Cracker will be happy!
Tonight on the final City Talk for the year (with Thelma Buck and Richard King) we were informed that the CBD plans are going to next week’s council meeting then out for consultation.
Thelma also informed us that they had the first meeting of the South City Urban Renewal.
I hope they start by putting the Martin Street shop down pipes under the footpath rather than spilling over them,
The three month income and expenditure (and 12 month budget) of ‘Directorate Administration’ (book entries/paper money/transfers?). Included is CBD and ‘Special Projects’…oh, the ambiguity of that name, is this the new Mayoral Budget?
Taken from Part 1 of the Regulatory Services agenda
It turns out that the statement in the Bluff Beacon regarding the Spatial Plan is not quite accurate. The Beacon (13 September) said
The opportunity for residents to make written submissions on the plan is also available.
I too had believed we were going to have the opportunity to make submissions. ICC has always put out ‘Submission Forms’ and dates in the past and I have waited with baited breath. Today I emailed ICC to clarify. The response was as follows;
We will not be having a formal submission process in relation to it… You can either write to Council and put attention “The Big Picture” or you can email bigpicture@icc.govt.nz and your comments will be recorded.
While some might say ‘semantics’ or I’m being pedantic, neurotic or Asperger’s or whatever. For any council watcher or elected member the term ‘submission’ has clear guidelines, a statement of proposal and a legislated period of consultation.
I have sat waiting for my chance, pen in hand, fingers on keys and now I get ‘your comments will be recorded’, code for Clayton’s consultation, consulting when your not consulting. I will however submit my comments and hope they be given suitable consideration. Given that the DVD says this will guide the District Plan, I implore everyone to make comment. I don’t care what your view is but we can’t complain about decisions our Elected Members make if we don’t give them any input.
Email your comments for the FUTURE of our community.
…..so I can smack the Youth Council upstarts round the ears!
I don’t care if you don’t care about history but maybe every bugger that died, fought and struggled to provide you the liberties you have now, do. Be it democracy, women’s rights, social welfare or protection from oppression, you don’t deserve it!
I realise you were referring to Anniversary day but such disregard for history shows you have no respect for the work involved in creating the community you benefit from everyday.
So you want the day off with no regard to what you are celebrating? Well enjoy your drinks (at 18)and remember your history, and the people that fought and died before they were legally allowed to purchase alcohol!!! FFS!
Why do our council feed us such bullshit and think we would eat it by the truckload! Today’s article about derelict houses has them yet again saying ‘we can’t do anything’ and refers to the Dangerous and Insanitary Building Policies. Those policies give them every power to do something but before I get into that, I should clarify a few issues. I don’t think council should be waving their big stick at occupied properties, not only do I say that because I’m in a similar circumstance but because people like Ian Johnson admit it is a bad predicament and I have no doubt he is doing the best he can. The other side of the coin is of course absentee owners who have walked away and may not even live in the area or contribute to our economy.
Since the subject hit our paper I have been sickened by the publication of the names of landowners, do the Southland Times not care about the Privacy Act? That was the reason names are no longer available on property searches on council websites. If people feel they should know, let them spend $5 online with QV to find out, don’t hand them the information that is specifically protected by the law. Some ‘neighbour’ was given the courtesy of anonymity, why not the owners? I could, if I wanted to, now utilise companies.govt and the electoral roll to find the residential addresses of these owners. Our council has the same disrespect for some owners, on one occasion submitting names and mobile phone numbers of non-compliant property owners and their financial situations that prevent them from addressing the problems in a tabled meeting document.
Anyway, here’s a few thoughts for the council. Offer to waive (or reduce) the relevant fees they would get if the building was demolished. It won’t affect their income because they (the owners) weren’t going to do it otherwise. It would go a long way in showing they want to move forward and support the affected communities and would be a hell of a lot less than the money they are spending on two consultants to consult with us on the CBD upgrade (attempted salvation from them allowing expansion into Leven St without considering the long term effects). While they are at it they could offer engineer reports on all older buildings in light of the Christchurch earthquakes. Don’t upgrade the footpaths and street furniture when you may have to demolish half a block!
The Dangerous Building Policy covers a multitude of sins to define a ‘dangerous building’ and they wouldn’t even need to worry about the insanitary process. Such as this:
Section 121 of the Building Act 2004 defines a dangerous building as follows:
121. Meaning of dangerous building—
(1) A building is dangerous for the purposes of this Act if,—
(a) in the ordinary course of events (excluding the occurrence of an earthquake), the building is likely to cause—
(i) injury or death (whether by collapse or otherwise) to any persons in it or to persons on other property; or
(ii) damage to other property; or
(b) in the event of fire, injury or death to any persons in the building or to persons on other property is likely because of fire hazard or the occupancy of the building.
Considering there is little holding the roof on some of them, couldn’t we factor in the high winds and that they could lift and damage or hurt someone or something. This is too easy and you know council aren’t doing their job especially when you see this in the policy;
The Invercargill City Council will be proactive in addressing problems of dangerous buildings.
Where a building is classified as dangerous, immediate action will be taken.
In addressing problems of dangerous buildings, the Council will follow the procedure set out in the Building Act 2004. (Kylie-That responsibility is delegated by Central Government, surely you have responsibilities to enforce?)
This policy will apply regardless of whether or not the building is a heritage building.
Maybe some Crs would like to park up outside some of the properties with their own policy in hand and consider it with an open mind then smack the staff over the head with it. While you’re at it ask them which ‘precedent’? Does that ‘precedent’ consider the harsh environment these buildings need to withstand? Remember, Crs are ‘by the people, for the people’.
Robert Guyton’s blog also puts some perspective on the issue…BTW don’t forget to pay your rates!
From the Inner city Working Group agenda
Bluff Foreshore
Ok, it’s only a similarity but the lay of the land is similar, weather is obviously very different though.
To the Inner City Group
Definitely do NOT put something like that in Wachner Place…OMG!!! Isn’t there a skateboard ban on the CBD footpaths? Do you really think they will pick up there skateboards and walk home? Yeah right. Do you seriously want to attract bikes into the city for recreational purposes? Don’t even consider it!
As for Otepuni Gardens, I can’t say I’ve had a look around their lately but was surprised to see early pictures of what it used to be. Seems a bit like ‘Big Yellow Taxi’…paved paradise and put in a skateboard park….Maybe Otepuni Gardens would be a good place to “tell stories” or that really big park adjoining the Museum? You know the one? Queens Park!
Try attracting people with money to spend not time on their hands to hang around skateboarding.
I like to think a journalist would have respect for context and accuracy. I may be neurotic, pedantic, fussy, whatever you want to call it but an article in today’s paper doesn’t ring true to me. It states:
The working group had recently held a workshop with an independent design planner, and would be presenting some of its recommendations to the city council today.
Now, considering that the ICC website lists two meetings today, Bluff Community Board and Inner City Group, when are they presenting their recommendations ‘to the city council today.’
So maybe some (or all) councillors will be at the Inner City meeting, it IS a public meeting. By no stretch of the imagination does that constitute a presentation to the city council, especially in local government terms. It is a meeting that anyone can observe and considering item 6 of the agenda has this;
REPORT TO COUNCIL ON 23 AUGUST
6.1 THE WORK OF THE COMMITTEE TO DATE
6.2 WHERE TO FROM HERE
It would be helpful if Members of the Working Group could be present on
23 August to support the Chairman and to speak to some of the issues.
It is obvious that they will be presenting to council on 23 August. I’ve said it before, LGOIMA and local government don’t care for ‘drama’ so it would be more realistically said ‘the working party are today showing their hand before presenting their recommendations to council on 23 August.’
Accuracy PLEASE!
