Its our heritage

Some time ago I spoke about protecting our heritage.

Our heritage  is important to our identity.

But the tension with heritage orders is burdening residents and businesses with protection orders.

Adding a sky receiver, making renovations, or even painting a wall, might require a consent application. And these are not cheap.

How would you like it if you had to pay someone $250 plus, every time you wanted to improve your home. And then had to wait months before you found out if you were allowed to do the work.

Well, one idea might be to make the heritage consent processes free for those burdened with a heritage protection order?

This would ensure compliance (no excuse not to seek approval) and perhaps incentivise council to be more efficient. Perhaps even adopt technology to stream line the process for everyone?

And if we had free Wi-Fi, well it might make the whole process even cheaper and more accessible.

Our council needs to be sending the right signals, if we really want to protect our communities heritage.

http://wellington.scoop.co.nz/2010/08/citywide-heritage-shake-up-in-the-offing/, http://www.rmaguide.org.nz/rma/otherprocesses/heritageorders.cfm, http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/local/4000614/Athfield-attacks-heritage-rules/

A pedestrian’s view of the world

A lot of heat is coming from citizens, and now businesses, over the manners st debacle.

An $11 million debacle, that had 74% opposition from 722 submissions during consultation.

Did our council listen? No. It rubbished dissent as a “a pedestrian’s view of the world.” And did its own survey that spun the line that 68% were in favour (how many participated in that survey is unknown, but I bet it wasn’t  nearly as large or representative). So much for transport policies that seek to get more people walking to work. Instead we are left with an open wound. One wonders what fate awaits the basin reserve.

So in accordance with transparency and full disclosure, you can find out who voted for this (list in the comments below the article), and make your own mind up about the wisdom of spending $11 million on it, rather than more pressing priorities – like reducing water leakage or removing the sewerage stink.

In 2-months time you get to hold them accountable.

http://wellington.scoop.co.nz/2009/12/manners-mall-the-council-knows-best, http://wellington.scoop.co.nz/2010/07/the-misery-of-manners-street-and-willis-street-and-taranaki-street, http://wellington.scoop.co.nz/2010/06/mind-your-manners-the-upheaval-begins/

Back to basics

Its time to remove the smell. And not just on council. I’m talking sewerage and land fills. Council need to get their attention back to some core activities.

It might be less glamourous than being a poster-girl for the World cup or Weta’s successes, but its a crucial element in the health and well being of our city.

When I first came to Wellington, I was shocked to learn of the unfiltered discharge into our ocean. Things have improved, but there is still a long way to go.

The land fill at the back of Brooklyn also produces some nasty odours.

Its time council got back to some basics.

http://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=25806, http://www.capitaltimes.co.nz/article/3165/Alingeringsmell.html, http://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=25809

Another community ignored

Aro Valley residents are fighting a proposed district plan change (DPC73) that could see large scale development take place without community input. Sound familiar?

The proposed rezoning of land, from residential to commercial, involves a large slice of valley land (including the old single level petrol station, which already has commercial zoning). The proposed rezoning of this land would allow construction of 3-story buildings on the entire site, with little (if any) requirement for public notification. Shutting the community out from having any say on  future development of the land and their community.

Its the height potential on the entire site and the impact of any development over-shadowing the heritage aspects of the village that had residents concerned. But that concern has now turned to anger at the manner in which the proposed rezoning has manged to be put back on the council table, after it apparently was suspended, effectively shutting out any further submissions (because the submissions date has now passed) on why the proposed rezoning should not proceed.

One can’t blame the WCC officers, as they were just following council procedures. DCP73 had not been vetoed by council, it had just been suspended. The report itself even recommends to council that “Officers therefore recommend that DPC73 be retained”. Clearly those on council knew this, if they read the report. Why Aro Valley residents were told not to make submissions, regardless of the suspension, is a mystery. Fortunately one did. But the whole situation has a bad smell about it.

Its now up to council to fix this unfortunate situation, which should not be hard. All it has to do is extend the submissions date. Whether it wants to is another story.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Wellington/Aro-Valley-Community-Council/138101758033

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

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

Traffic congestion is environmental pollution

Its raining today and traffic this morning was at a stand still. Traffic congestion is a major problem in our city and causes of congestion are many and varied (as are solutions).

Is WCC  really committed to solving traffic congestion and reducing pollution? Its a question Sydney residents are beginning to ask.

Congestion studies show that about half of traffic delay is non-recurring, attributable to temporary disruptions of the transportation system like traffic incidents, work zones, poor weather, and special events. The other half is recurring congestion, delay that occurs in the same place at the same time, day after day. Today its definitely the weather.

So what can be done?

I believe our thinking needs to be open to other solutions, rather than just increasing vehicle capacity (ie building more roads). Don’t get me wrong, road construction has its place. But what we need is to shift our thinking, from construction to management of the transportation system. And that includes collaboration and co-operation between traditional and non-traditional players in the transportation system.

That’s where WCC can make a difference. Transportation policies must encourage an appropriate balance between different modes of transport. Are we encouraging walking and cycling?  Do we encourage school children to walk to school? Do we encourage freight to use alternative routes or modes of transport. Why aren’t more people using public transport to get to work? How are we planning for electric cars? Do we maintain our roads properly so there is minimal disruption (so often we see roads being sealed and then dug up).

Its just crazy. Wellington is a small village in comparative terms to other cities. Surely it cannot be hard to put a coherent plan together that places our resident’s well being at its centre.

Lets reduce the emissions pollution and have better transport policies.

http://pollutionfree.wordpress.com/2009/09/08/traffic-congestion-and-emissions/, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/12/2897702.htm

Save our green recycling bins

The WCC has yet to formally announce its decision on a draft proposal to replace the green recycling bins with plastic bags that you have to pay for (another revenue raiser).

Unofficially noises are they will be replaced by wheelie bins in the face of substantial negative reaction and an election looming. 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.

It is estimated that 12,000 of the city’s 57,000 households will be unable to use the wheelie bins because of terrain and access issues. They will be given a see-through recyclable bag for their plastics, paper and metals.

It will be interesting to see if the trial is rolled out after the election or binned. One wonders if the whole draft proposal was a strawman, set up to be knocked over, in an attempt to be seen to be listening to the people.

I’m not sure how else you explain such a bizzare proposal in the first place?

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=47894859798&ref=mf

Encouraging environmentally sustainable transport

Wellington is full of cafes and restaurants. One wonders how much oil is actually disposed of by all these eateries.

Here’s an idea that is a proven solution from Graz (Austria) that WCC could develop in partnership with businesses. The WCC needs to encourage (and facilitate) the growth of local markets for bio- fuels as a low carbon fuel for Local Authorities and other public sector transport fleets (ie cabs).

Its about leadership and making our public transport enviromentally sustainable.

http://esteast.unep.ch/default.asp?community=est-east&page_id=5A94ED08-0788-405B-8680-C12296ACE3AF

Green co-operation

A great example of co-operation and partnership in making our cities greener.

htp://www.nyrp.org