A line in the sand

At some point you have to draw a line in the sand.

Smiling will only get you so far.  Ask Tony Blair.

You don’t see the Arabs selling their oil fields? So why are we selling ours?

Electricity is the new oil (power) of the future.

At some point we will no longer be buying foreign oil. Which means a major chunk of foreign debt will be removed from our balance sheets. Unless, of course, we stupidly substitute foreign owned oil, for foreign owned power.

Don’t sell our future, by selling our assets.

And here are 10 other reasons as well:  http://werewolf.co.nz/2011/09/ten-myths-about-asset-sales/

A scar on our city

Apparently Wellington city has a transport problem around the basin reserve.

To solve this problem the National Government has charged the NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) with delivering a solution.

Having had much time to ponder the sources of the problem and all the various solutions, the NZTA has proposed two options – well one really, as the second is merely a larger and more costly version of the first.

It has proposed a bridge.

Well a flyover really, but it could just as well be called a cow. So much for real consultation or a future proofed solution that people want. Apparently everyone wants a bridge (yeah right), its just how big we want it? Are these NZTA people stupid?

In effect, the bridge will be a high rise carpark for cars waiting to enter Mt Vic tunnel. It will cast a shadow across the basin and a visual scar across our smart green city. All in the aid of being able to race across town a few seconds faster, so one can join the que through the tunnel. Visionary indeed. I think not.

Its at this point several thoughts come to mind. First, is NZTA putting its hand up for government restructuring. Because clearly this not only has the tipping point potential of political suicide for its masters (the national government), but it illustrates what a waste of money the NZTA planning team is – if all it can offer is a bridge. One might even suggest that this shows a lack of political astuteness on behalf of NZTA management. Exposing your political masters to having to commit to a position in election year is not a good look.  Heads will roll.

If I were not crying, I would be on the floor in fits of laughter.

The only people probably relishing this proposal must by the marketing team at the Wellington International Airport (WIL), who were until this point, probably the laughing stock of the marketing industry with their ludicrous wellywood sign. That accolade now appears to have passed to the NZTA, who must be the laughing stock of most city planners.

I think the NZTA underestimated the apathy of Wellingtonians. As did WIL. Heads are definitely going to roll.

Just as NZTA proposed two options, so do Wellingtonian’s have two options. First, actively oppose the bridge. Secondly, vote a government into power who will also oppose it. Because if National do not veto this deplorable charade of consultation, Labour and the Greens will (as they have already).  This is a bad look for the National government who right now are looking like bullies if they allow this charade to continue. This issue could well be the tipping point for a new government.

Let the battle begin.

Sign a petition. For example, http://www.wellingtongreens.org.nz/2009/09/petition-stop-the-basin-reserve-flyover/

http://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=36156

A sign of the times

Unbelievable!

Why are we telling the world our creative film industry are just wanna be copy cats of Hollywood?

Even the film industry think its a joke. Veteran Wellington film director Geoff Murphy could barely stop laughing. Adding “”I think it’s f^@k!ng stupid. It is copying a foreign, bull$#*t glamour idea and it’s the pits of what people can aspire to.”

A clear number one??? How can this be? Perhaps they mean in the WIAL marketing team? Over 15,000 people already oppose this (see http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=354085372690&v=wall and http://www.facebook.com/pages/Wellingtonians-Against-the-Wellywood-Sign/186318884753869)

Feedback on the WIAL’s own facebook page for other options (a weta, a windpowered projector, etc) clearly out numbered any support for WIAL’s wellywood sign.

But in all honesty, who really expected them to listen to the public.

I pity their marketing people.

It must be pretty embarrassing to have their total creative capacity (in the form of this sign) on show to the world.

Especially when it appears Wellington’s creatives are doing little more than following Mosgiels lead with another Hollywood look-a-like sign (yawn).

I think WIAL’s marketing people have just become the laughing stock of the creative industry.

So much for being the creative capital?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/5035147/Wellywood-sign-to-go-ahead, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mosgielsign.jpg, http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10727163, http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/5036728/Wellywood-sign-a-try-hard-says-Mallard

At what cost?

They blew it! Over $1 million in savings missed so far.

Yet again some councilors (eg, McKinnon and company) have failed to live up to election promises. And have again shown they are incapable of making the hard decisions, in order to prevent massive rate rises. You might remember an earlier post on Deputy Mayor McKinnon voting to continue to waste money on a $400k designer toilet.

Councilors have been told that rates increases of 8% will be necessary if something isn’t done about the level of spending. Yet some councilors continue to avoid making some pretty sensible decisions to save money. Unfortunately their failure to make the easy decisions now, will now mean cuts (or revenue\price increases) will have to be made in other areas later.

Some readers may have already noticed Library fines have gone up and opening hours cut back. What other services will be on the chopping block due to the recent poor decision-making of a few councilors. It makes one wonder if a few councilors actually have the skills needed to make the right decision. Charm only gets you so far.

In this instance, council had the opportunity to wind-up a council owned entity (the Waterfront Company) and bring it’s assets, expertise, and functions back in-house as part of  broader efficiency drive.  According to Scoop, this would have saved more than $625,000. Sounds very sensible. Instead a few councilors (McKinnon and company) chose to keep the company afloat on the entities own “promise” of future savings of $372,000. This is an entity losing money, with no clear objective or agenda, with nearly more people siting on its board of directors (no doubt receiving ratepayer funded directors fees) than employees.

You’d be forgiven for thinking the decision was motivated by political back-handers to directorial friends, because it sure doesn’t add up financially.

Speaking of money wasting.

How’s that new $11 million dollar Manners St revamp going? Has it provided safer streets?

No. Another two pedestrians were recently hit by buses in Manners st (one a visiting tourist). This brings the strike rate to 7 (officially. Near misses are not officially counted). This is an amazing statistic given the period of time the new design has been put in place. Surely public safety, comes before any time savings for Buses (not that there have been any)? What was the reason for spending $11 million again? Has it been worth it?

When is council going to realise that the hit rate in manners street is now statistically “significant” and way above any other black spot in Wellington’s long bus-versus-pedestrian history.

This is more than just a case of careless pedestrians. A spin aimed at putting the blame on pedestrians (for not adjusting to change), rather than admitting poor design. A spin that has now been exposed for what it is — a lie.

How can a  tourist, who had no prior experience of the old layout, fail to adjust to change. It’s not pedestrians failing to adjust to change, it’s the new design. It’s inherently dangerous. The fact council has slowed buses down, asked for lights to be switched on, and run awareness campaigns, is a soft admission its a poor design. The fact the bus drivers don’t like it speaks volumes.

Good designs accommodate pedestrian behaviour and take into consideration risks (such as pedestrians being hit), before implementation, and address them so they do not happen. Arguments that people get hit on other streets does not address the issue of this street. One bad design does not justify another. One serious injury is one to many and cannot be justified on the basis of other accidents. These types of spins are just abhorrent.  Good design does not expose pedestrians to an increased risk of being hit. But this is what Manners revamp has done. The evidence proves it beyond any doubt.

Councilors who were misled in supporting this gross waste of money need to open their eyes. The council spin has to stop. Its time to admit they may have got it wrong and show some leadership, and fix it (not just put a band-aid on it and hope it goes away). This is now verging on criminal negligence by not properly addressing safety issues adequately. If someone dies it could be corporate manslaughter.

And just in case our Council are not aware. In the Supreme Court decision of R v Murray Wright Ltd (1969), Justice Henry confirmed that a corporate body was capable of being convicted of manslaughter. Whether it will be the councilors, executive management, or both, who will be criminalised is a moot point.

However, in the case of David Spencer Ltd, the owner of the business Mr David Spencer was convicted of the manslaughter of an employee who died when a trench collapsed on them after the corporate entity failed to put in place adequate safety measures.

Sound familiar?

http://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=31995, http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/4676547/Tourist-hit-by-bus-on-Lambton-Quay, http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/4672783/Sixth-pedestrian-hit-by-bus-in-Manners-St, http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/4671357/Woman-hit-by-bus-on-Manners-St, http://www.hrinz.org.nz/system/knowledge_base/Articles.asp?RD=1&Id=209&Type=Article

Prudent management goes down the designer toilet

Our new council has approved spending $375,000 on a designer toilet.

Unbelievable!? Our council has failed its first test of prudent financial management in what was probably it’s easiest test of the year (and one that would have delivered a disproportionate amount of political capital) in approving $375k on a waterfront toilet. So much for being able to make the tough financial decisions.

Surprisingly Eagle, Best, and McKinnon voted against the Mayor Wade-Brown to spend $375k on a toilet. One would have thought all 3 would have stood with the Mayor? Either voting is orchestrated, or the Mayor is unable to rely on the support of the Deputy and her team (and especially some like councilor Best, who I thought were close allies)? What happened to the Mayors ability to build consensus (an election promise)? Its also really disappointing to see the 3 new councilors (Eagle, Lester and Marsh) fail to support prudent expenditure. This was their chance (especially Paul Eagle, a labour candidate who appeared to support the Mayor during elections), to show things had changed.

And yet only weeks earlier, our council were lamenting the limited options available to them to save money? According to McKinnon there were only three realistic options. It’s funny how councilors are quick to jump to “rate increases” and then cutting services. The third option, “raising debt”  is just a deference of these to another generation. Although this is probably the most politically acceptable option. But where is the option of doing things smarter (or not wasting so much of our money)? What happened to not spending money on extravagant proposals, like designer toilets? Surely prudent management would have thrown this proposal back for review and refinement, for a more cost effective option?

Fundamentally, the leaky homes deal should not have been approved by council. There were far better options that shared responsibility, reduced the cash flow impact and did not exclude those homeowners unable to raise finance for the other 50% (see one of my first posts on leaky homes).

http://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=30509, http://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=30423

Bus routes revisited

You know its flawed when bus drivers remain unhappy with the route and a boycott is still not off the agenda.

On the same day a fellow from WCC was taking photos of any cars using the new manners road (if they dared). I had a chat with him and he blamed the accidents on the timing of the lights, which could not be changed until after Xmas?

I thought this was a strange conclusion? You only have to look at the junction of 4 merging roads (meeting each other at odd diagonals) to see a perfect storm of cars, buses, blind spots, and people – for serious accidents.

I was also told that the changes (and vast amounts of money spent) were all about getting cars out of the bus lanes? If that was the real aim, surely the cheaper option would have been to just ban cars from the streets that buses used during peak hours? Or perhaps just remove cars permanently from existing bus routes.

For example, why couldn’t buses have continued up Dixon St and turned right into Willis st (making Dixon St and upper Willis St a buses only road). This would also have allowed all of the portion of Victoria St (between Manners and Dixon St) to be used to shift traffic out of the city. Similarly, the portion of Wakefield St (between Willis St and lower Cuba St) could also have been made buses only. This simple re-routing would have saved a vast amount of money, avoided digging up Manners Mall, and removed cars blocking buses during peak hours. The only cost would have been some signage.

Why can’t we have dedicated bus lanes used only by buses, service vehicles, and emergency vehicles?  We need some serious long-term planning, rather than the piecemeal solutions (and planning u-turns) we are constantly witness too.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/4463424/Fourth-pedestrian-hit-by-mall-bus