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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Roughly 300 billion NZ dollars.

That’s what the IT sector is worth in the UK.

It is nearly rivaling the UK’s financial sector.

Will those in central and local government realise they need to be fostering a similar industry in Wellington?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/oct/28/net-worth-100bn-uk

Announced only a week or two after the local body election was completed.

Why was this not disclosed by councilors during the elections? People should have been advised so they could have made an informed vote.  Because it was clearly signed off before the elections?

Another revenue gathering initiative? Or have the non-returns of books and DVDs been on the increase?

No. Apparently they have gone up “due to the increase in GST”.

Adult book fine goes up from $0.60 to $0.80 per day (33% increase).

Child and young adult dvd fines go up from $0.50 to $0.80 per day (60% increase).

And I thought GST only went up 2.5% from 1 October?

Why are the increases so high? Surely the smallest coin increase that could have been adopted was 10 cents, not 20 cents.

I think blaming this increase on GST might also be illegal?

One is that you have to wave banners on the side of the road. Every new candidate who did this, got elected. Major did this in the early 90′s, waving and smiling in front of a 6 meter portable bill board of his name, along the roadside in Haitatai, and got elected — without providing any clear policies. Its a cliche, but it works. I hate cliches, but people like to know you are real.

Bill boards don’t help, unless you don’t get media exposure – then they (and mail campaigns) do. You’d think incumbents would be known in their ward, so would not need bill boards? I hate bill boards as much as I hate cliches.

The incumbents got large articles about themselves in the newspapers (and various resident newsletters) and the new candidates got zip. Best to send media kits with pre-written articles to the papers written in the desired style (2 months in advance of the start, as it can take 2-3 weeks from interview to publication). Or do something cute or outlandish to get in the papers (although too outlandish will make you look like a fool).

You can’t say much in 3 mins – so best to pick one issue and hammer it home. Speeches are about sounding confident and friendly – not about what you stand for. If you are an incumbent, don’t mention any policies (unless you think you might lose), just say its really hard work and experience counts. People forget incumbents were once new (and had ideas).

Point to a single newspaper article that says you worked hard. Repeat it as many times as you are given the opportunity. If you say it enough, people will believe you. People will ignore what you actually voted for (or didn’t vote for). Especially if you do not disclose your voting record. If you do get asked a difficult question attack a regional councilor. Blame those who don’t have a mike – it will look strong (but don’t over do it – as people will see it as bullying).

Blogs and facebook pages are good – but if people don’t read them they will never know it was your idea. If someone raises an issue that makes you look bad, attack them on something trivial to undermine their credibility or to deflect attention away from the real issue.

If a candidate is looking to good – ignore them (ideally forget their name or don’t mention them). That way voters won’t know who they are – so they won’t get votes. However, work with candidates in your ward who will be cut in the first count, as STV might send their vote to you. Also work with candidates outside your ward to increase your exposure (eg, regional, mayoral, etc). If elected you may need to work with these people – so best to start building bridges early.

Its a number game, so utilise a political party brand or participate in clubs, associations, or protest groups, that will provide you a healthy network of people to support you. Voters like to know what they are getting.

Make outlandish promises, knowing that the impending debt will mean you will be able to resile from your earlier promises, and sound sensible. Boldness will get you in, not realism. If a protest group looks like they have a large group of supporters (eg, football) support them with outlandish promises. Don’t be put off by having nothing to do with the group or sport before the event (even if another candidate is actually involved in the sport and has voiced an earlier informed opinion). If you say it loudest, its your idea (remember to be bold – see above).

Write letters in the papers and on blogs (under other peoples names) that raises questions about the suitability of the new candidates for the job – or if they have all the right skills – denounce them over something trivial, or don’t mention them at all. God forbid if  a skilled candidate made it on council  – they might make the rest look stupid and lazy.

Finally, hold true to your beliefs – (something another councilor once confided to me), otherwise you look two faced and deceitful. If your deceit is exposed, attack the messenger or raise another issue to draw attention away (this is what they do in national politics).

Hope you enjoyed the journey, as much as I.

And it only cost me $182.20 plus a registration fee. Bargain!

Thank you for following the local body election campaign on his blog.

I hope to post results as soon as I am aware. Other results are being posted on NewsWire.

Updated (6:05 pm): Kerry leads Celia by 40 votes. I noticed a lot of specials being cast on Friday – so the final count has yet to be confirmed. Results for mayor and wards available from http://www.wellington.govt.nz/haveyoursay/elections/results/2010/2010prelim.html

http://www.newswire.co.nz/