Surely They’re Taking The Piss

Hawkes Bay are getting a $2.5M jousting field and amenities?  I thought it was a wind up but it’s not April Fool’s Day is it?

Says Mayor Yule: “We were approached by the International Jousting Federation, which has made a convincing case that jousting is the sport of the future. Apparently the Chinese love it. Right here in New Zealand, we already have 23 competitive jousters, many of them from Central Hawke’s Bay, and that number is projected to grow astronomically over the coming decade as sport enthusiasts look for the greater excitement of blood sports. I have visions of an International Jousting and Swordplay Academy. We see ourselves trading up … a big, sturdy lance that can inflict mortal wounds for a little stick that nicks ankles.”

Wow, 23 competitive jousters, it’s the sport of the future….but wait there’s more….this guy probably owns every infomercial gadget for sale at 2am.   Still skeptical that it’s even for real.

Bar The Bill

The person who highlighted this to me had not seen my post on the Invercargill City Charitable Trust but I can see the correlation between them.  Submissions on the Bill close on June 21 and the Gaming Trusts are actively promoting the downfalls of the set up proposed by the Maori Party ( supported by National to the public hearing stage).

I haven’t put a lot of thought into the reduction of venues in certain areas or even confirmed whether the website’s claims are correct, i.e,

It is interesting to note that funding for the treatment of problem gambling was recently cut by the Ministry of Health – due to a lack of demand.

My initial concern is this:

The majority (80%) of any donations generated from any machines that might remain would be controlled and distributed by councils and where applicable community board appointed committees.

The Explanatory notes of the legislation say: (underlining my emphasis)

However only a small proportion of the pokie gamblers’ losses are distributed in grants for community benefit back into the same communities that generated them. This is because the majority of the gamblers’ losses go to pay machine site rentals, machine maintenance, trustee fees for pokie trust members, and other administrative costs. Gambling losses are occasionally siphoned off into corrupt purposes and other rorts; go into paying taxes; and into grants made to organisations based in other local authorities altogether, sometimes even in the other Island, or to national bodies.

They better show some evidence, it’s not the impression I have of gaming trusts but am sure everything is open to abuse BUT they think handing the role over to councils and community boards is the answer!  Central government have other avenues to remedy those issues.  Who are those taxes going to? Government.  Trustee fees?  Could be remedied by Constitution requirements or Remuneration Authority.   Corruption and rorts?  Do they think that doesn’t happen in central or local government?  What about the Trustee’s Act or THE POLICE?  Where the money goes is already declared in newspapers and online by law.  I haven’t seen any that distribute outside of their area, be interesting to see some examples of this.  Small proportion?  Legislation already imposes how much needs to be distributed doesn’t it?  Transparency resolves a lot of issues too.  A LGOIMA type arrangement for all gaming trusts would ensure transparency  if the public have an independent body for complaints and concerns (make sure local government has the same too!)

Here’s their idea:

Fourth, this Bill also phases out the “pokie trusts” or corporate societies as the distributors of community benefit money from pokie machines, and within a year’s time passes over responsibility for these distributions to special committees of local authorities with a majority of representation from community organisations, modelled on the Creative New Zealand creative communities fund committees and the former Hillary Commission local committees. The creative communities fund committees in particular already make full use of the provisions of clause 31(3) of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 which permit councils to appoint members to council committees and subcommittees who are not members of the council. Every local authority in New Zealand is granted money from Creative New Zealand on a per head of population basis and distributes it through a council committee which has one or more councillors on it but a majority of whose members are drawn from knowledgeable people from arts and cultural groups in that district. This Bill would set up a parallel system to grant money to community, social-service, iwi, and sporting groups in their district on a fair, informed, transparent, and accountable basis.

I don’t know if the Creative NZ set up works or not but question whether having people from the relevant sectors and local government is the right way to go.  Wouldn’t there be more conflicts arise?  In a small town like Bluff, the people on the committee would face constant ‘attention’ from those wanting to obtain funding.  The conflicts register alone would be enormous!

Naive pricks!  On one hand government are trying to get councils to focus on core issues then they present this sort of bill.  More funding for pet projects?

Bluff Board Screws Pool Of A Future

That’s what it looks like to me and exactly why I opposed the Board’s public excluded pool negotiations.  I believe there was another 500+ that agreed.

To recap, the original decision was that ICC funding ‘will be $180K’ and then after some public excluded Board involvement the new resolution was ‘up to $180k’ and that was based on operational expenditure.  I argued that the full $180k is necessary for the pool to have a viable future.  Any cost savings in operation could be placed into reserve.

End result only operational funding because ‘importance was placed on the submission of the Bluff Community Board’ (WTF), 2 versus 536.

We now have ICC managing the pool for the trust and look at the operational savings they’ve made (granted, the loan on the building is gone now).  From the Community Services agenda

ICC have done well out of this deal, pity the Bluff representatives screwed Bluff over.  That is why I bitch about them and rightly so!  If that is the true cost of running the pool, the Trust would be banking over $100,00 this year alone.

Thanks Bluff Community Board….you serve us soooooooo well..FFS

Tim’s Speechless (And Blind)

Mayor Tim’s column has him speechless, and rightly so, but you can see he also has on rose tinted glasses.  Yay Invercargill, all is well with the city…”In our modest southern way we are running like a smooth well oiled machine.  OK, so we have a few issues, but if you look over the fence…

Maybe if he takes his head out of the sand and removes his rose tinted glasses he may see that Democratic Responsibility isn’t happening in Bluff…

A Double Edged Sword

I’ve noticed an increase in songbirds since the Hill was felled.  I don’t have a lot of trees but more so lately I’ve been entertained by melodious trilling from the neighbours Macrocarpa’s (well more accurately from the birds visiting them).

I have to assume it’s because we have less trees on the hill so they are coming into the residential area more.  Don’t get me wrong though, I love listening to them and watching them but it does raise the concern that they are more open to attack from domestic cats.  All the great work the Bluff Hill/Motupohue Environment Trust are doing trapping pests on the hill and the bloody birds are going to get killed because their trees were removed and they’ve migrated towards the township hence this picture always pisses me off.

What the hell is there to smile about?

This one become another turncoat situation when she realised the community weren’t as happy about it as she was.  Back in March 2011

Bluff Community Board chairwoman Jan Mitchell said the hill looked unsightly with more than two-thirds of the trees gone, but was pleased it was being replaced by native bush.

The pine trees posed threats to the safety of residents because of how frequently they fell, so it would be good to see them gone, she said.

Forty four hectares of unsafe trees?  WTF

And Robin Pagan is talking his fair share of shit with this comment

However, the area would be covered in native bush once the felling was complete and he expected the land scarring to be invisible within two years, he said.

Mitchell might have believed him but I do my own research!

Everyone Has An Agenda

And the front page article from the Bluff Beacon shows that sometimes people choose their agenda over reality.

Nineteenth century warehouses?  How many of them?  Ian Dee Engineering, yes.  Shaw Savill? Don’t know…Events Centre I was told it was 1950′s.  In some ways the centre of town…obviously used that in an attempt to dis-spell comments by Edminstin in the Public Forum on 31 October 2011 (remember that meeting?)  “In some ways”, could it be because that’s where most of the shops are and it’s where council ‘prettied up’ and that is where the ferry terminal is?  Pity the wharf can’t be used to it’s full potential because of safety concerns…pity it’s maintenance has been neglected.

An AIR of faded importance, doesn’t FEEL neglected, a lot of poetic licence there.  A HISTORY as an important port, agree and it still is an important port.  At least he saw that wasn’t ALL we are.  Remember, Mr Farrell-Green has an agenda…getting people to travel and being as Air NZ are the only ones that fly into Invercargill (at great cost to us) he’s not going to say ‘don’t go to Bluff’ is he?

It seems the ‘newer’ residents are the flavour of the month…probably because they don’t know the failings of the past…I was a newcomer once but then reality hit and I now have to battle to find an honest statement from our board.  You want to promote Bluff, join Bluff Promotions.  You want to represent the resident’s, be honest and support them all with reality checks not rose tinted glasses.  You want to be an editor, be unbiased.

Perceived lack?  The Auditor-General highlights perception as a big part of local government.  If there is a perception it is the responsibility of those elected members to present the facts to dis-spell that perception.  Go ahead – make my day…

A faux pas?  Defend the indefensible.  Cr Boniface’s biggest faux pas is to believe anything the board represents as fact.  I’m sure in light of recent evidence (and possibly future evidence) he is now finding that the board isn’t really portraying the real view of residents.  The comment from ICC over the pool decision, that they placed importance on the submission of the board shows that elected members stick together and maybe now he can see the egg on his face.

A steering committee to progress the ideas compiled?  Just like I thought.  Surely any ‘committee’ can discuss their own ideas and not implement the ideas of those who had the evening free to attend the meeting.  They can consult for themselves.  BayBuzz has some good comments about this sort of ‘consultation’, based on one meeting.

WHATEVER…

NB:  Defamation papers can be sent to 322 Gore Street, Bluff.

What’s Goin’ On ‘Ere Then?

I haven’t been very ‘on to it’ lately, it seems the Bluff Community Charitable Trust has amended it’s trust deed and to show it’s  disregard for the general public of Bluff – the community board now have control over the appointment of FOUR out of six trustees.

You don’t see them reporting this to the community board meetings.

They are appointed because they are elected members from the board therefore they have a responsibility to report what they are doing to the board (as a collective).

Remember they are the ‘legal’ owners of the Town Hall that was ‘gifted to the Bluff Community’ .  The trust uses the Bluff Community name but doesn’t serve the community.  The chair of the board appoints herself and two lackies and now they have replaced the Southland Conversation Board appointment with ‘a representative for the Bluff business community’.

I do not see how the business community are relevant to a trust who’s objectives are sporting, educational and/or recreational initiatives and facilities and community development.  Bluff Promotions Inc has businesses as the majority of it’s members and already appoint someone to the trust.  Why does business need to be represented twice?

To make matters worse, the representative from the business community is appointed by the three community board members on the trust…not all five trustees make the decision on who will be the sixth just the community board members.  They certainly have a high opinion of themselves considering they are managing the facility badly (you should NOT be paying $1200 a year rates!) and the community has never got anything out of the ‘gift to the community’ except for a $8k per annum rate out of the pockets of Bluffies.

I CHALLENGE BRENT PROCTER, PANIA COOTE AND JAN MITCHELL TO JUSTIFY THEIR ACTIONS AS BOARD MEMBERS ON THE BLUFF COMMUNITY CHARITABLE TRUST.

• Why should businesses be represented twice?
• Why are you paying $1200 rates when other town halls in Southland don’t?
• Why are the community not able to use the facility freely?
• Why not appoint community members rather than board members?
• Why is it cost prohibitive for community groups to use it when the trust has over $100,000 for more than 2 years?
• Why isn’t the trust promoting itself as a ‘vehicle to obtain funding’ for the whole community?
• How are you serving us, the residents, on the trust?

Ravensdown Bluff

It seems whenever Ravensdown are shipping the searches for ‘Ravensdown Bluff’ (and variations) increase.  Can’t say I give much of a shit, I’ve said my piece, I’ve told the powers that be and it really is up to them.  No use harping on about the same old crap (or urine in this case).

I’m told they shipped into the top shed (events centre) all night.  I don’t know which door they were using, front or back but it does raise some relevant points.

• If they are shipping through the front, what measures are there in place to prevent tracking of product?  Through the back they drive over dunnite which should remove product from the tyres.  The Shaw Savill building has a wheel wash but what is there on the front door of the events centre?
• If they shipped through the back all night, residents of the flats may have ended up sleeping in their cars elsewhere again (or just not slept) and it means Ravensdown have given the ‘gentleman’s agreement’ with the Board the finger.
• If they have given the Board the finger, it is deserved because the Board can do all the deals they want, THE CURRENT ZONING ALLOWS IT!
• All it reiterates is the need to REZONE GORE STREET.  Ravensdown have pre-existing rights (hence it was NEVER about Ravensdown) but any other ‘industry’ could come and do as they please and impact residents and we will have no recourse.

I will make a few comments though in support of Ravensdown.  The mess hasn’t been as bad of late and the trucks do all seem to have their covers on.  I also understand why they are using here.  It’s cheap, zoning allows it, the powers that be basically ignore Bluff and increasing fuels costs mean they don’t have far to travel and they can turn around more loads in less time.  That all reiterates the need to rezone.  What if Ballance decide to have storage in Bluff to reduce transportation costs and turn around times?

The Board has been told the Club Hotel is up for sale.  Mayor Tim has been talking about the impact of new earthquake requirements for buildings from central government in light of Christchurch.  I’ve pointed out that the Club is not listed on the Historic Places Trust.  If you’re like me you can see the problem.  Central government standards could make the Club too expensive to remain and demolition will be required and not being historic nothing can be done to prevent it.  Anyone looking at purchasing the site will see it as cheap bare land in an enterprise zone close to a port.

If you think council will protect us through the resource consent process, you’re deluded because enterprise zoning is very permissive and they may choose not to notify the resource consent.  Short term thinking from the board by not supporting the rezoning.  Council in the draft LTP again point out the port is vital and we are a port town.  The port is vital to SOUTHLAND and Bluff is a COASTAL town that has a port (Island Harbour).  We are also a fishing village with tourist attractions but who gives a shit, not council or the board.

Don’t have time for links to the evidence, I would hope as members of this community you take the time and gather your own evidence.  If you work, play or live in Bluff you have a role to play in the community, whether you are a Ravensdown employee, business owner, long time resident, new resident, truck driver or a truck driver’s narrow minded wife.

Open up your minds just a little and you may see that if big business prevails along our main street, smaller businesses will not prosper and you’ll be driving to town for everything.

Those Naive Greenies

Don’t know how much scrutiny those submissions supporting the wind farm will withstand?

THIS wind farm on this SITE required resource consent for at least two rules it breached…even the commissioners didn’t know exactly how many…

One was because ‘power generation’ in a rural area is a discretionary activity (needs assessing and permission) and the other (my biggest bugbear) is Rule 4.22, the whole ONFL and ‘no structure shall been seen above the ridge line’.

I have just looked through the 60 submissions that support the wind farm and the result surprised even me.  Of the 60 only FIVE referred to the SITE in any way shape or form.  I was very kind, even the slightest mention of Flat Hill or Maori or the ridge I classed as mentioning the site.

The other 55 were just saying we should use renewable energy.   Many (with the same date and time stamp for when they were received at the Service Centre) just had ‘I support the application’ or similar (frequently less).

Would they withstand Environment Court scrutiny?  Doesn’t reflect well on those commissioners either?  I want someone to show me where the commissioners, in the decision, discussed the ONFL and impact (ie, long term ramifications)?

F- for the commissioners and fifty five submitters.

Is This Our Thirty Pieces Of Silver?

From the Flat Hill Wind Farm Notice of Decision

The company has undertaken to establish a community liaison group and to
sponsor local community initiatives. For the most part, we would like to see
such sponsorship benefitting Tangata Whenua in consultation again with Te
Runanga o Awarua.

So they are willing to commit to sponsor local community initiatives but the Commissioners requested that it be directed at Tangata Whenua

This is the only reference I have been able to obtain to date referring to ‘sponsorship’

Click to enlarge

I will be opening up this can of worms and making some more LGOMIA requests.  I always thought economic instruments under the RMA were up to the Commissioners to impose as a condition not pre-agreed deals by people stepping outside of their authority!

This Board has a lot to answer for.