More Money

Talk about money.

Headline today in the ODT says that analysis estimated to cost $60,000 is expected to bring focus to talks about reshaping Local Government on Otago.

Repeat this around the country and there will be millions spent by councils that have been forced by Central Government to confront a major change in the makeup of  their fiefdoms.

Well that may not be fair in most cases and putting the boot in to Regional Councils will see the biggest disenfranchising of the rural sector since 1989.

You have to question who is going to do the analysis . Inhouse? Independent? Bureaucrats ?

This is a huge waste of money and once again the long suffering ratepayer will cough up .

At the same time another headline mentions the Westland District Council (note District Council) $8.6 million payroll figure that has been defended after the number and cost of staff  was raised at the table.

Wow!

Now we are talking. Getting to the nub of the problem.

But Bish and co will carry on in their costly bid to  rearrange LG .Sad.

    

 It's a Question of Money

Reflecting on the flurry of activity following Gabrielle makes one question who was driving the decision making and who was trying to avoid money. Eg responsibility. Any responsibility.

Decisions had to be made and there were some good people involved . It was also a time for some objective analysis  and cool minds to assist in working through an emotional and traumatic period.

One mistake that was made in my opinion was the categorisation of flooded areas because this immediately caused a reaction from affected ratepayers. It was a hasty decision .Heartless and far reaching in it's pointed targeting of some and relief  for others.

The affect was to pitch ratepayer against ratepayer and cause jostling for positions in line for the best payout.

Fairness was lost in the quest to solve problems that needed better  understanding and satisfactory solutions.

At the moment I believe that move to categorise was a knee jerk reaction to copy the Christchurch earthquake situation.

I have never had time to investigate how that worked for Christchurch but it was wrong to use it as a blueprint following Gabrielle.

Large sums of money were  paid out in  and it was all confidential. We will never know the details but it is probable that some lost out and some did very well.

Was the whole deal made to benefit the banks, the insurance industry , the councils and the Government?

Something to ponder.

I feel the flood response in Carolina had a better foundation where all affected owners had a sum paid to them to help the process. I believe the payment was in the vicinity of $45 K.

A payment such as this  could have been covered by the Regional Council. This was an emergency and the responsibility for what happened could be possibly laid at the door of the HBRC given the evidence that emerged and the clarification of how events happened.

That is for another day but I suggest the RC could have made  general payment given they have such a large investment fund.

The fund has been built up in some large part due to the sale of leasehold land inherited following the 1931 earthquake.

It would be fitting to use those funds from one disaster to help in another.

Of course it is denial all the way because they do not want to admit liability and face consequences.

They have around $500 million that could have been tapped to help impacted ratepayers and Government could have facilitated that happening if required to do so.

There should be some lessons learnt from this disaster.         

Money

I was watching a discussion on YT about  financial advice and investing money.

The financial advisor was saying how every clients situation was so different and gave a number of examples of   situations where planning was made to suit the clients requirements.

Not surprising but it made me think of the situations of  residents following Gabrielle and as stories arose it was something I pondered while passing through the clouds of repair.

Talking to the church helpers and others who passed through , enabled me to build a picture of a diverse range of  life situations that were frozen in time while those affected took stock and proceeded to unpack and repack their upended lives.

It really was fascinating hearing the tales of  so many who were confronting problems with councils, insurance , banks, lost records, lost memories at the same time as having to deal with the stress of the disaster.

There were longtime residents, new arrivals, renters, old young, retirees, tradies, corporates, absent landowners and the list goes on.

The question was how can you solve every ones problems stemming from one destructive event.

Immediately  following the flood  there was a combined effort. Every one was in the same state of shock and banded together as one. It was a time of discovery and strength as we fought back from the abyss.

Ahead lay the mess and the way back to reality through masses of challenges and brick walls.

Yes every one had different circumstances but all circumstances were a challenge in our lives that we didn't need. 

      

Amalgamation Misinformation

If you were the Chairman of a Council then it would be fair enough to believe that you would understand the reason for the Councils existence , its role therefore and may be a basic understanding of the legislation guiding the Council.

I found it extraordinary that a Regional Council Chair , in arguing for amalgamation doesn't understand why her Council exists.

May be there is an excuse because Regional Councils have been in existence since the 1989 Local Government reforms so time has passed.

Regional Councils were formed for a reason and in her argument she touches on a number of the issues that were relevant and critical in the formation but fails to see how diluting or diminishing these roles will impact ratepayers.

There is a statement that planning is done by various overlapping council entities.

How does this happen? Councils have different roles so there should not be an overlap. Is she confusing this with Councils staff who don't get their role or interfere without realising.

There is a reason consenting takes place through different councils. Strangely enough it is to do with their roles.

She states that each council spends money finding ways to interpret the Building Act which is a strange one but yes District Councils have to consult the Building Act which is obvious but the RC may have to do so as well because of a marine structure .That is not duplication. That is to do with different roles.

She advocates for the Port being owned by all ratepayers. It is. Through the Regional Council .This was because at the time of setting up the new LG structure Regional  Councils were given the Ports on purpose.

She advocates for keeping the Port as an asset for the region .It already is.

She correctly identifies pests and flood protection and huge catchments as critical to the region and that they need retain catchments in one council. They already are. That is why they were a critical aspect in setting up Regional Councils.  

The Chairman argues that her council can work for the whole region (that's what it is there for) and create efficiencies  in the areas it has control.

Blows away the argument for amalgamation somewhat. 

The whole idea that amalgamation will make things easier for consent applications and planning is pie in the sky.

Understanding what Councils roles are is fundamental to understanding why NZ has the current structure.

The future is looking bleak for ratepayers.

    

 Entities and Machinations

The Government is making changes to the Local Government Act that will deal with the undemocratic situation that currently sees unelected table dwellers able to vote.

It' a good move but overdue and only seems to be on the agenda because of considerable pressure from various quarters.

The Taxpayers Union has been exposing issues in the Local Government area and are hoping the Auckland Council structure will be amended at the same time.

Over the years Local Government has grown in to an entity , a creature , that acts in a bubble , pretending to  carry out activities in the interests of suffering ratepayers that have their wallets and purses pillaged every week to fund ever increasing demands for dubious projects and activities.

Following the 1989 reforms the new brand of Local Government bureaucrat entered bright eyed and bushy tailed and set about setting up new plans and direction. It worked well for some time

Once the new plans became embedded a new breed emerged from the universities. The RMA had been swallowed lock stock and barrel by environmental purists. Students that had no life experience, no dirty hands  , no institutional knowledge now sat at the pristine desks behind their computers and the 20030 Agenda.

They probably didn't even realise what path they were  on given the indoctrination encountered and the acceptance  of the new breed .These are the rules and this is how things are done.

So the machinations taking place within Local Government are flowing from the years of groundwork to implement  an agenda no one can see and yet it affects every one of us every day.

The efforts of the Taxpayers Union and others are really a symptom of a fight back occurring in response to the implementation of an agenda that does not fit democracy and should be expunged from our lives.

The move to force amalgamations or tackle the makeup of local authorities will not deal with the root cause of our problems.

Changing  legislation  to remove the aims of 2030 will be the best way forward.      

     .  

 Further on Amalgamations

 In 1989 the Local Government reforms foist on the country by the Labour Government , were spun on the issue of efficiency. It was not a case of councils not doing the job and I would suggest the large counties at the time were already functioning effectively and efficiently. 

25 years ago the push to amalgamate councils in Hawkes Bay was pushed on the idea of efficiency and economies of scale.

 The result was a shakeup that saw better sharing of resources but no change to the makeup as ratepayers could see the setup was working well for the people.

Once again the push to amalgamate is being led by Central Government who always think they can force things to be better .They listen to the parties that do not understand local government .Usually business people who try and apply business solutions to a governance situation.

One of the main proponents of amalgamation in this round mounted his high horse because councils were not beating to his drum. 

I get the problem but bigger is not better and there is a failure to recognise the source of the high rates being handed out across the country.

There has been a creep in legislation and a creep in numbers to deal with it.

More and more legislation has given rise to more and more staff and the strength of the unions has seen wages grow until they are at least 10% more than in the private sector.

We have a whole new bureaucracy that is distant from reality when it comes to practical aspects of life in the country .They have been fed a diet of RMA hysteria and Local Government power of general competence which has expanded the nice haves and hindered the should haves.

The last round of change has been a haven for busy bodies and lefties that see council as a way to etch out a decent wage and create a job for life. Councils are full of impractical people , special interest people and even many who don't pay rates.

It's the perfect match  for misfits and controllers.

Pre 1989 we had Pest Destruction Boards, Catchment Boards, Harbour Boards,  Drainage Boards and Electricity Supply Boards. It's interesting reflecting on what is happening in those areas now.

So Governance has changed but rates have continued to go up, legislation has become a minefield and now we have some clever monkeys that think they will make things better by emulating Auckland super city.

Well good luck with that. 

 

  

Representation 

Here we go again.

Reading a host of comments relating to the amalgamation game one can't help but notice the new round of Council inhabitants has no idea about history, no idea about roles of local authorities and no idea about local government legislation.

Even staff now are a new round of bureaucrats that  have largely not experienced the upheaval  caused by forced change.

I read a comment 'should have happened 25 years ago ' from someone I recognised and reflected on the battle that ensued at the time and the massive amount of money spent on consultants and experts and meetings that finally gave ratepayers no change.

All that effort is lost as no one wants to learn from history  and the know it all faction that think bigger is better and that local government will be saved by major change are going to win out. They will win out because the thinking people have left the room and everyone left is exhausted.

Rates increases are crushing all and sundry and the solution appears to be less councils.

One glaring example of why amalgamation will be wrong waa a suggestion that a new makeup would see Napier with 4 Councillors, Hastings with 4 Councillors and the rural area with 2.

It sounds so easy but the huge rural area with two representatives would be crushed by the urban sector.

There is absolutely no way this should be allowed .It shows the complete lack of understanding of  why Regional Councils were formed around catchments and their role centred around issues affecting a whole region. Across boundaries.

The existing system in Hawkes Bay has been working well and changes over the years have given us a setup that works.

I would bet that there are no Councillors sitting around the City or District Council tables that have any idea of the roles they are supposed to undertake or the role of the Regional Council .

Hawkes Bay is in for a major deterioration in the effectiveness of Local Government and a major headwind for those in the rural areas.

And I will add,  a big increase in rates if amalgamation occurs.