The poll in today's Dominion Post makes very interesting reading. The mayoral contest appearing to be closer than many people expected, so please - if you haven't yet voted, make sure you do so. Papers have to be with the council by noon next Saturday 9 October, and the recommended last day for posting is this coming Wednesday. If you miss that post, you can still hand-deliver your vote right up until Saturday morning.
Given the number of undecided voters and the margin of error, the poll's 33% to Kerry against 25% to Celia means that the race is still wide open. As I said at the Miramar candidates' meeting a couple of weeks ago I'm supporting Celia, and I hope that you will too - but whoever you support, please vote.
The only other polling is about the Indoor Community Sports Centre on Cobham Drive, with 45% opposed to the project and 34% supporting it (22% neutral or undecided). If you haven't already voted, when you do please remember that only one Eastern Ward candidate has stood up against the effects of that project on the community - me. I took the council to court (not an experience I recommend) and got significant concessions towards reducing the traffic effects - but it will still be an issue.
When questioned at the Evans Bay candidates' meeting about ICSC traffic, the mayor proudly pointed out the improved walking, cycling and public bus facilities incorporated in the project - but she forgot to mention that the only reason that those facilities will be there is because the Environment Court told them to, as a result of my appeal.
I'm all in favour of sport, and of projects that are fully thought through with all the consequences considered, but that didn't happen in the single-minded rush to get the ICSC approved. Not only were the effects on the local community largely ignored but other sports have suffered, with little money left over for such things as artificial turf pitches.
So if you want a councillor with a proven record of standing up for the community, and a council that thinks things through properly, put 1 against Mellor.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Boy Racers - response to Local Resident
I’ve received a long letter about boy racers, particularly in Ira St, Miramar. It’s a bit hard to respond to direct because the signature is just Local Resident, so I hope that the writer is reading this blog.
The letter suggests that a good way of tackling this problem is to slow traffic down, such as by putting trees and islands along the middle of wide streets.
Local Resident, I agree with you. Breaking up the width of wide streets with planting gives streets a much more human scale, encouraging slower traffic and making them easier to cross. Trees like in Broadway, or along Jervois Quay, are a great improvement: even just white paint, as along Miramar Avenue, Rongotai Rd or Park Rd, can make a significant difference.
So yes, I will be working towards making our streets more for people, less for racers.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
What I stand for: better transport choices
Traffic congestion and traffic are big issues in the eastern suburbs, and will get bigger with things like airport expansion and the sports centre, as well as population growth. So how will we cope?
The traditional approach has been to build roads, as both SH1 and SH2 from the bypass to the north of Wellington both demonstrate. But, cities round the world are now realising that you can't road-build your way out of congestion: all that happens is that extra traffic is created, and congestion points move. The major economic justification for road-building is almost invariably the value of anticipated time saved, but studies in places like Melbourne show that despite massive road building, average vehicle speeds have barely changed - time has no been saved, just traffic generated.
Studies also show that the greater the capacity and speed of public transport, the better all traffic moves.
So we need to look very carefully at multi-million dollar road schemes - particularly when they will cut into the town belt, create community severance, and take years to build. Instead, we should look at public transport, which can achieve better results more cheaply and faster.
As a first stage we should optimise the existing system. What makes Wellington's buses slow and unreliable is the tortuous grind along the Golden Mile, and the first thing to do is establish bus priority along the whole length between the railway station and Courtenay Place, and on to the hospital. That won't be that difficult or expensive, and will improve the reliability of nearly all bus routes at a stroke. Improved reliability means increased efficiency, with benefits all round, and a more attractive service all round. Market that service, eg by increasing the Miramar and Seatoun express bus frequency and providing similar facilities for Strathmore and Lyall Bay residents, and we would see bus patronage increase. At the same time speed up the Airport Flyer by running it direct rather than round the houses through Rongotai, and more airport users would find it attractive - after all, you can't take your car with you when you fly.
Having done this as a first stage, we then need to look further into the future. The way to move more people through the Golden Mile is to have higher capacity vehicles, and modern trams fit the bill. They can also run on existing railway lines, so a seamless inter-urban network throughout the region becomes a viable proposition. Extend this network from Courtenay Place and the hospital through to Kilbirnie and the airport, and we've got a world-class region-wide system for a cost that will probably compare well with the proposed four-laning between the Basin and Evans Bay. I'm not saying that we can do this tomorrow, but it deserves very careful study.
Walking and cycling are effective ways of tackling transport problems, too. Cycling is increasing in Wellington and worldwide, and most car journeys are short, short enough to be walkable if that option was more attractive. Improved facilities for walkers and cyclists are a must - and not expensive.
An area that often gets overlooked is freight traffic, including deliveries. Congestion is a great cost to business, and improving general traffic flow through public transport investment will reduce business costs.
And we mustn't forget road safety: the risk of injury for car users is ten times the risk faced by bus passengers, re swapping the car for the bus reduces risk by 90%! That's worth having.
We need to learn from the rest of the world how to travel more smartly: there's a lot to be gained.
The traditional approach has been to build roads, as both SH1 and SH2 from the bypass to the north of Wellington both demonstrate. But, cities round the world are now realising that you can't road-build your way out of congestion: all that happens is that extra traffic is created, and congestion points move. The major economic justification for road-building is almost invariably the value of anticipated time saved, but studies in places like Melbourne show that despite massive road building, average vehicle speeds have barely changed - time has no been saved, just traffic generated.
Studies also show that the greater the capacity and speed of public transport, the better all traffic moves.
So we need to look very carefully at multi-million dollar road schemes - particularly when they will cut into the town belt, create community severance, and take years to build. Instead, we should look at public transport, which can achieve better results more cheaply and faster.
As a first stage we should optimise the existing system. What makes Wellington's buses slow and unreliable is the tortuous grind along the Golden Mile, and the first thing to do is establish bus priority along the whole length between the railway station and Courtenay Place, and on to the hospital. That won't be that difficult or expensive, and will improve the reliability of nearly all bus routes at a stroke. Improved reliability means increased efficiency, with benefits all round, and a more attractive service all round. Market that service, eg by increasing the Miramar and Seatoun express bus frequency and providing similar facilities for Strathmore and Lyall Bay residents, and we would see bus patronage increase. At the same time speed up the Airport Flyer by running it direct rather than round the houses through Rongotai, and more airport users would find it attractive - after all, you can't take your car with you when you fly.
Having done this as a first stage, we then need to look further into the future. The way to move more people through the Golden Mile is to have higher capacity vehicles, and modern trams fit the bill. They can also run on existing railway lines, so a seamless inter-urban network throughout the region becomes a viable proposition. Extend this network from Courtenay Place and the hospital through to Kilbirnie and the airport, and we've got a world-class region-wide system for a cost that will probably compare well with the proposed four-laning between the Basin and Evans Bay. I'm not saying that we can do this tomorrow, but it deserves very careful study.
Walking and cycling are effective ways of tackling transport problems, too. Cycling is increasing in Wellington and worldwide, and most car journeys are short, short enough to be walkable if that option was more attractive. Improved facilities for walkers and cyclists are a must - and not expensive.
An area that often gets overlooked is freight traffic, including deliveries. Congestion is a great cost to business, and improving general traffic flow through public transport investment will reduce business costs.
And we mustn't forget road safety: the risk of injury for car users is ten times the risk faced by bus passengers, re swapping the car for the bus reduces risk by 90%! That's worth having.
We need to learn from the rest of the world how to travel more smartly: there's a lot to be gained.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Lion hunting - by no. 3 bus!
Since I last blogged life has been busy on the campaign trail, with candidates' meetings at Miramar, Kilbirnie and Evans Bay. Thanks to the Strathmore, Miramar, Kilbirnie, Hataitai and Roseneath residents' associations for organising them, and thanks to the many people who turned up - particularly on one of the few fine weekends in living memory!
Saturday also saw the Wellington Lion Hunt for mayoral and other council candidates, hunting the city for Amazing Race-type clues. The highlight for me was catching a no. 3 bus to the Basin Reserve with the Wellington Lions' Leo the Lion mascot - the bus driver said "No animals, please", and then took an on-board photo to show his mates! Fortunately for Leo, our bus wasn't taking him to the zoo...
And the result of the race? Well, the yellow t-shirt team was the overall winner, thanks to excellent teamwork from Anne, Liz, Paula, Pam, Lainey and Ellen. The prize was a framed signed Wellington Lions jersey, and all participants - Jack Yan, Celia Wade-Brown, Andy Foster and me - agreed to donate it to Mary Potter Hospice so that they could use it for fund-raising.
You can read more about the Lion Hunt at http://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=27791, and thanks to Mynzeye (the organisers), the WRFU, Sir Michael Fowler for starting us off - and Leo the Lion. I think he enjoyed the bus trip!
Saturday also saw the Wellington Lion Hunt for mayoral and other council candidates, hunting the city for Amazing Race-type clues. The highlight for me was catching a no. 3 bus to the Basin Reserve with the Wellington Lions' Leo the Lion mascot - the bus driver said "No animals, please", and then took an on-board photo to show his mates! Fortunately for Leo, our bus wasn't taking him to the zoo...
And the result of the race? Well, the yellow t-shirt team was the overall winner, thanks to excellent teamwork from Anne, Liz, Paula, Pam, Lainey and Ellen. The prize was a framed signed Wellington Lions jersey, and all participants - Jack Yan, Celia Wade-Brown, Andy Foster and me - agreed to donate it to Mary Potter Hospice so that they could use it for fund-raising.
You can read more about the Lion Hunt at http://wellington.scoop.co.nz/?p=27791, and thanks to Mynzeye (the organisers), the WRFU, Sir Michael Fowler for starting us off - and Leo the Lion. I think he enjoyed the bus trip!
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Sustainable transport
Sustainable Wellington Region Transport, a coalition of groups and individuals advocating a greater role for public transport, walking, cycling, and sustainable urban and transport infrastructure in the Wellington region, has asked the following questions of candidates in the Wellington region.
Declaration of interest: I am a member of this group, but I have taken no part in any aspect of this questionnaire since being nominated as a candidate.
1. What proportion of the transport funding in the Long Term Council Community Plan (LTCCP) of the Council you are standing for would you want to see devoted to:
a. Public transport? 40%
b. Walking (facilities and promotion)? 20%
c. Cycling (facilities and promotion)? 5%
Please explain these choices.
Public transport is the lifeblood of a successful city; walking is universal and economically and environmentally effiicient; cycling starts from a very low base (barely on the Long-Term Council Community Plan expenditure radar) and needs boosting for its environmental and economic benefits. This still leaves a substantial amount to be spent on roads, for safety measures and because they are used by public transport and active modes.
2. Do you support the following transport projects, where applicable:
Note: Options a-c are mutually exclusive. Each assumes that essential service vehicles would have limited access.
a. Turning the Golden Mile into a public transport corridor
b. Turning the Golden Mile into a pedestrian corridor
c. Turning the Golden Mile into a dedicated public transport/pedestrian space Yes
d. Extending the rail system through the Wellington CBD, by developing modern trams as a priority for the short term Yes
e. A Basin Reserve flyover No
f. Doubling the Terrace Tunnel No
g. Doubling the Mt Victoria Tunnel No
h. The Kapiti Expressway No
3. Do you support the creation of an integrated public transport system across the region? If so, what changes would you propose making to bring this about?
Yes - uniform Metlink branding (any operator branding should be subsidiary); fully integrated fares; fully integrated timetables
4. What do you consider should be the top transport priorities of the Council for which you are standing?
Full public transport priority along the Golden Mile;
improving/eliminating the Wellington Railway Station inter-modal interchange;
bus priority to the eastern suburbs;
inegrating the Cable Car with other public transport;
trolleybus wiring through the Miramar Cutting to speed up journeys to/from Miramar;
improved wharves for ferry services.
5. What are your own top transport priorities for the region?
Integated PT fares & services;
public transport priority along the Golden Mile;
rail penetration into the region's CBDs;
modern trams between the airport and destinations on the region's railway network;
and in the wider region:
eliminating North-South Junction single-track rail bottleneck between Pukerua Bay and Paekakariki;
enabling passenger trains to pass on the Wairarapa Corridor north of Upper Hutt.
Declaration of interest: I am a member of this group, but I have taken no part in any aspect of this questionnaire since being nominated as a candidate.
1. What proportion of the transport funding in the Long Term Council Community Plan (LTCCP) of the Council you are standing for would you want to see devoted to:
a. Public transport? 40%
b. Walking (facilities and promotion)? 20%
c. Cycling (facilities and promotion)? 5%
Please explain these choices.
Public transport is the lifeblood of a successful city; walking is universal and economically and environmentally effiicient; cycling starts from a very low base (barely on the Long-Term Council Community Plan expenditure radar) and needs boosting for its environmental and economic benefits. This still leaves a substantial amount to be spent on roads, for safety measures and because they are used by public transport and active modes.
2. Do you support the following transport projects, where applicable:
Note: Options a-c are mutually exclusive. Each assumes that essential service vehicles would have limited access.
a. Turning the Golden Mile into a public transport corridor
b. Turning the Golden Mile into a pedestrian corridor
c. Turning the Golden Mile into a dedicated public transport/pedestrian space Yes
d. Extending the rail system through the Wellington CBD, by developing modern trams as a priority for the short term Yes
e. A Basin Reserve flyover No
f. Doubling the Terrace Tunnel No
g. Doubling the Mt Victoria Tunnel No
h. The Kapiti Expressway No
3. Do you support the creation of an integrated public transport system across the region? If so, what changes would you propose making to bring this about?
Yes - uniform Metlink branding (any operator branding should be subsidiary); fully integrated fares; fully integrated timetables
4. What do you consider should be the top transport priorities of the Council for which you are standing?
Full public transport priority along the Golden Mile;
improving/eliminating the Wellington Railway Station inter-modal interchange;
bus priority to the eastern suburbs;
inegrating the Cable Car with other public transport;
trolleybus wiring through the Miramar Cutting to speed up journeys to/from Miramar;
improved wharves for ferry services.
5. What are your own top transport priorities for the region?
Integated PT fares & services;
public transport priority along the Golden Mile;
rail penetration into the region's CBDs;
modern trams between the airport and destinations on the region's railway network;
and in the wider region:
eliminating North-South Junction single-track rail bottleneck between Pukerua Bay and Paekakariki;
enabling passenger trains to pass on the Wairarapa Corridor north of Upper Hutt.
Fluoridation of water
Fluoridation Action Network New Zealand has asked candidates about their views on fluoridation of water, and here are their questions and my answers.
Do you support fluoridation?
I do not in general support the principle of mass medication, but there appears to be considerable evidence that fluoridation has improved dental health. I would need to take a detailed look at independent peer-reviewed scientific evidence.
If not, what definite steps would you take, if you are elected, to stop fluoridation in this area?
If I came to the conclusion that continuing fluoridation was undesirable, I would use council procedures to try and stop it.
If you do support fluoridation, do you believe that it is acceptable for councillors to rely on the advice by the Ministry of Health and disregard the opinion of the people who pay for and drink the water?
The Ministry of Health is a major source of scientific and professional advice, and I am not aware of any great groundswell of public opinion in this matter. I don't see this as an "either/or" question since it's not clear to me that there are major differences here - but I'm willing to be educated!
If you are not sure, would you support a referendum or some sort of consultative process?
A consulative process would be a good idea, based on independent scientifically-verified and peer-reviewed evidence.
Do you support fluoridation?
I do not in general support the principle of mass medication, but there appears to be considerable evidence that fluoridation has improved dental health. I would need to take a detailed look at independent peer-reviewed scientific evidence.
If not, what definite steps would you take, if you are elected, to stop fluoridation in this area?
If I came to the conclusion that continuing fluoridation was undesirable, I would use council procedures to try and stop it.
If you do support fluoridation, do you believe that it is acceptable for councillors to rely on the advice by the Ministry of Health and disregard the opinion of the people who pay for and drink the water?
The Ministry of Health is a major source of scientific and professional advice, and I am not aware of any great groundswell of public opinion in this matter. I don't see this as an "either/or" question since it's not clear to me that there are major differences here - but I'm willing to be educated!
If you are not sure, would you support a referendum or some sort of consultative process?
A consulative process would be a good idea, based on independent scientifically-verified and peer-reviewed evidence.
What the Chamber of Commerce is asking
The Wellington Employers' Chamber of Commerce has asked the following of candidates for the city council:
The Wellington Employers’ Chamber of Commerce believes the calibre of the candidates is an important issue in the coming local government elections. We want to identify candidates who support and acknowledge actions and policies which will enhance Wellington as a good city to do business in. Responses to the following questions will be used by the Chamber to represent our members’ interests.
These are their questions, with my responses.
1. Please outline your vision for Wellington city in 2015?
A thriving, sustainable city that is a place of choice for people to live, work and play
2. Outline the specific initiatives you will support to ensure that Wellington has a business friendly environment.
• Create pedestrian-friendly environments in the CBD and suburban centres, to make them great places to work, shop and visit
• Create an efficient and effective public transport system, reflecting expert opinion worldwide that public transport is the lifeblood of the city
• Minimise non-productive transport costs by increase agglomeration and densification along major transport routes, and encouraging networking through such initiatives as high-speed broadband
3. Name five key priorities you see for infrastructural investment in Wellington over the next five-years.
• High-speed broadband
• Ensure basic services (eg water) are resilient and efficient
• Implement Ngauranga to Airport public transport solutions, including along the Golden Mile
• Fix major constraints to the rail system, eg North-South junction & lack of penetration into city centres
• Focus road expenditure on safety improvements and business and freight traffic, eg TDM, loading zones, possibly truck lanes, recognising that it is impossible to road-build out of congestion, and that international experience shows that expenditure on public transport and freight facilities is a greater stimulant for economic growth than road building for private cars
4. Please identify three courses of action you would want to promote to ensure a vibrant inner central city.
• Increase pedestrian-friendliness and access by public transport
• Divert the subsidy for parking at weekends to a similar subsidy for public transport, noting that parking is just one of the facilities that attracts shoppers, and is of lesser importance in the CBD than in suburban malls because of the CBD’s nature and structure.
• Encourage businesses and others to adopt and beautify public areas, increasing the attractiveness of the CBD
5. Name three actions that you will take to ensure Wellington delivers better service and value to rate payers and residents.
• Listen to ratepayers and residents, and respond
• Investigate properly the effects of major projects, rather than spending millions of dollars of ratepayer money only to have them overturned by the Environment Court (eg Hilton Hotel, moving the Free Ambulance building, the Marine Education Centre), the owner (eg turning the Johnsonville Line into a busway), or simple practical considerations (eg V8 car race). I took WCC to court over the Indoor Community Sports Centre because of its lack of compliance with WCC’s own rules, another elementary and expensive WCC oversight.
• Address residents’ dissatisfaction with current Annual Plan & LTCCP processes, and introduce meaningful performance measures
6. Would you support a rates target so that council’s rates income does not exceed the combined rate of inflation and population growth per year?
No – that’s far too simplistic an approach for a business the size and complexity of WCC. But there does need to be a strategic funding approach, ensuring WCC delivers value for money
7. Do you support the use of differential rates whereby business rate payers pay more than residential rate payers per dollar of rateable land? If so, why?
Where there is a difference in the level of services provided and where business ratepayers have the ability to recover such legitimate costs from their customers, yes.
8. What are your views on Council ownership of non-core assets including trading enterprises of Council i.e. those assets that are not essential to run local government? What do you define as core or strategic assets and why?
Council ownership of non-core assets is justified when it compensates for market failure, avoids monopolistic behaviour or provides a better return than other investments.
Council ownership of non-core land is justified when the land may become core in the future, eg a potential transport corridor
9. What are your views on the council’s use of debt to fund projects? Do you think the council has an appropriate level of debt?
It is normal for a business of WCC’s size to fund some projects through debt, particularly when benefits will accrue to future generations and the same should apply to costs.
I have seen no credible evidence that the current level of debt is unsustainable.
10. What are your views on council use of fees and charges?
WCC consults on this through the Annual Plan and the LTCCP, and the process seems reasonable.
11. Do you think the community should pay for its own water on a user pays basis?
Yes No
Comment
A mixture of the two. Water is a scarce commodity, and should be priced accordingly in order to maximise the economic benefit from its use. But it is also an essential of life and a social commodity, and as such price should not be a barrier to its use for basic needs. I favour user-pays above a basic level, and reducing the pressure on future water supply through such measures as rainwater tanks and grey water usage
12. What role should the council take on climate change and do you support the goal of carbon neutrality?
WCC needs to take steps to minimise its own and the city’s contribution to climate change and to mitigate the effects of such change. It needs to become carbon neutral in its own operations, and to have policies that encourage carbon neutrality in others’ activities. Done correctly, these initiatives will have positive effects both environmentally and economically.
13. What are your views on combining local authority service delivery, and amalgamations with neighbouring authorities? Should we have a super city in Wellington?
We don’t need a super city – there is no major problem that requires such an expensive and disruptive solution. Existing TAs co-operating over particular areas of service delivery is something that is worth exploring.
14. Do you think Councillors should be paid in proportion to the number of meetings they attend, or through a fixed annual fee, or in some other way?
Viewing councillors as purely attenders at official meetings would show a lack of understanding of the extent of their role, and would distort their activities if this were the sole basis of payment. Payment according to responsibility is more appropriate, with the ultimate arbiter being the electorate every three years.
A possible approach would be to carry out an annual formal public review of councillors’ performance, and use that as a basis for remuneration. The reviews done by The Wellingtonian show what could be done, but clearly the process would need a lot of development.
15. Do you think Wellington City Council should open a trade office in China?
No. I see no point in duplicating activities for which MFAT is responsible
16. List five keys issues that you consider need addressing by the Council in the next three-years
• Council decision-making processes re projects (see Q5 above)
• Poor economic and environmental performance of the Golden Mile as the region’s (and hence probably the country’s) busiest public transport corridor, in addition to its other roles
• Lack of public transport integration and lack of provision for freight transport and deliveries, both of these imposing avoidable costs on businesses and residents
• Carbon neutrality and climate change
• Inconsistent and sometimes contradictory WCC policies and behaviours
The Wellington Employers’ Chamber of Commerce believes the calibre of the candidates is an important issue in the coming local government elections. We want to identify candidates who support and acknowledge actions and policies which will enhance Wellington as a good city to do business in. Responses to the following questions will be used by the Chamber to represent our members’ interests.
These are their questions, with my responses.
1. Please outline your vision for Wellington city in 2015?
A thriving, sustainable city that is a place of choice for people to live, work and play
2. Outline the specific initiatives you will support to ensure that Wellington has a business friendly environment.
• Create pedestrian-friendly environments in the CBD and suburban centres, to make them great places to work, shop and visit
• Create an efficient and effective public transport system, reflecting expert opinion worldwide that public transport is the lifeblood of the city
• Minimise non-productive transport costs by increase agglomeration and densification along major transport routes, and encouraging networking through such initiatives as high-speed broadband
3. Name five key priorities you see for infrastructural investment in Wellington over the next five-years.
• High-speed broadband
• Ensure basic services (eg water) are resilient and efficient
• Implement Ngauranga to Airport public transport solutions, including along the Golden Mile
• Fix major constraints to the rail system, eg North-South junction & lack of penetration into city centres
• Focus road expenditure on safety improvements and business and freight traffic, eg TDM, loading zones, possibly truck lanes, recognising that it is impossible to road-build out of congestion, and that international experience shows that expenditure on public transport and freight facilities is a greater stimulant for economic growth than road building for private cars
4. Please identify three courses of action you would want to promote to ensure a vibrant inner central city.
• Increase pedestrian-friendliness and access by public transport
• Divert the subsidy for parking at weekends to a similar subsidy for public transport, noting that parking is just one of the facilities that attracts shoppers, and is of lesser importance in the CBD than in suburban malls because of the CBD’s nature and structure.
• Encourage businesses and others to adopt and beautify public areas, increasing the attractiveness of the CBD
5. Name three actions that you will take to ensure Wellington delivers better service and value to rate payers and residents.
• Listen to ratepayers and residents, and respond
• Investigate properly the effects of major projects, rather than spending millions of dollars of ratepayer money only to have them overturned by the Environment Court (eg Hilton Hotel, moving the Free Ambulance building, the Marine Education Centre), the owner (eg turning the Johnsonville Line into a busway), or simple practical considerations (eg V8 car race). I took WCC to court over the Indoor Community Sports Centre because of its lack of compliance with WCC’s own rules, another elementary and expensive WCC oversight.
• Address residents’ dissatisfaction with current Annual Plan & LTCCP processes, and introduce meaningful performance measures
6. Would you support a rates target so that council’s rates income does not exceed the combined rate of inflation and population growth per year?
No – that’s far too simplistic an approach for a business the size and complexity of WCC. But there does need to be a strategic funding approach, ensuring WCC delivers value for money
7. Do you support the use of differential rates whereby business rate payers pay more than residential rate payers per dollar of rateable land? If so, why?
Where there is a difference in the level of services provided and where business ratepayers have the ability to recover such legitimate costs from their customers, yes.
8. What are your views on Council ownership of non-core assets including trading enterprises of Council i.e. those assets that are not essential to run local government? What do you define as core or strategic assets and why?
Council ownership of non-core assets is justified when it compensates for market failure, avoids monopolistic behaviour or provides a better return than other investments.
Council ownership of non-core land is justified when the land may become core in the future, eg a potential transport corridor
9. What are your views on the council’s use of debt to fund projects? Do you think the council has an appropriate level of debt?
It is normal for a business of WCC’s size to fund some projects through debt, particularly when benefits will accrue to future generations and the same should apply to costs.
I have seen no credible evidence that the current level of debt is unsustainable.
10. What are your views on council use of fees and charges?
WCC consults on this through the Annual Plan and the LTCCP, and the process seems reasonable.
11. Do you think the community should pay for its own water on a user pays basis?
Yes No
Comment
A mixture of the two. Water is a scarce commodity, and should be priced accordingly in order to maximise the economic benefit from its use. But it is also an essential of life and a social commodity, and as such price should not be a barrier to its use for basic needs. I favour user-pays above a basic level, and reducing the pressure on future water supply through such measures as rainwater tanks and grey water usage
12. What role should the council take on climate change and do you support the goal of carbon neutrality?
WCC needs to take steps to minimise its own and the city’s contribution to climate change and to mitigate the effects of such change. It needs to become carbon neutral in its own operations, and to have policies that encourage carbon neutrality in others’ activities. Done correctly, these initiatives will have positive effects both environmentally and economically.
13. What are your views on combining local authority service delivery, and amalgamations with neighbouring authorities? Should we have a super city in Wellington?
We don’t need a super city – there is no major problem that requires such an expensive and disruptive solution. Existing TAs co-operating over particular areas of service delivery is something that is worth exploring.
14. Do you think Councillors should be paid in proportion to the number of meetings they attend, or through a fixed annual fee, or in some other way?
Viewing councillors as purely attenders at official meetings would show a lack of understanding of the extent of their role, and would distort their activities if this were the sole basis of payment. Payment according to responsibility is more appropriate, with the ultimate arbiter being the electorate every three years.
A possible approach would be to carry out an annual formal public review of councillors’ performance, and use that as a basis for remuneration. The reviews done by The Wellingtonian show what could be done, but clearly the process would need a lot of development.
15. Do you think Wellington City Council should open a trade office in China?
No. I see no point in duplicating activities for which MFAT is responsible
16. List five keys issues that you consider need addressing by the Council in the next three-years
• Council decision-making processes re projects (see Q5 above)
• Poor economic and environmental performance of the Golden Mile as the region’s (and hence probably the country’s) busiest public transport corridor, in addition to its other roles
• Lack of public transport integration and lack of provision for freight transport and deliveries, both of these imposing avoidable costs on businesses and residents
• Carbon neutrality and climate change
• Inconsistent and sometimes contradictory WCC policies and behaviours
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)