Auckland City politics
December 17th, 2007 at 7:41 am by David FarrarTwo good items from Cr Bhatnagar.
First he details how City Vision thought they could score some points by trying to perkbust something insignificant but symbolic such as the Koru Club cards for Councillors. They probably thought the C&R majority would resist. but not only did C&R vote to get rid of them, they commissioned a report on how the perk came about – and it was Hubbard and Hucker who introduced them in the last term. Wonderful own goal!
The other issue is more important, and that is the Council’s role in housing. I think Aaron has summed it up succintly:
C&R believes in trying to keep rates affordable for the many, rather than subsidising 100 houses for a few. In some ways, what we had last night was a clear contrast in ideology between the left and the right, so no surprises the passions were a little inflamed at times.
They were elected with a very clear mandate to reduce the amount rates have been rising by, and housing is very clearly a core responsibility of central Government. Local Government’s role is to set the rules around housing, not to be a landlord in my opinion.
Otherwise why not also have ratepayers start to fund local schools and hospitals also?
Now some could argue welfare, health and housing should not just be a central government concern, but a shared responsibility. That is a legitimate view. But the problem I have with that is it lessens accountability.
The more local government intervenes in the areas that traditionally are central Government’s the more it lets central Government off the hook. Because they can then blame local authorities for not contributing enough to schools or hospitals or houses in their area.
Related posts:
- Eight months dead in a council house
- The Auckland Super City Plan
- One city for Auckland
- The commies are right
December 17th, 2007 at 7:55 am
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !!!
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 8:05 am
We didn’t commission a report to find out about the Koru Club membership for politicians, we just asked the CEO at the council meeting who used the Koru Club membership and where did it come from. The CEO told the councillors that it was used by the Lords of the Junket, Hubbard and Hucker.
But I am still staggered, why would City Vision, the ticket responsible for record junketeering in the last council term, want to stand up against overseas travel perks? Did it simply not occur to them they would lose badly any argument involving overseas travel? Do they think they now have credibility on careful spending now that they are in opposition?
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 10:04 am
Now some could argue welfare, health and housing should not just be a central government concern, but a shared responsibility.
In some countries they are, and even the police are local rather than national, for example the UK and the US. In Australia all three are state rather than federal but they are not local.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 10:25 am
Poneke: One could make a case for us bring back provincial governments to run local health and police etc. But you’d only have half a dozen of them instead of the 72 local authorities we currently have.
I also think having a unified police force is one of the strengths of NZ.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 10:51 am
Yes indeed it is. In fact with only 4.2 million people. we are really only the size of a Victoria, so I don’t think we need to reinstate the provinces
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 11:20 am
Heard of Underwatermelon Man.
Didnt think so, but City ratepayers threw $300,000 at this failed musical when the CR last run the council ( and David Hay was running the Aotea centre Board)
I think the total of lost money when the council played promoter for musical theatre was about $2 million.
All under CR watch.
A bit rich to say a few trips by CV councillors was throwing ratepayers money around.
Didnt notice Aaron getting any Chairmans jobs on council committees.
In spite being a ‘full time ‘ councillor, and some new comers who never had any previous council experience jumping the queue.
The rugby union guy , who probably never went to a council meeting in his life now chairs the transport committee.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 11:28 am
GWW doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
I would refer him to http://www.the-edge.co.nz/corporate/The_Edge_Annual_Report_02.pdf
The Top of page six clearly shows the ratepayers didn’t bear a cost as a result of the loss made by this show at the Aotea Square back in 2002. All of this from a 30 second google search. Perhaps GWW might like to think before he/she shares their wisdom with us in the future.
Perhaps then GWW would agree that being lectured on careful spending and the reduction of perks by City Vision and Labour is like being taught ethics by a con artist.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 11:29 am
Aaron sums the affordable housing issue up nicely but he could have done it without the derogatory remarks about Cathy Casey, who is very sensible on many other issues. Housing affordability itself is PC speak for house prices being too high. We who can see that building 100 affordable houses is not going to solve the problems need to keep talking to the rational people in other parties until they see it too.
In fact, by building 100 affordable houses you are making the problem worse long term because you are letting central government off the hook for not implementing policies to take housing out of the export and investment market. We need policies that will stabilise house prices and turn our economy around sol that productive industry based on renewable resources will be the best investment. Only then can we hope to stem the flow of our best young people overseas – the very people we need here to help rebuild a country where effort is rewarded by the best housing being affordable for the hardest young workers.
Until we as a nation own this problem across the political spectrum we a doomed to continue our slide down the OECD.
Some policies worth consideration are
Vote:- re-introducing minimum % deposits required before you can get a loan
- phasing in fair and equitable taxes on all
December 17th, 2007 at 11:35 am
Oops
- phasing in fair, equitable, transpaent tax system on all income no matter where it comes from including buying and selling houses (at present because of reciprocal tax agreements foreigners are making a killing on our haousing market without paying much tax)
Vote:- phasing in disincentives (in a business friendly way) to investing in businesses based on non-renewable resources such as land and incentives to invest in clean lean green industires based on renewable resources. EG phase out the LAQC system for non-renewable based industry.
December 17th, 2007 at 11:38 am
Kevin, which derogatory remarks were you referring to? I have re-read the post DPF links to plus other posts but for the life of me can’t see what you are referring to.
As for describing Cr Casey as “sensible” on many other issues, we’ll agree to disagree on that one.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 11:42 am
Sorry Aaron, the Herald put better
The Edge, Auckland City’s ratepayer-subsidised entertainment business, has notched up a $4 million loss.
The financially troubled entertainment centre has had another dismal year at the box office.
The three big productions it invested in – Blood Brothers, Chicago and The Underwatermelon Man – lost a total of $591,000.
The risky business of picking box-office winners is one reason the budgeted deficit of $1.9 million ballooned out to $4 million.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=2797122
Just moving a loss from revenue to production money still makes it money down the drain.
Vote:The overall Loss is still in the millions.
Dont want to spend on low income housing when its all going on musicals or pantomines
December 17th, 2007 at 11:52 am
Aaron:
Don’t bother. Ghostie is the blog equivalent of this old joke: Q. How can you tell when your husband is lying? A. His lips move.
Still, nice to see GhostieWhoLies apparently regards any cultural activities as outside the core business of local government – and presumably any financial support of such fripperies should be eliminated immediately, and all assets sold immediately.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 11:54 am
Humble apologies Aaron, I meant Cactus Kate (http://asianinvasion2006.blogspot.com/2007/12/go-banksy-and-acc.html) – I’m very sorry. I have no idea how I got the two of you confused
I have only seen Cathy in action on the EA community board where she comes across as well researched and well reasoned. Misguided on this issue I agree, but for the future sustainability of Auckland we need as many people on side as possible to avoid these ludicrous swings in policy when the council changes.
If Cathy was truly concerned about affordable housing, as I am being the father of 5 children most of whom will have to go overseas to save the money for a house, then she would be better off lobbying her own party in central government to fix what is structurally wrong with the economy, if it’s not too late.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Perhaps then GWW will equally criticise the financial assistance for the AK05 and AK07 festivals, plus the ratepayer money put into many arts and cultural events. The Philharmonia, ATC, museum and motat all get subsidy too. Where then the outrage from GWW?
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Agree, DPF, on the areas of central Govt. responsibility and local govt. responsibility needing to be clearly demarcated.
It is no accident that the Clark Govt. has passed legislation that virtually gave the power of general competence to local govt.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
The Aotea Board under david hay was run the same as he runs his own companies, which is not very well. I have many dealings with them and I wonder how they stay in business.
Vote:Cr hay of course was convicted of failing to lodge a tax return which may give some idea.
December 17th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
‘C&R believes in trying to keep rates affordable for the many, rather than subsidising 100 houses for a few.’
That distills the issue nicely, Aaron. Keep it up.
Hilarious about the own goal.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
and no chairs..?.aaron..?…ouch..!
the rugger-bugger got transport..?
that musta hurt..!
and how is the wholesale/behind the scenes lobbying/pushing to sell/flog off the rest of the airport shares going then..?
nothing much about it in the media..?..eh..?
are you keeping that fairly quiet..are you..?
just an ‘announcement’ at some stage..?
(that is ‘the way of the right’..isn’t it..?
sorta ‘stealthily as she goes’..
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
‘C&R believes in trying to keep rates affordable for the many, rather than subsidising 100 houses for a few.’
This is an argument that can also be projected on to central government. For an argument to logically confront the subject idea, it has to explain the difference between local taxpayers paying for other people’s houses, and National taxpayers paying for other people’s houses. I can’t really see the difference. To me, the idea is just as bad no matter what level it is applied.
Vote: