My Five Minutes Of Fame

Someone suggested I relay what I said to Council in my allotted five minutes.  I was not very well prepared.  I had nothing on paper, which is unlike me.  I did make sure I took along the summary document of the LTP though.  It grots me.  Four pages for tick boxes and comments and even if someone ticks each box and makes no comments they (ICC) have to copy and circulate all four pages.  Why can’t the tick boxes all be on the one page (one area for comments in general not per topic) and the more verbose can add an extra white page.

Aside from the shiny paper that is more prone to smudging, isn’t it (a) more expensive and (b) harder to recycle?  When I first saw it I thought it was from an Early Childhood provider, pictures of children everywhere (the irony, the policy they claimed became too inclusive whereas the brochure was exclusively children and yes, I get the play on words, growing children and growing a community but no pictures referenced the latter meaning).

The basic rundown of my verbal submission was that there is too much wastage and that document was indicative of that wastage.  The majority of the first page is black and the rest have photos (of happy children with the correct gender and racial balance) and black borders (do they have shares in Xerox?).  I have on a few occasions had Charlie’s ‘payslip’ from ICC posted in an A4 brown envelope ($1.80 postage), his agenda are couriered (not posted) and his payslip can appear on the same day as items are couriered and then the very next day he might receive another couriered agenda.

I told them I would be willing to beg for web casting and that we are still not privy to the right information at the right time and are at the behest of The Southland Times and ICC media releases.   I raised the need to be seen as more transparent (and compliant).  Over a year ago we were told the Wastenet joint committee meetings, agendas and minutes were an oversight and yet still we don’t have access to finances or even meeting notices.

I highlighted that their actions and current processes do not make the community feel included and I frequently feel like a hindrance (whereas it is my right to be involved).  Can’t remember what else I raised in my five minutes but did mention that I would prefer to answer questions.

Cr Esler agreed with my comments on wastage and asked me to expand my comments regarding absentee landowners.  I hadn’t had time to add my comments on derelict houses but his question opened it up as such and I slipped it in.  I suggested they approach owners of overgrown sections and offer them a ‘contract’ for their properties to be mowed by council (and added to their rates).  It would only be for debris free empty sections.

What I didn’t have the time to add to my written submission (but Esler question allowed me to speak on it) was that they could, in the name of Urban Renewal, offer the owners of derelict properties (identify the worst) a waiver of fees for demolition for six months.  It may push them to do it sooner rather than later.  If they do it in six to twelve months a reduction of 50% and then the boat has sailed and they pay full price.  ICC also have the benefit of reminding those owners that the council may be forced to wave a big stick and force it to be done in the future.

I have kids to tend to so it will have to be a two part post and I will try to get to it later today (here’s hoping).  I will be attending Verdon College’s Oliver today so may not get the chance.

Today’s Meeting In The Bluff

Well the Long Term Plan meeting is upon us. Yet again Charlie is working so I can’t go, nor can he but he went to the meeting in North Invercargill last week and I will be missing out altogether.  I burnt my bra years ago but still I’m stuck at home looking after the kids!  Don’t worry though, I’ll get my own back.  I might go to the next Council meeting and NOT leave early to bring home tea for the kids!

Most of the issues I would raise during the LTP process are probably not suited to a public meeting (as Cr Lewis has told me).   I would still raise the following

• Why are there bugger all (if any) roads in Bluff on regular maintenance schedules?
• Not often I agree with Mitchell but when are we going to have REGULAR sump cleaning?
• Why aren’t grants publicly reviewed every year rather than ICC’s cradle to the grave funding policy?
• Do you expect small businesses to prosper (or even survive) with their rates increasing so dramatically(for the CBD fix up)?

Being a cynic though I doubt we’d get any answers of  substance.  I better get on with my LTP submission!

 

$1,112,584 From Businesses

The South City meetings usually draw a good crowd but not this time

The most enlightening part of the piece to me was the new business development rate.  From the beginning of the CBD upgrade process and the announcement that it would come from the businesses I’ve said ‘they can’t absorb that cost’.  I always remember Wayne Harpur saying he moved his business from the CBD because of rising overheads, brought on primarily by rates increases.  To now have that clarity from council that ALL businesses will pay it is interesting.

Why would businesses in South City be asked to fund an upgrade that intends to improve the CBD?  Enticing shoppers to the CBD is the last thing a suburban business wants.  So does this also mean all Bluff commercial (not industrial) businesses will be too?  Of course it does.  I can’t see how that’s helping already struggling businesses?  All this because ICC allowed the uncontrolled sprawl of businesses in Invercargill which resulted in a CBD needing an ‘upgrade’.  How do they plan to resolve it?  Penalise all businesses and hire the guy that allowed it to happen back as a consultant.

And council wonders why we have no respect for their governance decisions.

The Word On The Street

Rumours abound, I’ve heard that quotes are being sought for the rebuild of the Shaw Savill building!

No building consent has been obtained yet though (I’ve checked) and still no resource consent (checked that too).  If Ravensdown are storing more than 5000kg they need resource consent.  They have never had resource consent and ICC to date have not made them.

One good thing about a rebuild (on the same footprint) is that when the building consent is being processed it will be assessed whether it requires resource consent.  Surely ICC will publicly notify the resource consent ‘application’…then we can have our say…the joys of a democracy:-)

If they change the access, we are lucky enough to have Opus (on behalf of  Transit) to approve any changes.  They ALWAYS go out for consultation and they have a say on any intersections that meet up with SH1.  That would mean even if Ravensdown want to bulldoze two houses and use the land as a driveway off Liffey Street, Transit have the last word.

It will be interesting to what our community has to say about that because the board hasn’t been expressing what they know so far.  The immediate question is…will Ravensdown show up and update the board at the meeting on the 2nd of April as requested?

Drumroll Please…

Yesterday’s consultation ‘example’ was from the Southland Kindergarten Assocation

I know when we read it we didn’t feel as if we were being consulted except over times for our reduced service.

What Does Consultation Look Like?

Cracker has raised “Consultation as a foreign concept continues at Rugby Park.”  My recent paperwork sorting has had me come across this again:

So if you read this, would you think the decision has been made or it was proposed?  BTW under the ‘vivid’ is the same model, I only blacked it out so it is not known where it is from.  Envisage it with anything you want… ‘Proposal to change the service to donkey riding…. This paper is written to give the reasons for our decision to ride donkeys‘

I’ll fill in the blanks tomorrow…brownie points if you can guess what the proposal is…

The big question is…Is this consultation?

Too Much Spin For My Liking

From today’s Bluff Beacon

Bluff Urban Renewal – Cr. Neil Boniface was present to discuss his council portfolio
of Urban Renewal. After hearing council’s vision for this portfolio the board decided
to call a public meeting to allow residents to give their views on what they would like
to see for Bluff. The board would envisage a Community Development Committee,
exclusive of community board representation to be formed at this meeting.

That’s not how it happened according to my sources.  Cr Boniface suggested the public meeting and you went along with it.  And wasn’t it the public meeting that he suggested be independent of the Board? (and therefore not orchestrated).

If there is a Community Development Committee then surely that’s up to the people with an interest.  If a Board member wants to join, then so be it, just as long it is clear whether they are attending as a resident or a Board member.  I only say that because I know some were perturbed to find out their business was being reported at community board meetings as a member’s report.  Stalin’s rule has put an end to that though I suppose!

If the Board ever want to support or endorse (or fob off) the views of the committee in the future it may be necessary to have someone involved.  Or an easier way would be to ASK the committee to report progress regularly.

Interestingly, I might know some people already involved in the idea of Urban Renewal?  Hmmmm, might need to consider zoning issues first though?  It seems Linda Bell was ahead of the game…could it be she knew something was coming up?

From the Bluff Pool Feasibility Study

From Janette Malcolm’s feasibility study

Bluff residents have shown an ability to successfully raise funds for a number of community
projects. A summary of the main projects is provided below, with the total amount raised over
the period.

Bluff Hill Lookout 1996 – 2001 $257,911.04
Skateboard Park 1999 – 2003 $75,705.36
Pensioner Flats Bathrooms 2003 – 2004 $43,111.12
Town Hall Chairs 2003 – 2004 $3,395.00
150th Celebrations 2005 – 2006 $59,856.37
Defibrillator 2008 – 2009 $4,400.00
Stirling Point Upgrade 2008 – 2009 $212,661.19
All figures are GST exclusive

In 2005, the Bluff Town Hall was passed to community ownership, and is managed by the
Bluff Community Charitable Trust. This Trust has also been coordinating the fund raising for
the retention of the swimming pool.

Who did she consult with over this?  It wasn’t the community as a whole.  Can you guess which Trust handled all of these projects?  Yes, Bluff Community Charitable Trust.  Any community involvement?  No.

Which projects were done for Bluff residents?  Were the benefits actually for someone else?

Bluff Hill Lookout – Specified as a project in the Trust Deed.  Community Trust of Southland ‘went cold on it’.  Done solely by BCCT with no community involvement.  For tourists.

Skateboard Park – Yes FOR Bluff residents (a small portion, youth).  Placement decision created a petition in opposition with pressure from some in positions of power.  I think it’s badly placed and have heard a rumour that Bluff Community Board funded a portion of it from the rate we pay to operate the costs of the Board.  Any information on this appreciated.

Pensioner Flat Bathrooms – Tenants do benefit but who are the legal owners responsible for the upgrade and maintenance?  Council

Town Hall Chairs – Users of the Hall benefit but who were the legal owners responsible for the building and chattels in 2003-2004?  Council

150th celebrations – Don’t know much about it except Council seemed to be the driving force.  Was it another idea of council’s to be funded by Bluff as a promotional tool for Southland?  I remember the traffic that day…non stop.  Did Bluff economically benefit?

Defibrillator – Benefit to anyone in Bluff.  Interesting who came up with the idea though…it was another ‘council suggested’ project and housed in council’s Service Centre.

Stirling Point Upgrade – Another tourist project with endless discussions over plaques and who should be recognised on them.

If the Town Hall chairs at $3,395 are deemed a ‘main project’, why isn’t the $5k Kindy shade sail?  All depends on who you talk to I suppose.  Effective consultation or limited?

More Irony

While I did mention to Cr Boniface last year that the Urban Renewal should have been done before the Spatial Plan and the District Plan follow that and include the visions set out by the other consultation, at least they are now getting on with it.

Ironically, discussions with the board at last night’s meeting included words like re-invent and revitalise, they probably avoided the word rezone (because they fobbed it off).  They have shown that they can’t see the big picture and thankfully a public meeting on the issue will not be a board run orchestrated waste of time.

Cr Boniface has been insightful enough to advise (repeatedly I’m told) that it should be chaired by an independent person.  In this case he is suggesting Janette Malcolm (author of Bluff Pool Feasibility Study).  I’m unsure how independent she is because her name seems to appear frequently with ICC and Venture Southland but I know she did have enough foresight to see the need for Bluff to do something.  She made special mention of it in the study.  For that alone she gets some respect from me.

In my view, the Chairperson of the Board should not run any meetings until the defamation case is resolved.  In most cases when a legal challenge is on the table you have to step aside.

By running a meeting she is preventing a portion of the community from being involved in what is their right.  The Chair brought the charges and as such should step aside from her usually public role as figure head so as to allow John Edminstin and his supporters their right to attend and speak at public meetings and to their elected members.  John and his supporters should not be denied representation and involvement because the chair is easily offended and doesn’t accept opportunity to resolve the issue.

If the board want to acknowledge that something needs to be done, they may need to acknowledge that all their rantings and ineptness over the rezoning was tarred by their egos.  Right from the start it seemed like they were pipped they weren’t needed to get the community inspired and acting.  Maybe they are not needed until they become effective and more importantly SEEN to be effective?  They have a long way to go to get respect from the majority of this community.

As Predicted

I’ve got sick kids (and I’m not much better) so can’t attend the Flat Hill Wind Farm Hearing…grrr…unfortunately me and what I want are way down the priority list, as they should be with all mothers.

I have sent in, by email, what I was going to say and hope they will consider it.

Meanwhile, ICC have a ton of things out for consultation, here’s a summary

Elizabeth Park, Myers Reserve Draft Management Plans – Submissions close on Friday, February 24

City Centre Outline Action Plan discussion document – Comments close on Wednesday, February 29

Child and Family draft policy – Submissions close at 5pm on March 30

Draft Regional Public Transport Plan -  Submissions close at 5pm on March 30

All the information can be found here

Next Council clinic is : Wednesday, March 21, Elles Road Bible Chapel, 5.30-7.30pm.