOUT STOPS MEETING AFTER MORE SCREAMING
A walkout of councillors brought to a premature halt a meeting of the Environment
Committee last night. The dispute was over not very much. Evidently, Cr Liz
Kelly objected to an item being added to the agenda for discussion in General
Business and then things went downhill. Councillor David Stanley was the chairperson
and he at first agreed and then changed his mind in response to Cr Kelly's
opposition. Several councillors were screaming over the table according
to my informants. Those who walked were Councillors Tracey Waters, Litea Ah
Hoy, Euron Murrell, and Rob Rangi. Perhaps they do not have the lung power
required to be a Porirua councillor.
r
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
DISTRICT PLAN CHANGES - WHAT PROGRESS SINCE 2003 I ASK?
Here as promised is the list to be addressed in 2003. The priority given by
the officers' is provided. I will shortly add a few more and provide an account
of what has been cleared. The chairperson of the Environoment Committee should
be held accountable for progress. That is Councillor David Stanley.
r
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
DISTRICT PLAN CHANGES PROPOSED FOR ACTION 2003:
Reserves zone High
Aotea Block High
Rural Review Medium-High
Financial Contribution Low- -High
Above ground line network utilities High
Ecological provisions (eco-sites inventory) High
Review earthworks provisions High
Review of the car parking Standards High
Natural Hazard identification and refinement High
City Centre Medium - High
Heritage sites of significance to Tangata Whenua Medium – High
Esplanade reserves Medium
Use of contaminated sites Medium
Protection of significant trees Medium
Temporary Activities Medium
Heritage Register Medium
Default limited discretionary rule Medium
Licensed premises Low- Medium
Permissive nature of the DP Low
Water infrastructure levies Medium-High
On-site Manoeuvring Medium-High
Harvesting Production Forestry Medium
Relocatable buildings Low
Driveways & patios – Are they buildings? Low
Retaining walls – Are they a building? Low
Definition of dwelling Low
Definition of building (decks) Low
Site Coverage Low
Signs in Ulric Street area Low
Riparian setbacks Low
Glare/directional lights Low
Rural road standards Low
Code of Urban development Low
TRANSMISSION GULLY - AN IMPORTANT EMAIL FROM TERRY MCDAVIT
This exchange give some vital information on why the Coastal option
was selected by the Regional Transport Committee. Basically, without another
$50 million the Region's hands are tied.
r
----- Original Message ----- From: Terry McDavitt To: 'Pip Piper' Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 5:17 PM Subject: RE: The big roading battle!
Glad to Pip, and thanks for the opportunity. If you understand this, pass it on to others who might have similar questions. If you don’t understand it, get back.
First note that I abstained on the main vote, ie did not express a view. That is because I have to run the hearings process later and I want to do that from a position of neutrality; ie I am truly there to listen.
Second there are some well-understood rules about the use of a casting vote to break a tie, as in this situation. It must:
- go with the status quo prevailing before the question was put (in this case, the original motion, not the amendment);
- go with the technical advice;
- is in fact pro forma, ie is to be used to move the process forward but doesn’t indicate whether the person “believes it” or not.
In the circumstances I could have either used a main vote or a casting vote: I made quite clear it was a casting vote being used pro forma.
Recall too the following: the technical/officer advice was that it was not “legal” to put TG out as the preferred option at this stage as we could not demonstrate it was affordable, and the technical report was against it. If we did put TG out as preferred Transit and others could challenge that. In fact officers gave the advice (to the meeting) that we should not be discussing a TG option. I then ruled from the Chair that nevertheless and in spite of that I was allowing TG to put to the meeting to see if it got a majority. If it got a majority then that is the RLTC view. (TG did not get a majority, it got exactly 50% for and 50% against.)
The way the casting vote was used also basically kept the TG option alive (it’s in the scope for submissions, and it becomes quite clear to everyone in the region that the vote was in fact 9-9). But it also moved the process forward, and kept the whole thing within the law, so neither Transit nor PCC can challenge it. I note in fact that both PCC and Transit understand this and are not challenging the casting vote, as far as I know, though I bet they’ve both got lawyers crawling all over it. As far as I’m concerned the silence (so far) from all quarters about this means that I got it exactly right.
As far as I’m concerned no-one can possibly say whether Coastal or TG should go ahead at the moment, cos there is more information to come. The more information is:
However in order to gather the information (and preserve our options) we need to kick off the process, and keep it inside the law.
That’s why I used the casting vote in that way: it did all this. But remember I still abstained on the actual vote, so my actual vote is yet to come. It’ll come when it should: in the hearing report. Note too that the other person on the hearing committee also abstained on the main vote – ie you don’t know at all which way the hearing committee is gonna go cos none of us have voted yet.
You can tell nothing of what I really think from the use of the casting vote: that’s why I used it.
Terry
WE CREATED AN INDUSTRY WHEN WE TIRED TO GET A LIST OF 32 DISTRCT PLAN ISSUES CONSIDERED
A paper dated 20 Novmber 2003 set out clearly the 32 areas of the District Plan that needed attention. To the list I would add 4 more items. I, and other councillors, fought to get money into Council's budgets to have these things addressed. Some will remember the policy debates in the election campaign. The Whitby Residents' Association was prominent in this debate.
My expeaction was that we would draft alternative words for the 32 District Plan issues, outline the 32 issues and see what the public had to say. Some amendments would be simple and some would require some specific, directed research. The whole thing should have been pretty well completed within a year. I could not understand why some much money, $600,000 from memory, had to go into the budgets for this simple operation.
Now, I know. We have created an industry around the business of amending the District Plan. We have sprouted reviews, researchers, papers no one has time to read, and jargon like you would not believe. We have a District Plan User Survey - what on earth for? We have the Resource Consent Survey - why? Then there are the "Regional Studies" - who wants to pay for that lot? We have community foums - they replace the old fashioned idea of asking the elected representatives. We have a "Draft city development framework" when we need an action plan. We are trying to plan a few practical changes in a confined area, not solve the riddle of life.
I have asked for a digitised copy of the 20 November 2003 list so that I can
consult the residents via this blog, given that the whole point of the exericse
seems to have been totally lost. Around the Council table there is actually
very good agreement on the direction we want the City and the Council to go.
But, we are being driven in other ways. The chairperson of the Environment
Committee needs to get on top of this.
r
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
IMPROPER MOVES - MIXING THE GROWTH STRATEGY DISASTER WITH TRANSMISSION GULLY
The Wellington Regional Growth Strategy is a draft for consultation (not by any Council but by an ad hoc group) and blog readers will be well aware it is a disaster in terms of both goals and methods. The draft is an informal document with no status at all, and is contrary to the properly established District Plans of many councils. Hence, I despair when I read that this informal draft regional strategy has found its way into Porirua City Council documents; and that our chief executive is to see Transmission Gully in light of the Regional Strategy. Council is evidently to try to advance Transmission Gully in the context of the crazy regional nonsense.
Who gave advice on that????? Who agreed to that???? The regional strategy did get a mention in the paper on Transmission Gully that went to the Council, but I ignored it because it was but a stupid detail and I did not want to divert the Council. However, is this is in our Long Term Council Community Plan or our Annual Plan?
How can the Porirua
Council make use of a regional growth strategy when that document does not
even exist but as a controversial, amateur, draft full of abstract nouns and
contradictions? This was never something the Porirua Council decided for this
year. I find the arrogance of it insipid. When we have issues conflated so
that we all have to fight amongst ourselves, what chance is there that we can
win a debate like Transmission Gully. How can we ever expect to have a decent
Council when people proceed like that? Who is responsible for this lot?
r
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
MONEY FOR THE FIGHT- STOP THE DESTRUCTION OF THE COAST AND ADVANCE THE REGION WITH TRANSMISSION GULLY
It has not taken people long to realise that there is a long, hard, legal
fight ahead. Money for lawyers is already under discussion. A fighting fund
is likely to appear. It never pays for policy makers to go against the natural
determination of the population. Insufficient weight was given to the wishes
of the people.
r
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
INCREDIBLE - AND CONGRATULATIONS TO THOSE WHO SPOKE FOR TRANSMISSION GULLY - YOU DID US PROUD
Had the Medical Officer of Health, Stephen Palmer, voted for Transmission Gully (or even abstained) instead voting for the coastal highway, we whole debate now would be totally different. Why on earth he did not talk to his medical colleagues who actually have insight into the broad issues is beyond me! Why the Porirua Council did not enlighten him is not actually beyond my comprehension. And, when you look at the voting, one wonders where the commercial and environmental people are! It is also clear that everyone who lives near the area in question, voted for Transmission Gully. This is rather like the hospital decision - the facts do not count, just the ability of the south to advance its narrow interests ahead of the north.
Against TMG were:
John Anderson
Ian Buchanan
Glen Evans
Brent Efford
Stephen Palmer
David Lowes
Kerry Prendergast
Adrienne Staples
Fran Wilde.
The following voted for Transmission Gully:
Brash (Porirua City rep)
Guppy (Upper Hutt rep)
Francis
Chapman (Kapiti rep)
Ogden (Hutt City rep)
Rikihana
Royds (AA)
Shields (GW)
Turver (GW)
r
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
TRANSMISSION GULLY OUT BY A VOTE
29 August 2005
Proposed Western Corridor Plan to go out to consultation
A proposed Western Corridor Plan will go out for public consultation following a preference vote made by the Regional Land Transport Committee (RLTC) today on adopting an integrated and affordable corridor package. Consultation will begin in September 2005.
Regional Land Transport Chair Cr Terry McDavitt said committee decided to go with the draft corridor plan/coastal route on the casting vote of the chair - the vote was 9-9 and Cr McDavittI abstained on the main vote and used his casting vote in accordance with normal procedure.
“The Western Corridor solution is not just about choosing between Transmission Gully or the Coastal Route despite the spotlight on this particular section. The corridor plan provides a comprehensive transport solution along the entire corridor which will enhance safety, improve access in and out of the region as well as enhance access to and from CentrePort,” he said.
Transit New Zealand regional manager Graham Taylor said that Transit welcomes the decision of the RLTC to go out to consultation on an agreed corridor plan.
“It's now time to let the public have their input into the proposed plan which includes improved passenger transport, travel demand management, better access for freight and state highway and local road improvements,” he said.
Submissions can be made in writing to Western Corridor Public, Greater Wellington Regional Council, 142 Wakefield Street , Wellington . Submissions close 4pm on 3 October 2005. A series of public hearings will start on 17 November 2005 in the Greater Wellington Council Chambers, 142 Wakefield Street , Wellington . Written submissions should indicate if they wish to be heard.
ROBERT COMMENTS
This will herald a battle. The vote hardly showed a coming together of minds. Far to much is at stake to proceed on the strength of this vote.
COASTAL HIGHWAY GROUP - CONSISTENT IN THE QUALITY OF THEIR STATEMENTS
Press statement by the Coastal Highway Group:
"Chris Turver is claiming that Transmission Gully will only take fifteen years to build compared with 24 years to upgrade the coastal section between Pukerua Bay and Paekakariki. We hope that the Regional land transport committee, which meets to decide which project to support, will not be influenced by these nonsense figures.
Mr Turver is a master of misinformation on roading projects and particularly on costs and building times.. Five years ago he was telling us that Kapiti residents could be looking at driving into Wellington along the Transmission Gully route by the year 2006! At the same time he was prattling on about the cost of his dream highway being only $250 million.
Chris Turver's present claims about construction times and other supposed difficulties are just as fanciful as his past statements have proved to be.
The coastal route has a number of advantages including the fact that it is
vastly cheaper and will provide benefits earlier through a staged programme.
Bob Norman a former Commissioner of Works and a Distinguished Fellow of the
Institution of Professional Engineers has described building another seawall
and filling in between it and the existing road to provide a second parallel
two lane road along the coast as simple from a construction viewpoint. He says
that the work would present little difficulty and could proceed with virtually
no interruption to traffic flow on the existing system. Most importantly funds
are on offer sufficient to develop Centennial Highway . The Regional Transport
Committee must not let that offer lapse.
For the Coastal Highway Group
Dick Jessup
28 August 2005"
ROBERT COMMENTS:
The 2006 plan and the $250 million were the advice of Transit NZ and others
in the technical group. This date and this sum were used in the last Wellington
Regional Land Transport Strategy, which was agreed to by all the Councils,
Transit NZ, TransFund, and several other groups involved in transport including
the AA, and the commercial user groups. The facts should never be allowed get
in the way of a good old-fashioned personal attack.
Sunday, August 28, 2005
LOCAL GOVERNMENT POLICY OF MAJOR POLITICAL PARTIES
ROBERT COMMENTS:
In general, I always admire those who stand and take the trouble to produce policy. There is a need for more specifics like:
National also says:
Rewrite the Rating Powers Act.
Councils, in setting rates, should be primarily focussed on who benefits from
services. We will rewrite the Rating Powers Act so councils must give primary
consideration to who benefits from services when setting their
rates.
Robert comments: this is a mechanism that was introduced and failed over the last 6 years. Why pick on that when there is so much else needed?
Notice
Labour appears not to have rewritten the policy from last time, because
the second item has been done.
r
Saturday, August 27, 2005
DIVIDE AND RULE - THE DECISION-MAKING MECHANISMS OF COUNCILS
One does not know whether to laugh or cry. The officers have now arranged their own meetings with the residents associations - yes those very associations locked out of the workshops with councillors. At these two-monthly meetings, supper will be provided. Councillors have been given an assurance by the ceo "I will ensure that Councillors get a robust feed back on points and issues raised by the Associations". We should write a book on how to engender trust and facilitate communication in a small community.
So what is the answer. Let me repeat what I have been saying, in the hope that it at least generates some discussion:
THE MORE I WRITE ABOUT HEALTH THE MORE PEOPLE ASK ME QUESTIONS I CANNOT ANSWER
Evidently, a need for palliative care beds was identified in
Porirua City some years ago by the Board, and Healthlinks, and everyone.
What happened? If someone would be so kind as to inform us please.
r
August 26, 2005
AFTER THE LOCKOUT - MORE QUACKING
After the lockout of the public from the discussions on Duck Creek last night,
Cr Tracey Waters and I lodged a notice of motion to the effect that all
workshops be open to the public unless the Council resolves to exclude people
in accordance with the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act.
Anyway, it appears that Standing Orders do not apply to workshops and consequently
everything said there is in the public arena. I can tell you nothing you have
not read in this blog was said. I am of the view, as stated previously, that
the District Plan must be amended regarding esplanade reserves and green protection
strips, and at last we seem to have some action. Of course this should be for
the whole city and we should not consider Duck Creek as special because it
has a history of warfare. Council workshops make purgatory look overstated.
I have strengthened my resolve to attend no more. Only a few councillors attend
(the mayor is forever counting heads to see if there is a quorum, which is
odd because as there can be no votes what does it matter??). Several councillors
pretty much fall asleep, and the people speak past each other .
r
August 26, 2005
SOMEONE SENT ME THIS AND ASKED FOR A COMMENT
Media release: OSH
A locking pin missing from a patient lifting hoist has cost the Capital and Coast District Health Board $7500, after the Occupational Safety and Health Service successfully prosecuted the board over an accident where a staff member nearly lost her big toe.
In the Wellington District Court today, the board was ordered to pay the $7500 to the victim of the October 2003 accident. The board had pleaded guilty to a charge of failing to take all practicable steps to ensure the woman's safety at work.
The accident happened when part of a hoist used for lifting patients into a hydrotherapy pool at Kenepuru Hospital fell off and landed on the woman's foot, partially amputating her big toe.
OSH service manager for Wellington/Kapiti Rob Scriven said that when OSH investigated the accident, the inspector discovered the hoist was missing a locking pin that would have prevented the part falling off.
“No one, including designated trainers and operators, knew that they were supposed to use a locking pin, and it appears that the pin had been missing for 11 years,” he said.
“This is a prime example of the need for organisations that use sophisticated equipment such as this to ensure that staff fully understand how the equipment works, how to use it appropriately and safely, and to ensure that it's in proper working order.
“In this case, the staff member was very lucky not to lose her toe, or worse. Had there been a patient in the lifting hoist at the time of the accident, her injuries could have been far more serious, and the patient harmed also.”
Mr Scriven said that after the accident occurred, the health board moved to permanently fit a locking pin to the hoist, and put up signage to demonstrate correct use of the equipment. “Such easy steps to take to ensure safety, but unfortunately too late for this employee.”
He said employers must ensure that workplace hazards were identified and controlled correctly. “Everyone had the right to go to work and come home at the end of the day with all their digits intact.“
During sentencing, Justice Grace said it was “pure luck” that no one else had been injured over the 11 years the locking pin was missing, and found that the board's culpability was high.
This is the first OSH prosecution of a District Health Board under the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 since the Crown Organisations (Criminal Liability) Act came into effect in October 2002, although Crown Health Enterprises had been prosecuted in the past.
Robert Comments: The Board, the staff, and everyone associated with this would have wished it to be otherwise. In a country constipated by rules and with army's of quality control officers, how could such things happen? Yet fixing things in a complex system is not a simple matter. It would be very difficult to say who was responsible for this: there is an amorphous sort of collective responsibility spread over 11 years. We know the pin is now fixed. But the pin is indicative of a much greater problem.
KENEPURU HYDROTHERAPY POOL
Capital and Coast Health Media Release
11 August 2005
Discussion Continues Around Hydrotherapy
Discussions continue between the Capital & Coast District Health Board, Wellington City Council and other organisations as they explore options around the location of hydrotherapy services.
In 2003 the construction of new facilities at Wellington Hospital saw the removal of an old hydrotherapy pool that was still in use. Capital & Coast DHB now provide two hydrotherapy services in the Wellington district with a pool at Kenepuru Community Hospital and access to a pool at the Sevenoaks Retirement Village in Kapiti.
Robert Comments: We need a cost breakdown and useage figures.
Capital & Coast DHB CEO Margot Mains, said that the services are used by a small number of outpatients and much larger numbers of people who are not hospital patients but find that the therapy gives them some relief, such as people with arthritis. Although people from Wellington must travel to use the service, the DHB provides a free bus and shuttle service to Kenepuru and the use of the pool at no cost.
Robert Comments: We need a cost breakdown and useage figures.
“Feedback from the community has shown that the free transport and free access to this service is effective and enjoyable,” says Margot Mains, “However we are aware that people living in Wellington would prefer to use a local pool . To that end we have been involved in discussions with a number of groups such as Wellington City Council, to look at the options available to us.”
Robert Comments: We need a cost breakdown and useage figures.
The result of these discussions, as well as a further review of options for the long term delivery of hydrotherapy services, will be considered by the Board at its October meeting. Margot Mains says that the DHB is committed to provide hydrotherapy services for the district, but have yet to decide the best future delivery arrangements.
Robert Comments: We need a cost breakdown and useage figures.
“This is an issue of great interest to hydrotherapy users,” says
Margot Mains. “We have timetabled discussion at our October Board
meeting, expecting that by then we will have the information on which to make
a final decision.”
Robert Comments: We need a cost breakdown and
useage figures. They talk on and on but we need facts. This facility needs
to be considered against other priorities. The Kenepuru Hydrotherapy Pool
Charitable Trust dissolved in May 2002, I am told. Presumably the Board's
Strategic Plan will have come to a landing on the issue and hence have
the pattern sorted. Consultation on the Plan would have brought responses
on this. Dream on Shaw!
August 26, 2005
NOTICE OF A MEETING ABOUT THE OLD DIVE CENTRE SITE
Dear Robert
Dan Albert has indicated your interest
in the future of the dive centre so we hope you can attend this meeting.
What is the future of the dive centre?
Wednesday 31st August 2005
7.30 pm
Titahi Golf Club
Gloaming Hill, Titahi Bay.
Guests include Coastal Bound, PCC and others.
All welcome. Phone Graeme - 236 8574, Claire - 236 5476, or Ruth - 236 7381.
Titahi Bay Residents Assn
Yours sincerely
Claire Oram
Secretary Titahi Bay Residents Assn Inc
ROBERT COMMENTS:
This is really an issue for Titahi Bay people to decide. The dive centre does not have a future, as per a string of council decisions, but the site does. I am of the view that the land needs to be restored to its original form (removeal of concrete) with some landscape work being done. As was the original arrangement with the community, this is to be a community space. Those who occupied the site should have to pay for the restoration, but I suspect the ratepayers will end up paying.
Incidentally, there has been a consultants report provided by Maunsell Limited,
presumably paid for by the proposed developer. The report concludes by saying
what we all know - the deralect structure is dangerous and someone will be
liable if anyone comes to grief on the site. It would cost $420,000 to upgrade
it in accordance with the building code; and $50,000 to demolish (and presumably
remove) it. This is not a difficult decision - why has it taken so long for
the Council to act?
r
August 26, 2005
THE CONCLUSION OF THE PLIMMERTON RESIDENTS' ASSOCIATION SUBMISSION TO THE REGIONAL LAND TRANSPORT COMMITEE
"Negligible attention has been given to the Environment Court judgment which gave consent to the new Mana Clearways on the condition that these were only provisional, pending the construction of Transmission Gully. The proposed further expansion of the Coastal Highway would be in clear breach of that judgment and so unconsentable .
Negligible attention has been given to the rights and interests of iwi with respect to Ngatitoa Domain especially. Ngatitoa expressed their opposition to roading over this Domain, which contains sacred sites, during the Mana Clearways hearings six years ago and we believe they remain firmly opposed. It would be rash and offensive to give even provisional official favour to the CH proposal without prior iwi agreement. Their opposition renders the proposal simply unconsentable .=
Negligible (or no) attention has been given to environmental impacts. In particular the proposed project's impact on the Pauatahanui Inlet's precious eco-structure and on the foreshore around Goat Point and South (Plimmerton) Beach could be very serious. These could well make the proposal unconsentable or, at the least, substantially more expensive owing to mitigation costs.
Negligible (or no) attention has been given to social and human impacts. Nobody seems able to tell us exactly how many properties would be destroyed, but the cost estimates suggest it would include approximately 250 family homes in our small community. The magnitude of this proposed annihilation ensures that maximum opposition will ensue – in reality the project becomes unconsentable.
Negligible (or no) attention has been given to (noise & social severance)
Negligible (or no) attention has been given to the adverse economic impact on our community. The threat of a future motorway ripping through Plimmerton, with the expected loss of many homes, will undermine all property values. The isolation of our village and the truncation of Steyne Ave will undermine the commercial viability of our local shops. And so on, and so on…. These adverse impacts too make the proposal unconsentable.
Negligible attention has been given to mitigation costs. Compulsory property purchases will exceed $100 million (perhaps $150 million or more). No cost estimates have been made for environmental mitigation. No cost estimates have been made for mitigation and/or compensation for undestroyed homes adjacent to the loud noise of a high-speed motorway. No cost estimates have been made for compensation for loss of commerce. No cost estimates have been made for “community compensation” for social severance and loss of access. All these close the gap with the Transmission Gully option; ie the Coastal Highway option is no more affordable .
We believe it is unacceptable for even provisional official favour to be given to the CH proposal when so many major issues have not been addressed. It seems pointless to promote CH for public submissions when there is very serious doubt over its feasibility and consentability. We submit that giving it your preference would actually do nothing more than waste everybody's time and money. It will be killed off sooner or later – better that you do so now.
Finally we note that the GWRC paper before you recognises TG as “the long-term road solution for the Western Corridor”. If CH were to proceed it would defer the real solution by a further 50 years! In other words CH would be, at best, a temporary, makeshift option. For God's sake, Give us the Gully!
( Tim Sheppard )
For and on behalf of the Plimmerton Residents' Association "
August 26, 2005
"LORD OF THE REGIONS" CONFERENCE
With all the spending on Wellington's regional strategy I rushed to see the details of this conference. Turns out it is in Manukau City, and much sponsored by all sorts of people including the Australian Government. Suzanne Snively seems to be the only Welly speaker so far.
PORIRUA COMMUNITY GUARDIANS
These guys are holding a free public seminar on how to prevent crime by having the right design for public spaces and structures. This is very worthwhile thinking for our new District Plan. Email them if you would like to attend. pcgs@kol.co.nz
REGIONAL GROWTH STRATEGY - SLOWLY THE ABSURDITY DAWNS
Good progress with the Regional Growth Strategy - people are starting to see how absurd it is.
This week's Kapi-Mana News page 9 has a report by Michael Kopp that brings us closer to truth than anything seen so far. It makes the paid advertisment of the Council look very foolish. What did ratepayers' pay for a full cover colour wrap-around? Why did we not spend the money on the vitally needed re-write of the District Plan? This is what the ratepayers want!
Over $85,000 of your money is being spent to advertise this nonsense - those who will benefit and have caputred your money are trying to convince you to part with more money. Be warned.
The chairperson Murray McGaw says "economic growth was the reason for the creation of the forum". Actually, it was the excuse used and it looks absurd as the statistics still show we are the top region. So the growth mafia shift their ground, invent a new threat, watch out, we may not remain the top region! I shudder. They prepare to spend your money.
The high arrogance that Mr McGaw displayed in his early statements (witeness the long interview in the DomPost) seems to have dissolved. That is also good progress.
The mayor who said the whole thing was full of "weasel words" ought to talk to Jenny Brash - she thinks it helps us "secure the region's prosperity and quality of life".
The projects first director, Adrienne Young-Cooper, says "it is critical to define what kind of growth you want". Yes indeed, and the amount of growth. Actually, when you think about it, it is not actually growth at all that is the real issue. But, too late - the growth mafia are onto growth because it helps certain sorts of businesses at the expense of other businesses, and at a vast cost in money and quality of life to residents.
Blog readers will be aware of my concern at our all paying to develop Wellington's CBD in competition with Porirua. Guess who benefits by the development of Wellington's CBD? At last the absurdity of this is being mentioned by others.
As indicated elsewhere in this blog, we are in no danger of the strategy being
implemented, because they did not understand the structures of local government
in the first place.
r
August 24, 2005
ROSS DENTON PROVIDES THIS INSIGHT INTO THE TAX SYSTEM
Here is the REAL story to lighten
the tax discussion!
Suppose that every night, ten men go out for dinner at La Porchetta's. The
bill for all ten comes to $100. They decide to pay their bill the way we pay
our taxes, and it goes like this:
David R. Kamerschen, Professor of Economics, University of NSW.
TODAY
Progress is being made on Transmission Gully - a comprehensive
consultants' report (involving all the key players) supports the Gully
option. Well done the officers who are behind this. In the meantime,
the Council workshop on Duck Creek was to fly at 6pm and the new notice says
take-off is 5.30pm. Is this adminstrative mistake or have they been reading
the blog? Administrative mistake of course.
August 22, 2005
"BLINKERED VISION FOR REGION" - ROBERT REPLIES TO THE DOMINION POST EDITORIAL OF 18 AUGUST 2005
"Whither Wellington? The Regional Strategy Forum is a bold attempt at providing a vision and a strategy for developing greater Wellington, and the Wairarapa. The motivation behind the discussion document on a sustainable economic growth framework for the region, issued this week, cannot be questioned. The result can, writes
The Dominion Post.
Wellington as a region is strong economically, but is not keeping up with growth in the rest of the country. In 2004, the regional gdp was $36,700 per head, or $17.5 billion. That was the highest regional figure in the country, and 14 per cent higher than the national average. However, between 1998 and 2003, gdp per head rose 1.6 per cent a year, compared to the national average average of 2.6 per cent. The number of jobs has been growing, but again by less than the national average. As the document points out, "the region's economic performance has been good, but there is a risk that this will not be the case in the future".
Robert comments: What makes the national average the right amount of growth? If we already have the highest regional gross domestic product in the nation, why must we panic because others are getting better? Why must we subscribe to the single statistic and say we will be driven by that? We are the richest region, and we should consider our development in other ways - beyond this one narrow statistic.
The forum is an attempt to ensure that risk is minimised.
Robert comments: It is an attempt by business interests to maximise the returns to business by pushing on population growth. It is only in the intersts of some businesses anyway.
It seeks to overcome the problems of parochialism, and to do more than pay lip service to the notion that what happens in Masterton has an effect in Wellington – and vice versa. The involvement of leaders outside local government through a strategic partners forum is a sensible recognition of the need to seek good ideas from many sources.
Robert comments: the problems of parochialism are an excuse. In fact we have two properly constituted bodies in place to ensure the regional perspective is taken when it needs to be taken. They are Greater Wellignton - the REGIONAL council; and The REGIONAL Land Transport Committee. The problem is (a) GW is not doing its job, particularly with regards land use and management; and (b) everyone likes to undermine the proper stuructures and toss over them ad hoc structures that must inevitabley fail.
However, there are some disappointments in the document, seen as the first step in what the forum hopes will be a process that will deliver a regional strategy in the middle of next year, one that will set out what the region needs to do over the next 10 to 20 years.
Much of what is included states the obvious. It would be hard to find anyone who would dissent from the eight high-level outcomes that the document outlines, such as having a community that will "enjoy and prosper from a strong and growing community that continues to attract and retain a highly skilled, productive population base and business sector".
The problem is not agreeing on such motherhood and apple pie goals, but in deciding on how to achieve them and, though there are more concrete suggestions buried in the hundreds of pages of background material, the discussion document itself is largely silent on solutions.
Robert comments: Well spoken DomPost!
The suspicion must be that at least part of that is because the local bodies involved could not reach a consensus they were willing to present to the public, and that highlights a fundamental problem facing the region.
Robert comments: No it does not. The problem is the strategy is premised on an assumption: GROWTH. That is the interest of certain commerical groups (by no means all), and by adopting "growth' as the mantra for the region the strategy people have entered the debate two steps on. Hence, they have not engaged those who see things differently. For many poverty is the real issue for Wellington. For others it is commercialism. For others it is the lack of community. For others it is the struggle of one parent families; and so it goes on. "Growth" is a very narrow perspective.
There were nine local bodies involved in drawing up this document – the Kapiti Coast District, Porirua City, Upper Hutt City, Hutt City, Masterton District, Carterton District, South Wairarapa District, Wellington City and the Greater Wellington regional councils. For a region that has 460,000 people, that is simply too many, and reform is desperately needed.
Robert comments: This is simplistic. The debate in Porirua about identify and the interests of our 50,000 people is complex. The old idea that only large organisations are efficient died some years ago. Two years ago I considered these issues in depth when I did a study tour of the Westminster City Council, the Medway Council, Falkirk, and the Glasgow City Council.
With more than 100 councillors of widely varying abilities, the risk is paralysis by politics, and a vision for the region clouded by parochialism.
Robert comments: Competence is not related to size. It appears that councils get about one good year in eight. That is the ratio we have to address, and it can be done. We are not even trying to make the legislated structures work as they are designed. See many statements in the present blog about the role of chairpersons, for example. Also, there are many techniques of decision-making that we have not even considered, let alone tried. We need to be more innovative in how local government engages people, makes decisioins, and responds to communities as they express themselves.
The sad reality is that till there is reform to give the region a more rational local government structure, trying to come up with a workable regional vision that is able to be put in place may simply be an exercise in frustration.
Robert comments: There are things we can do right now to advance.
For example, the water business - Greater Wellington should be responsible
for water from the sky to the sea. This means bringing together the water
supply and sewerage businesses of all cities.Kapiti would have advanced
its water problems much more quickly if the expertise of GW had been involved.
Also, the library network could become a GW responsiblity. In other words,
there are some operational businesses that would be better managed regionally.
We could also have all our practical roading businesses brought together
into one organisation. There is even a case for this to be a national structure.
But, the planning, must remain as it is with 11 Regional Land Transport Strategies,
the responsibility of us all together.
August 21, 2005
OFFICER CAPTURE
Look how your money is wasted to discover things we already know or do not need to know. If the officers would simply listen to the elected people and the community we would all be much better off. The regional strategy exercise, captured as it is by vested interest groups and made possible by councils not doing their work properly, is a disgrace. Equally, the poor Porirua ratepayers are paying for $82,000 so researches can study inter alia our "regional context" the "home based businesses". To what end? As a councillor I am asking no questions about these things. In the meantime there is a long list of urgent changes needed to the District Plan (I recently asked the ceo for the list of about a year ago - we/they need to focus our/their minds - evidently, only $2,000 was spent on this vital, top priority of $41 million spend last year), the Long Term Council Community Plan is a shambles, and the the residents scream for action.
This problem goes right to the heart of our problems about decision-making.
Without leadership the councillors do not engage the issues that are of concern
to them or are vital for our City. We have meetings but they do not get to
adequate conclusions. Only at the Tatum Park retreat did the councllors make
progress but that was restricted to consideration of how they wanted to work.
It did not address the key City issues because there simply was not time.
Once we arrived back from Tatum Park, the whole lot was instantly forgotten.
Instead of strategic direction we have incremenatalism. Witness the Aotea Block
project. Witness the inner city type problems we have generated around Pac-&-Save.
Witness the confusion over the Plimmerton Village plan. Witness the fiasco
over the Buxton Garden restoration. In the meantime, I find it frustrating
to watch this lot from the wings. See Who is responsible>
Robert Shaw
Porirua City Councillor
August 21, 2005
GUIDE TO GOOD COUNCIL SPENDING
If it is underground and nobody sees it - TOP PRIORITY
If it is above the ground and made of concrete or bricks - HIGH PRIORITY
If it is above ground and made of wood - PRIORITY
If it modifies the ground (environment) and has a lasting impact - MODERATE PRIORITY
If it involves necessary planning - LOW PRIORITY
If it involves abstract nouns - NO PRIORITY
THE COST OF DUCKING AROUND
By reading my own blog I discover Council spent $73,000 on planning re Duck
Creek last year. And, that was just last year!.It will not include officer
time and heaps of incidental costs. What did we get for our money? What was
the actual outcome? Do not bore me with process - I know there were plenty
of hui and consultants. Chairperson, David Stanley, needs to get on top of
this. See
the needed action - "Get Quacking at Duck Creek" > See
also Duck secrets> Whitby quacks>
r
August 21, 2005
WHERE IS THE MONEY GOING IN THE SUBURBS?
Helen Re your question below. In the Draft 2004-2014 LTCCP there were strategic projects with $150,000 in 2004/05 for "Community (Village) Plans" and a separate item of $140,000 in 2004/05 for "Suburban Zone -District Plan Review". These 2 items were combined together in the final 2004-2014 LTCCP into 1 item "Community (Village) Plans and Suburban Zone District Plan Review" which had $250,000 in 2004/05 and the amounts in subsequent years as in my letter to you of 15 August 2005. This was an explicit decision of Council at the time because it saw benefits of managing these two related projects under one budget item. Thus the $150,000 that you saw was not additional funding-it was absorbed in the final plan into the larger single item of $250,000-and my letter of 15 August explains how we spent that in 2004/05. Regards, Roger.
Dear Roger
Thank you for your letter received on Friday. We had noted on pg 26 Financial
Supplement Budget Detail 2004 -2005 “Economy and the Community” EC1
Community Development and Advocacy that $150,00.00 additional funding had been
allocated to “Village Strategy Work.”
The Committee had wondered
how that money had been spent as well?
Kind regards
Helen
Letter:
15 August 2005
Helen Chipper
Plimmerton Residents Association
P.O.Box 57 027
Mana
PORIRUA
Dear Helen
RE COMMUNITY PLANS AND SUBURBAN ZONE REVIEW
Thank you for your query re the Community Plans/District Plan review project. You will be aware that Council allocated funding in the 2004-14 Long Term Council Community Plan (LTCCP) for the Community Planning and District Plan review as one combined project.
The allocated budget up to 2008/09 is as follows:-
2004/05 |
$250,000 |
2005/06 |
$200,000 |
2006/07 |
$200,000 |
2007/08 |
$200,000 |
2008/09 |
$85,000 |
Council also allocated three years of funding starting in the 2006/07 year of $1M per year to implement suburban improvement programmes. This funding is yet to be allocated.
In the 2004/05 year, the $250,000 budget specifically tagged to Community Planning and District Plan review was effectively spent in its entirety.
The budget was spent the following way:-
Programme |
Budget |
Actual Spend in 2004/05 |
Regional Strategy contribution
|
$42K |
$42K |
Community Place Based Planning work - Year 1- Duck Creek |
$70K |
$73K |
Research on community/city issues : • Regional Context and local Demographic study • Suburban Urban Form and character study • Shopping centre study and Home based business study |
$25K
$35K
$25K |
$27K
$35K
$20K
|
City Forums and other consultation, including community planning |
$25K |
$25K |
District Plan review preparation: • Resource Consent Analysis study |
$25K |
$26K |
Allocation to other suburban and community related projects |
$3K |
$2K |
Total |
$247K |
$248K |
In addition to the above Council also funded additional District Plan, City Planning and Environmental Management programmes from its existing Environment Policy Management budget.
Council noted earlier this year that it had ~$60,000 left over from its 2004/05 Environment Policy Management budget which was carried over into the 2005/06 year for the heritage review work and the Plimmerton promenade work.
Community Planning work has been undertaken in Whitby (Duck Creek), Plimmerton (promenade and other work), Titahi Bay , and Eastern Porirua .
Consultation has also begun in the rural sector on the review of the rural zone of the District Plan (although this was funded through the separate, but related, Environment Policy Management Budget).
As Council resolved to combine the Community Planning with the District Plan review, all of the aspects of the overall project work will contribute to community planning, and the development of the 2006-16 LTCCP and the District Plan review.
I hope that this answers your query.
Yours sincerely
Roger Blakeley
CHIEF EXECUTIVE
MORE SOUND ADVICE
----- Original Message ----- From: Roger
Blakeley - PCC To: 'John
Watson' Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 4:58 PM Subject: RE:
Chamber Sound System
John Thanks for your comments. We intend to make the system work! Roger
-----Original Message-----
From: John Watson [mailto:jonwat@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Thursday, 11 August 2005 1:59 p.m.
To: Roger Blakeley - PCC
Subject: Chamber Sound System
Roger I don't know who advised you on the provision of sound reinforcement
in the chamber, but I have to say the system is totally ill-conceived to meet
the needs that are present. A study of the human aspects apparent during
sessions would have come up with a different approach. No matter what
happens or changes are made to the present setup the end result will be no better
than last night - Wednesday"s Council meeting. The loud speakers are ill-positioned
and mis-directed, hence the feedback through microphones too far away from the
desired sound source. The present system can't work to meet the need
as was intended. The mayor tried to use it once or twice and no councillor was
brave enough to try after that! I know you are very busy on more pressing
matters, but please throw out the present setup and start again with something
that will work. For instance, what is the use of microphones with short
stalks if at a Council meeting the councillors are expected to stand up when
addressing the chair? How are councillors to share a microphone on a heavy base
pedestal, complete with wired connections and only equipped with a short semi-rigid
stalk? I have some suggestions to make, but only if it is intended
to throw out the present non-working system. Regards - John W
Robert's
view>
Final note:
I began the blog because I believe councillors have a responsibility to inform people about issues and their opinions. I hope that debate develops and in that way our region becomes smarter and the Councils make better decisions. The letters copied here are in their original form, and not the way they were published by the newspaper. Most of the letters were sent to the Kapi Mana News, The Porirua News, The Dominion-Post, the Whitby NewsBrief, or the Northerner.
Robert Shaw
Porirua City Councillor
[Local
government to]