Its our harbour

Its our waterfront, right? Wrong.

Last year the council endorsed a variation to the district plan (called variation 11) that proposes to reduce (some would suggest exclude) public input into the development of the harbour waterfront and allow development of 3-5 storey buildings without consultation.

The Historic Places Trust, Architects Centre, Waterfront Watch, and the general public all opposed what is an abhorent attempt to exclude any public opposition to future development of our harbour. Unbelievably, against “substantial rebuff from the public”, variation 11 was approved. Waterfront Watch are now appealing this decision.

Irrespective if you agree with the construction of buildings on the harbour front or not, everyone deserves their right to be consulted and listened too. Especially when its impacting on our harbour. This was the purpose of the former height restrictions. Make your voice heard, before its silenced.

Vote for change and lets strike this variation down.

http://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=6648, http://www.wellington.govt.nz/news/display-item.php?id=3714#aA, http://www.waterfrontwatch.org.nz/

Chinese garden

WCC are proposing spending $5 million on a chinese garden. One of the reasons the Mayor is justifying a trip to China (see post below). Is anyone thinking on this council?!!

Where are we going to find $5 million to build a garden and how much will it cost to maintain? We’re already well over $365 million in debt (some are now suggesting its more like $400 million). Didn’t council just recently announce they are having to prune back other services in light of the leaky homes debt they have just taken on?

Don’t get me wrong, a Chinese garden is a nice idea and acknowledges a large part of our community (even Sydney has one). But surely a better idea (given the current financial climate) is to integrate it into the basin reserve motorway development project (perhaps as a park in front of the Carillion), rather than a separate very expensive project, that clogs up our waterfront with more buildings.

After all, the motorway project will have already planned for parks and green spaces.Merging it into the basin reserve motorway project would kill two birds with one stone and save the public millions (perhaps $5 milion).

There have been some fantastic alternative design proposals for the basin reserve motorway project (see the Architecture Centre’s proposal on www.savethebasin.org) that have created green spaces (eg, covered trenches) and safe walkways for the public and local school children.

A chinese garden would fit perfectly. And if it can’t be merged successfully, then perhaps we have to have the strength of character to say no.

Its about good planning and design for our city.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/local/3756104/Mayor-and-business-group-head-to-China, http://savethebasin.org.nz/sites/savethebasin.org.nz/files/arch_centre_basin_sm.jpg, http://www.cabe.org.uk/public-space,

Let them eat cake

The Mayor has called for cars to be banned from Wellington’s golden mile … after the Manners Mall redevelopment, Basin Reserve motorway, and Mt Victoria Tunnel have been constructed. This should be around 10 to 20 years time.

Talk about hot air and mixed messages. As Sue Kedgley has pointed out, “we don’t need to wait 20 years to make the city people-friendly” adding “there needs to be some logic to our transportation projects”. I agree.

Although not sure we can afford light rail yet (and then there is integration with existing public transport to consider). Enhancing our bus service is probably more realistic, and would deliver more immediate benefits for residents and tourists. Its good to have aspirations. But we need action, and now, not in 20 years time.

At the same time, another trade delegation from Wellington heads to china. Fantastic. But why is the Mayor of Wellington going? Isn’t this the domain of the Minister of Trade or embassy people – people with real clout? That’s why we have embassy’s, right? Can we afford this?

I thought the council was telling us that local services will have to be pruned back. Surely, now is the time for the Mayor to be at the office, doing the hard yards, leading by example – and saving money.

Perhaps talking to the Mayor of our sister city in China on the phone (or skype),  and inviting them to look after our cities delegation of business people? Or working with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to ensure our business people have all the support they need. Or perhaps this trip sums up the state of our council – give them dreams while we eat cake.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/local/3756104/Mayor-and-business-group-head-to-China, http://www.greens.org.nz/press-releases/light-rail-golden-mile-should-come-first

Another slight of hand u-turn or revenue grab

Recently Wellington City Council (WCC) did a partial u-turn on its plan to scrap the green plastic recycling bins after a public backlash over plans to introduce a user-pays system.

The council initially said it would recommend that recycling bags, bought at supermarkets for about $1 each, would replace the 45-litre green bins. An attempt to bridge a $1.1 annual funding shortfall in the council’s recycling services. Another budget blow out under the stewardship of the current council!

More recently WCC announced the green bins would be kept – but only for glass. For all other recycling, households would receive a free 140-litre wheelie bin. Households where the terrain isn’t suitable for wheelie bins (and that’s a lot of Wellington), would be offered 40 ninety-litre transparent bags to recycle (no price is specified, but one suspects they might be the $1 bags proposed earlier).

No mention is made of the fee for additional bags either. Adding “all recycling must be in the correct bins/bags or it won’t be collected.”

Apparently a trial of the wheelie bins will begin in some areas of the city in August before being rolled out across the city in October. Glass will be collected on alternate weeks to the wheelie bins.

So why are we changing?

Apparently, under the new system “manual handling of bins will drop by 50 percent and glass collection vehicles will mean the glass recycling bins won’t need to be lifted above waist height”. But aren’t the green bins being used for glass, or was this the reason for the wheelie bins (remember they were to be used for all recycling until the u-turn)?

Perhaps its because the green bins are prone to being overloaded, resulting in litter? But wouldn’t offering a net to secure its contents resolve that problem. If litter is the motivator why not introduce nets which are not that expensive? Hutt council have.

Apparently the new system “is expected to cost just over $3 million a year. It will be funded from the Council’s other waste activities, including rubbish bag sales, landfill fees and the waste levy”. So does this mean that households where the terrain isn’t suitable for wheelie bins and have to use rubbish bags, will have to pay? But isn’t the current green bin recycling service free?

Nor is it clear if user charges for the collection of wheelie bins will be introduced. Remember that the new wheelie bin system will cost $3 million per year. In Christchurch they charge for the collection of wheelie bins. No mention of collection charges appear on the WCC information page (its silent on any fees).

The question you have to ask is what will be the charge now, and in the future, for collection of the wheelie bin (and green bin). Are wheelie bins the first step towards user charges, as rubbish recycling costs are shifted from rates to external charges. Although don’t expect rates to go down. This is a rates increase by slight of hand.

For an indication of what charges could be, check out Christchurch council’s wheelie bin system. Also consider where these bins will be stored and replacement costs if stolen, damaged, or changed. What will the fees be for this (again check out Christchurch council’s fees as a model)? Keeping in mind how much council is expecting to recover per year.

And what will happen if people don’t put their lids down properly on their bins? In the UK they introduced fines ($110 pound on the spot fines). In Christchurch, the bins go uncollected. Something WCC will also be doing. Of course you could get a bigger bin, but there might be a fee for that too.

So the question to ask is, do we really need to change our current system? How big a problem is the current system? Especially as Christchurch is flat and Welly is not. How will it affect the elderly and less well off.

Greater consultation and transparency is requiried if we are to make informed decisions about our city and its rubbish. Something that seems to be severely lacking. Perhaps council needs to be sending a clear message that recycling is a good (and therefore free, as an incentive to do it) and that sending general rubbish to the tip is bad.

Instead we get mixed messages. Apparently we’re now keeping green bins (for glass). Before we were not. What costings justified this u-turn decision. Did they not do their homework properly the first time? Or was it just votes?

Whats driving the decision process on council, because it’s not sounding very rationale?

http://www.wellington.govt.nz/news/display-item.php?id=3968, http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/1752404, http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/304960, http://resources.ccc.govt.nz/files/AppendixB-policiesreportsstrategies.pdf, http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1005/S00107.htm

Knives are being sharpened

WCC has voted to approve the leaky homes deal. Kerry who supported the package was unable to vote due to a conflict of interest. Her $1.7 apartment on oriental parade is leaking. Apparently there was no conflict negotiating the deal?

The WCC has now signed ratepayers up to an estimated $87m debt, lifting current debt levels to $356 million. The knives are now out and more service cuts are expected (and rate increases). This is not a good deal for ratepayers or those leaky home owners not eligible for loans.

There were other options that fixed “everyones” homes with less debt (see discussion below). With WCC having to re-examine their budgets, perhaps its a good time to highlight some interesting figures already present in relation to projected funding.

Library funding is planned to drop 7.73%. An interesting decision when you compare funding decisions in other areas. Tourism promotion funding will go up 10.8% and Engagement funding up 7.11%. This projected funding cut for library services is a concern. It implies closures and\or service reductions are contemplated.

At the same time there are plans to spend millions on ‘artistic’ toilets and rugby monuments. Those trusted with the stewardship of our City are failing. Where are our priorities?

http://werewolf.co.nz/2010/05/closing-the-books-on-libraries/, http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/local/3744062/Wellington-City-Council-first-to-accept-leaky-home-package

Investing in our communities, not centralising them

Tonight I, and about 100 other people, turned out to hear Bob McKee speak about the importance of free public access to library services. I and others share his concern (see item below on losing Brooklyn library).

Library services should be free and that includes no backdoor revenue grabs through fines. In the UK they just stop issuing you books until you return the old ones. An example of a different way of meeting the same goal, without penalising people. But his speech also confirmed for me that there was another way to grow our communities.

You may have recently read in the CityLife Herald (19 May 2010) that Khandallah village is dying. A similar fate may be lurking in WCC policy for Brooklyn. Unfortunately there is deafening silence from the WCC.

In fact in all likelihood it is probably current WCC thinking and policy (and myopic vision) that has strangled the life out of Khandallah and many other similar communities. But perhaps, there is a solution. Although it is totally counter to the current thinking at WCC which looks to maximise its resources by increasing pricing and cutting costs by centralisation.

Perhaps the answer is to look at investing in our community resources (not cutting them). And here I come back to Bob’s speech. Bob spoke about how the UK experience had enabled businesses and communities to grow together. Libraries need not be quiet spaces (have they ever?) tucked away in the back and left to suffocate and wither.

Rather, they can be community hubs that include cafes, bookshops, indoor childrens play areas, start-up businesses, community facilities, law centres, pharmacies, and other like minded businesses. Co-operating and partnering with business in order to create vibrant hubs that draw people into the community, thus enabling other businesses in the community to also flourish as the foot traffic increases.

It seems to have worked in the central library, and if McDonald’s can create children’s play areas and cafes to grow their business, why can’t we apply a similar strategy to our libraries, in order to grow our communities. And if communities grow, then WCC will have created a bigger revenue pie to fund all the things it wants to fund, without having to make cuts.

Sounds like its to good to be true. Well, according to Bob, the UK experience has proved it. Its time to think outside the square.

Lets grow our communities, not centralise them.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/national/ntn/2010/05/25/are_the_days_of_free_public_libraries_coming_to_an_end

Heritage restrictions and resource consents

Public consultation on the Thorndon Heritage project closes on 29 May. Only 3 options were provided. According to WCC, most support extending heritage restrictions.

Not suprisingly residents are concerned, with what could be escalating costs (remembering that any change to a property will require consent under heritage restrictions). There is a concern that WCC have not fully disclosed the cost to residents and in a survey of 70 residents 83% did not want heritage restrictions on their properties. http://thorndon-residents.blogspot.com/2010/04/tra-heritage-survey-findings-released.html

I believe that if WCC want to extend heritage restrictions, they need to recognise the concerns of residents and put in place systems that will remove unnecessary costs.

I believe information technology can help reduce the bureaucracy around resource consents and reduce the costs for those who are subject to heritage restrictions.

Everyone can win.

Residents should be able to submit requests for minimal cost (if any) while ensuring we protect our heritage. If the online companies office can remove filing costs (its now free), why can’t WCC have a similar aspiration?

Perhaps starting with heritage resource consents?

http://www.fedfarm.org.nz/n1481.html

Its about being accountable

I’ve been talking recently about traffic, congestion, cycling, walking and listening to residents (eg, manners mall). Well I came across this blog and it seems to make a lot of sensible points.

Why is Council not listening to us? Why do they lock us out from any meaningful dialogue?

Perhaps new voices are required who are willing to actively engage and listen. Residents have an opportunity to send a clear message to Council, by voting for change.

Its about being accountable.

http://wellingtontransport.wordpress.com

Make your voice heard

If the leakyhomes debacle was not enough, the current Council are again failing to listen to its residents as it pursues a pre-determined agenda for Manners Mall.

Irrespective of your position over the Mall, what is concerning is a failure to listen. People need to have their say and know they are being listened too.

Too often the Council’s ears are closed (along with its doors). What happened to transparent and open Council?

Make your voice heard and vote for fresh new voices on our Council.

Its time the Council heard us!

http://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=25252

Actively encouraging cycling

Here is another example from Europe (this time Copenhagen) on the success of encouraging cycling that is now being considered by Sydney.

Great to see Sydney is actively committed to cycling and reducing traffic congestion. Where is our study? http://www.smh.com.au/national/benefits-of-bike-network-far-outweigh-cost-says-study-20100513-v1u2.html.

Here is some information on Copenhagen’s success story http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycling_in_Copenhagen