The Similarities Don’t Stop

Robert Guyton’s blog has more directed at Judith Collins but the similarities to our own defamation instigator continue.  Some great phrases ring true to me, just change the underlined words to suit.

It’s a shame Collins didn’t care as much about the real issues…

Her indecisive management and lack of leadership…

ACC’s dysfunction have a bigger impact upon her reputation and make her look stupid.

Ultimately this fiasco will probably cost her her job.

Imagine if she had handled things differently from the start – admitted ACC had problems and then simply said she’d sort it all out. It would have been over in a few days.

But no – her ego was in control and said – I’m going to get Pullar and Boag for exposing me and making me look stupid….. She manipulated…

…she slagged Pullar off as being indecent (clearly just projecting about herself), she’s acted defensively trying to sue Little & Collins & Radio NZ, and on and on she’s gone.

It’s all a side show to the real issue – ACC has problems.

Collins looks like a stupid old trout – a psychopathic bully who lacks good judgement.

I’d suggest she’ll find herself dropped before too long or she’ll be switched out or resign the portfolio, as through this process she has exposed herself as an ego driven manic who doesn’t give a toss about her portfolio -only defending her reputation.

It’s a shame she doesn’t have the power of clairvoyance.

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

Some People Never Learn

In this week’s Beacon we have the easily identifiable  inane comment for the week and not enough information.

The Bluff Concept Plan is a living document – why not use it?

Ummmm….could it be that bugger all have had access to it (or know about it).  Hard copies haven’t been around for years and I am the only one that has it online.  Duh.

Maybe you would need to add that it’s available online through www.motupohue.wordpress.com or at https://www.keepandshare.com/doc/show.php?i=1386421&cat=12&fclick=y…..yeah right!

 

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!

What Is A Bluffie?

Here’s the final letter from this week’s Beacon.

I agree with Andrew, pity some old Bluffies are not so open minded.  I was told when I came here it took seven years to be called a Bluffie.  Over fifteen years later those that don’t like something I’ve said or done (and have no argument in response) will always hark back to the old ‘she’s not even a Bluffie’ comment.  I then know they don’t have the mental fortitude to argue their case whatever it may be.  So it’s obvious Andrew has more intelligence than the one claiming ‘he’ll never be a Bluffie’.

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 Is Urban Renewal?

I only started looking it up when it was mentioned by ICC, here’s a few definitions:

Rehabilitation of impoverished urban neighborhoods by large-scale renovation or reconstruction of housing and public works.

The process where an urban neighborhood or area is improved and rehabilitated. The renewal process can include demolishing old or run-down buildings, constructing new, up-to-date housing, or adding in features like a theater (s or stadium. Urban renewal is usually undergone for the purposes of persuading wealthier individuals to come live in that area. Urban renewal is often part of the gentrification process.

I recommend reading the gentrification link:-o.  Urban renewal was a bad choice by council I think, it implies council driven.  I prefer community development definitions:

Community development seeks to empower individuals and groups of people by providing them with the skills they need to effect change in their own communities. These skills are often created through the formation of large social groups working for a common agenda.

Community Development is about the active involvement of people in the issues which affect their lives. it is a process based on the sharing of power, skills, knowledge and experience.

I was excited by the idea (indirectly).  As I have mentioned before the rezoning was evolving into community development ideals.  I’m left feeling a little (a lot) flat now that the South Alive project has shown it is of the urban renewal ilk.  I’m not naive enough to think they can be doing a ‘community’ plan debrief less than 24 hours after getting the community’s ideas.  I think the consultation was only to make the community feel like they were involved in the plan and the plan was ready before hand.

To me Glengarry is community development in the proper sense and Bluff would have done something similar before now if we didn’t have such an inept community board that hinder progress rather than help.  The leadership of the board has been about the chairperson obtaining power (just look at the amendment to the BCCT)and select board members being involved (manipulated) and the addition of Charlie to the Board has clearly shown the their opinions of ‘people’ by the other members cloud the ‘issues’.

I am yet to find an instance where the board has supported the majority view in the community rather than their own.  Communication is limited to a once a year newsletter (which I know was printed on at least one occasion before members even saw a draft from the chairperson).   The chairperson as editor writes board information  (with spin) in the Bluff Beacon and it is after the fact on nearly everything.  I see that as ‘informing’ but does nothing toward getting people involved.  The communication and consultation from and by the board is basically non-existent.  It all seems to be from the chair.  A by-product of the code of conduct (an effort to control Charlie speaking his mind) is that it reiterates that the chair has no powers to speak for the board without the views of the other members and a collective decision.  It has taken many years for that to come about yet still she holds power over other members with appointments to other organisations and by not sharing information and by not declaring conflicts and bias.  It doesn’t help that she is also unwilling to support ideas that are not her own.

I mentioned that Charlie thought I had ‘declared war’, I think I’m ready to now.  Since community development is based on the sharing of power, skills, knowledge and experience and the chair has repeatedly shown she is not, then that coup may well be necessary.  Grab your pitchforks!

Quote Of The Week

His resignation is another blow to an embattled Bluff Community Board, which has been under the spotlight for all the wrong reasons this term.

And from the comments by Procter, you can see where the biggest problem is…

Board member Brent Procter said Mr Allan had shown “great discourtesy” to the board and the electors of Bluff by not being more forthcoming.

He should have said why he had resigned, Mr Procter said.

He declined to comment on Mr Scott’s (Scott Allan) performance as a board member but in an apparent dig at board member Mr Te Au, said: “He [Scott Allan] never swore around the table.”

Use this as another opportunity to dig at Te Au.  It seems Te Au has got under his skin.  lol.  Looks to me that Procter is the stirrer!

He should check his facts too, that statement “He [Scott Allan] never swore around the table.” is easily proven to be bullSHIT by ICC’s transcript of the 8 August 2011 community board meeting.  Scott Allan (when agreeing with Procter) said:

“She (Linda Bell) lives around the east end, she moves up around there, she does the house up,
(inaudible) all the (inaudible) and goes, shit, I don’t like that shed.”

And that was a minuted meeting (not a workshop).  LMAO.  It was that meeting and the way they spoke about Linda (remember PROCTER saying Linda wouldn’t say it to your face but… are you saying she’s a two faced liar?) that resulted in John asking for an apology and the  ensuing “lying slut” comment from him.  Given that the Chairperson didn’t hear the comment but PROCTER told her and that the reporter was only at the Board meeting because of PROCTER ‘s own ‘profanity’.  We have the defamation charges, which is going to have a bigger negative impact on Bluff than the comment ever did, because of  PROCTER.  Nice representation!  Or is he representing his own self- interest?

And all of that is only half of what he’s been up to!  If he causes this many problems while ‘representing’ us do we really want him running our camping ground?

Meanwhile Brent, here’s the number for Nev’s Glass  213-0966, you’ll be needing it ‘cos people in glass houses…

Aroha Mai Te Turakanui A Rua

After much mental anguish, I have made the decision not to appeal the Flat Hill Wind Farm  consent in Environment Court.  That , in no way, means I don’t believe it can’t be won or that it shouldn’t be appealed.  It means I acknowledge that as a mother of four, 20 months through to ten years, I have other responsibilities.

If my fears over the wind farm decision are correct, it will reiterate that this consent was a once in a lifetime opportunity to protect the Outstanding Natural Feature and Landscape, so is raising my children.

I will however be furthering my inquiries into the validity of ICC commissioners serving on power generation consents.   ICC elected members can laud their Council Controlled Organisation’s profitability (in this case, Electricity Invercargill and its many subsidiaries) and also make decisions on consents relating to local network power generation.  It seems inappropriate to me.  If only Charlie had made that connection earlier…I probably would have called for independent commissioners.

I do not claim that the natural environment has lost out here but the ONFL is now, in my opinion, a paper designation…no different than the paper roads on many plans (like those missing pieces of Lagan or Walker Streets).  They exist on paper but in reality serve no purpose.

Even with my basic understanding of  resource consents I have noted that each one has a statement on ‘how much it has already been modified’ which invariably always says ‘it has been substantially modified by…’.  Of course they are going to say that, they want approval!  I contested the statement in this consent that ‘the area had been substantially modified by farming’.  None of the ‘farming activity’ had a structure that breached Rule 4.22 (no structure above the ridge line).

This approval means that the statement can easily be proven from here on in…there is an 81 metre turbine breaching the ridge line.  If I want to build a house on the ridge, my consent application to breach Rule 4.22 is going to say ‘the area has been substantially modified by the wind farm turbines’.  If it’s a ‘green’ house it would be even easier.

This doesn’t mean I’ll stop blogging about it though and worse still it means I now see grave failings in the RMA (OMG another issue to torment me).  I need to get a life, for now though I need to apologise for my shortcomings (and try and come to terms with it).

Aroha Mai Te Turakanui A Rua

I Don’t Think So Tim!

That reserve money is taken from Bluff ratepayers.  What gall to suggest they can use it for any purpose.

It’s bad enough that they allow the Board to set the rate without any oversight (rubberstamp at the ready) but now they dare to suggest a Targeted Rate can be used for another purpose than what it was intended.  I don’t think so Tim.