Our youth

What is our council doing for our youth?  Are we using our resources to their full potential? Or has council been silently under resourcing investment in our youth?

Well if library funding cuts are any indication, then yes they are.

We need council policies for youth that provide positive outcomes, not bans that will get them into trouble with the law. As young people become more positive, productive, and independent, the whole community benefits.

Libraries are one aspect of engaging our youth in educational activities. But there are others. Here are a few success stories, that perhaps we could develop in Wellington.

In Nelson they have started up a program that matches troubled teenagers with abandoned animals. And the results are amazing. Teenagers who have had nothing to do apart from wander the streets looking for trouble have found a new purpose in life. This is something our council and local SPCA could also do? Lets make it happen.

In Luton they have developed a community trust in partnership with other charities and central government, to engage with youth in order to improve abandoned and misused spaces, often associated with trouble. By engaging youth to adopt and improve their own spaces, it became their space. And if they own it, then it will be looked after and not be vandalised by graffiti. Because lets face it, graffiti is a reflection of a youth wanting identity, acknowledgement and  purpose.

In the UK they have developed a national activity-based social inclusion programme for young people called “positive futures”. It uses sports programs to engage youth (and their families) in positive activities. Steering kids away from crime, drugs, and alcohol misuse.

In Bristol, the council developed a “go places do things” webpage, and actively engaged with local schools (and parents) to increase participation in activities outside of school. We should be seeking more council brokerage of community opportunities in volunteer and sports activities.

Our council needs to be pro-active in assisting local clubs to grow their memberships. We need to be in active partnership with schools and clubs. And as I have said before, supporting local sports clubs in their governance, administration, and marketing.

Because, if we address the source of our problems, we won’t need to ban anything.

http://communityspacechallenge.org, http://www.posfutures.org.uk, http://www.goplacesdothings.org.uk, http://www.thenelsonark.co.nz/programmes.html

Pooling our resources

Another u-turn from our council. This time swimming pools get more funding (but not other important resources like libraries). Perhaps that’s another u–turn yet to come, as the election gets closer? Funny how councils listening abilities heighten as elections begin to appear on the horizon.

Whether you agree with this extra funding or not, of real concern is the decision making that is being made in our council. Does our council really know what they are doing? Because their decision making is looking more and more irrational. A bit like the mayors comment that she supports the golden mile being a pedestrian area, while at the same time ripping up manners mall?

Right now our councils decision making abilities looks more like “speed” – a bus, hurtling around the streets of Wellington without a qualified driver and waiting for the debt to explode. Although you might be forgiven for thinking it was based on something else?

But at least some sanity has arrived. Albeit forced upon our council. It now appears perhaps its a good idea to partner with schools over our pools. Goodness me, are we now seeing some signs of collaboration and co-operation, that we have not seen with the carnival fiasco?

Although, I must put a caveat here. It’s not clear how this partnership fund is suppose to work for the benefit of both parties. Are we rationalising pool resources in the city, or just helping schools fund their own pools?

So how did we get to this u-turn (or back-down, as some are calling it)? Well actually, there have been 2 u-turns. Talk about well reasoned and thought out decision-making? Not on this council.

The first u-turn was before the draft annual plan was finalised. Apparently the mayor and a councillor decided at the very last minute to reduce the original proposal to help fund refurbishing of school pools from $2 million to $500k (spread over 2 years). At the time, the mayor clearly thought this reduction in funding was a good idea and other councillors supported it. The justification being that it was better to spend the money on a new 25-metre, 10-lane pool (in Kilbirnie), at the same time that the hydrotherapy pool was being built (a $500k saving). Hence in the draft annual plan, funding was set at $500k.

However, last week, the council approved a different plan? In a second u-turn it decided to increase the planned $500k funding for school pools back to the original $2 million (although this time spread over 3 years: 500k now, $1 million net year, and $500k the following year). So much for the mayor’s earlier justification for not funding the carnival on the basis Wellington cannot afford it? Where this now leaves  Kilbirnie pool is also unclear?

And what brought about this change of heart? Well, apparently councillor Helene Ritchie wrote to 43 schools in Wellington that had originally indicated that they were interested in a partnership with the council, and urged them to make submissions to the council to change their mind. It seems it takes 43 voices of discontent to change council’s decision making. An interesting precedent when you consider there are over 3,000 Wellingtonian’s on facebook calling for the axed cuba street carnival to be brought back.

And what do I think about council funds for school pools. Well, as I suggested above, it has to be for the benefit of both parties for it be a real partnership. Otherwise council is just funding activities that ought to be funded by the Ministry of Education. I’m not sure that is council’s function?

Don’t get me wrong, I think its important for kids to learn to swim. I take my own son regularly to Kilbirnie pool, as does the Brooklyn school he attends. But I think we need real partnership in funding Wellington’s pool resources, under a coherent and well thought out strategy. Perhaps its in the detail? But I’m not seeing it here.

Perhaps council should be collaborating with the Ministry of Education and local schools to see if a more coherent swimming pool strategy for the benefit of wider Wellington region is possible. After all, as our mayor keeps reminding us we’re in a recession. Perhaps a strategy that saves schools and the council money. That’s real partnership.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/local/the-wellingtonian/3791275/Public-pressure-forces-council-backdown, http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/local/the-wellingtonian/3791286/Editorial-Read-the-writing-on-the-wall

Changing our direction

I recently read with interest the mayor’s attack (7 June 2010) on Marie Russell’s opinion (27 May 2010) on the state of Wellington’s libraries. Marie raised some very valid points. All rubbished by the mayor, who clearly had not read the subsequent article on Scoop or heard Bob McKee’s discussion on the importance of libraries on Radio New Zealand (which I commented on some time ago, see my posts below about “investing in our communities, not centralising them” and “its our library“).

One could be helped from thinking that this attack was a poor attempt to deflect attention from the carnival fiasco which has erupted. Already support for the carnival has got above 1300 supporters on facebook and growing. A much stronger response than the survey on Stuff. Why is it that Grant Robertson (Labour MP for Wellington Central) can talk with the Wellington Chamber of Commerce to investigate if alternative funding can be found for the carnival, and our council has not? However, I digress.

Lets dig a little deeper into what the mayor actually said.

The mayor suggests Marie was cocooning libraries from budget cuts. After all, “we have been hit by a recession” and “cost-cutting in the libraries during the past couple of years has been mirrored right across all council services”. Not true. Cost cutting has not been mirrored across all budgets. As Marie (and Scoop) points out, the library budget was hit the hardest. And has continually been the focus of cuts in earlier periods. We no longer have a mobile library service, staff are restricted in traveling to smaller branches to cover for sickness, and more recently books for babies was terminated (Marie’s list goes on, it’s a good read).

The Long Term Council Community Plan for 2009-10 forecast the  library operational budget at $23, 356,000.  However, the Draft Annual Plan for 2010-11 period now forecasts the operational expenditure for libraries will be $21,551,000. That is a projected funding cut of $1,805,000.  A  7.73% funding reduction in a single year. By contrast, the Tourism Promotion budget is up 10.8% and the Events Attraction and Support budget is up 6.8%. Interestingly, for all the talk about tightening belts, the budget for City governance and Engagement is up 7.11%. On the other hand, the funding for city galleries and museums is down by 1.64%. How can the mayor rubbish the figures used by Marie, they’re written in black and white in the plan?

Does this sound like cost cutting being mirrored across all budgets? No.

The fact is, libraries are not like other council assets. Although this is lost on the mayor, which is very worrying, for someone holding such a high office. Studies have proven that during times of recession the use of libraries increase. In fact, studies have also proven that investment in libraries returns more money back to the community, than invested. Libraries, if invested in properly, have the potential to grow our communities, increasing foot traffic for surrounding businesses, and providing a real growth hub. We should be investing in our community resources (not cutting them). Especially during a period of recession.

Planning for our libraries to close and choosing not to invest in them is a sure-fire way to bring about their death. Which is why the mayor’s statement that “if traditional library usage declines in any significant way, we would have to consider closing seldom-used branches” is an ominous sign of what is to come and I would suggest reflects very poor stewardship of Wellington’s greatest asset and resource.

To reconfirm the council’s decision to cut funding the mayor goes onto say that “we have been hit by a recession and have had to find savings everywhere”. If that is true, why is there still enough money for a $350k rugby monument and a proposed $5 million Chinese garden. Not to mention funds for a trip to china, and various other pet projects. Seems to me there is ample room to move and it is the misguided priorities of council that is resulting in our most valuable asset getting prioritised below a rugby monument.

The mayor goes on to state that “we have also listened to ratepayers who have no appetite for large rates increases”. But didn’t rates just go up by 5.75%? Isn’t this higher than the announcement a month ago that it would be 5.5%? And what was the councils earlier forecast? Apparently an average 3.27%. Add this year’s 5.75% cent to last year’s 4.1%, the previous year’s 6.4%, and 5.9% the year before. That’s an increase in rates of more than 20% cent in 4 years. Talk about budget blow out. Is this good stewardship of our finances? And didn’t the mayor just sign us up to even more increases once the leaky homes debt kicks in? If the council is listening, why does it spend so much on litigation defending its decisions?

And to complete the mayor’s rose-tinted glasses on the priorities council have to make, we learn that “we invest in such events to bring people into the city to spend money – money that our local economy needs to survive.”  Apparently, she’s not aware how much foot traffic libraries can generate for local communities. But if the focus is on generating money, why is there no action on the carnival?

“Libraries are facing change just as fast as everything else in the city”. The problem is that the changes that should be made (eg, investing in our resources to generate growth and well-being in our community) are not being made. Bad decisions are being made, and I do not see that as very go stewardship of our resources at all.

However, I do agree change is coming. But not in the manner that the mayor quite expects. There is a growing rumble of discontent with the lack of vision our council has and the degree of financial mis-management that has occurred. Its time for new voices, with fresh ideas and new perspective. Not to revive an old Obama pledge, but “its time for change.” Because I’m not sure we can afford much more of this.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/opinion/3783473/Libraries-are-facing-change-just-as-fast-as-everything-else-in-the-city, http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/opinion/3744116/Future-of-free-libraries-hangs-in-the-balance, http://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=25463, http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/national/politics/3782754/Homeowners-rates-rise-but-business-rates-fall, http://werewolf.co.nz/2010/05/closing-the-books-on-libraries/

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

Its our library

Brooklyn library could be lost as the WCC proposes to scale back its focus to the central library (and 2 library hubs in “growth areas”). This could mean that Brooklyn residents (and schools in the area) will have diminishing access to library services.

Who is speaking up for Brooklyn residents interests on the WCC?

Sounds like no one?

http://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=23921