The Editor, NZ Herald.                                                                                    5.3.17

Dear Sir,                    Letter to the Herald: Mr Goff’s Traffic ‘Solutions.’

Before the 2016 council elections I noted that most  mayoral candidates suggested they could  hold or reduce the rates.  I forecast that such a feat would simply mean that other ‘non-rate’ charges would be increased or introduced instead, and were simply more imposts on the ratepayers no matter what they were called.

Mr Goff has suggested the first of these – a ‘congestion tax’ and evades the impacts on most of us by saying it will “ bring a greater element of user pays into our funding system” – as if the users will not also include most ratepayers. Similar euphemisms will no doubt be used to place tolls on our motorways. – Surely all compulsory payments are taxes.

He says the “congestion tax ultimately is going to be the solution.”

Really? The solution to what? The misdirected and wasteful expenditure for which Auckland Transport is becoming notorious? The huge expense of an outdated and inflexible ‘solution’ of a subway in the CBD?  Inadequate numbers of buses and ferries?  Or the fundamental problem of the tidal wave of  uncontrolled immigration and speculation?

Both the former Labour government and current National government are responsible for these problems and creation of this super awful city.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

(Published in the NZ Herald, March 2017)

The Editor, North Shore Times, Albany.

Letter to the Editor

The Auckland Council CCO, Panuku Property Developments Ltd, has the task, of “recycling” (read selling) Council assets, which are “under utilised.”

One public asset going on the blocks is the Northcote Shopping Centre, established by the former Northcote Borough Council.

It was the first municipally-owned shopping centre in NZ, just in time for the opening of the Auckland Harbour Bridge and the large influx of new residents.

Council obtained a special Empowering Act from the Labour government allowing it to buy land for the centre, as well as other land for light industry. These two areas to provide local employment opportunities for the local population, and return funds from ground rentals to the Council to provide further benefits and facilities for the people of Northcote Borough.

This visionary thinking has provided many millions of dollars firstly, to the Borough Council and people of Northcote and later, to North Shore City.

The latest amalgamation into the inept “super” city has led to theproposal to sell the land, deemed “underperforming” and “surplus” to requirements.

I understand that much of the free parking area will be built on, two perfectly good, fairly modern public assets (NorthArt and the Public Library) demolished, and the important public park adjacent to the shopping centre taken over for construction machinery and materials.

Regrettably positive planning for public benefits seems to have died with this corporatized council and CCOs which seem charged to sell as much as possible for the benefit of the private sector. They seem not be required to obtain mandates from the people, Local Board, or Council.

We are in the hands of the Visigoths!

………………………..

(Published in the North Shore Times, 9.3.17)

 

Mr Stephen Town, Chief Executive, Auckland Council.

Dear Mr Town,

As I understand it, ACP Ltd (Panuku was established “to ensure an appropriate return on Auckland Council commercial property.” This was the only type of Council property in the company’s purview.

It was clearly stated that these were the “non-service property assets” of the Council and it was expressly stated also that the Council was to have an “in-house property department to manage its property being used for Council services, including parks, community facilities… social housing and office accommodation” and assets relating to its core services.

Therefore could you please advise me under what authority the Council has now re-classified these core services and placed such things as open space, parks, reserves and some council buildings in effect as commercial property to be handed over to the Property CCO as surplus and to be sold off through the CCO?

Could you also please advise me, where the same CCO draws its authority from to take control of and sell such non-commercial property? Is it not ultra vires?

I would like to see any professional legal advice on this matter as well as being informed please of any resolutions of Council and the CCO purporting to legalise these actions.

Thank you for your assistance.

THE ACT ENSURES:

• THE ‘STRONG’ MAYOR – SEPARATION
• THE SMALL NUMBER OF ELECTED MEMBERS
• THE DOMINATION OF THE STAFF – UNBRIDLED POWER (FROM THE BEGINNING) DARE TO REFUSE INFORMATION TO MAYOR AND COUNCILLORS
• ILLEGALITIES
• THE SEPARATION OF FUNCTIONS INTO INDEPENDENT CCOs
• THE LACK OF A PUBLIC SERVICE ATTITUDE AMONG THE STAFF.
• DOMINANCE OF PRIVATE ENTERPRISE IN CCOs
• THE UNITARY PLAN – INCOMPREHENSIBLE & REPRESSIVE
• ONE-SIDED AND OVERRIDING THEME OF INTENSIFICATION ON A GRAND AND YET DISORGANISED SCALE. PRO DEVELOPMENT AND PRO DEVELOPERS ABOVE EVERYTHING
• FIXATION ON ONLY ONE TRANSPORT ANSWER: THE MOST EXPENSIVE AND THE MOST INFLEXIBLE OF ALL POSSIBLE ANSWERS. – LOOKING BACKWARDS RATHER THAN AT MODERN, HIGHLY FLEXIBLE AND MUCH CHEAPER ANSWERS.
• THIS RESULTING IN AN IMPOSSIBLE 10 YEAR BUDGET REQUIRING ALL SORTS OF CUTS IN SERVICES, NOT TO MENTION GIVING AN EXCUSE TO BEGIN MAJOR ASSET SALES TO ASSIST THE MAYOR’S DIABOLICAL PLAN
• SIDELINING OF COUNCIL BY THE MAYOR AND OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCILLORS BY CCO “INITIATIVES”
• THE SET UP IS SUCH THAT IT ENDANGERS IMPARTIAL AND OBJECTIVE INFORMATION AND ADVICE, AND THEREFORE GOOD DECISION-MAKING. IT HAS THE ADDED PROBLEM OF BEING RECIPE FOR CORRUPTION TO ARISE. (SFO)
• THE PORTS FIASCO
• A MAYOR WITH NO MORAL STANDING FOLLOWING HIS AFFAIR. A LIMPING MAYOR.
• OVERSEAS ‘APPOINTMENTS’ (DUPLICATING GOVT TASKS)
• HIGH LEVELS OF SECRECY. EXTREMELY POOR CONSULTATION. OFTEN CONFINED TO SO-CALLED “STAKE HOLDERS” WHICH MEANS MONEYED OF SELF-INTEREST GROUPS, NOT GRASS ROOTS IN DEPTH CONSULTATION.
• THE COLOSSAL COCK-UP OF THE “CONSULTATION” REQUIRED BY THE LONG TERM FINANCIAL PLAN OF COUNCIL. PROBABLY SOME OF THE HIERARCHY WEREN’T KEEN TO GET TOO MANY INFORMED AND SO MUCH WAS LEFT OUT OR ATTEMPTED TO GET THE ANSWERS THEY WANTED TO HEAR (GIVE THE EXAMPLE RE RATES/PETROL TAX/TOLLS ETC.) THE ‘DO YOU WANT TO BE HANGED, GUILLOTINED OR SHOT’ SIMILE)

Postscript:

Criminal charges have been laid after a long Serious Fraud Office investigation into alleged contracting irregularities at Auckland Transport.

Contracts worth millions of dollars are understood to have been under the forensic microscope since the SFO began its investigation, in September 2013, into dealings between officers of the council body’s road maintenance division and project management firms. 

How could all of this happen? Ask the government, they imposed this plague upon us all.

(April 2015)