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.

