Tag Archives: Local Government

Shift Over Auckland Council

Posted on by

Time For the Private Sector to get involved

 

With The Clunker

 

Disclaimer: I haven’t had to put one of these in here but in this case I do. I do declare a ‘Conflict of Interest’ in this post as I am the Managing Director of TotaRim Consultancy Limited – a consultancy firm that does deal with Urban and Transport Planning/Management. However the point made in this post does stand with bringing in the private sector for the next round of engagement processes. 

 

 

I have been watching the developments of Councillor George Wood’s Notice of Motion involving The Clunker and the results that have come from it. The Notice of Motion per page 7 of the Auckland Council Governing Body Agenda was the following:

10 Notices of Motion
10.1 Notice of Motion – Cr Wood – Unitary Plan notification
In accordance with Standing Order 3.11.1, the following Notice of Motion has been received from Cr George Wood for inclusion on the agenda for the Governing Body meeting being held on Tuesday, 23 April 2013. There has not been a similar notice of motion within the previous six months.
Motion
That the Governing Body:
a) consider provision is made for a more in-depth mediation between Auckland Council and submitters to occur before the Unitary Plan is formally notified and therefore the current time frame planned for deliberations on the submissions and the September notification date be extended.
Background
Cr George Wood has provided background information in the attachment.
Attachments
A Cr George Wood’s Notice of Motion……………………………………………………. 39

 

Page 39 can be accessed from the hyperlink above in blue.

 

The result from yesterdays Notice of Motion was the following:

I am happy that what I set out to achieve with my Notice of Motion has more or less been accomplished. Further interface with the community will occur following the closure of the current submission period on 31 May. This is a major improvement on the process and one that will give a lot of the community comfort.

This backs up what was in the NZ Herald‘s article titled “Unitary Plan deadline will stay – Brown” this morning:

…

A group of councillors, led by George Wood, yesterday tried to extend the timeframe for the rulebook – or Unitary Plan – beyond the local body elections in October.

Most councillors voted for a compromise solution that will include further engagement with Aucklanders after the May 31 deadline for feedback on the draft plan.

It is possible this solution could have the same effect of delaying formal notification of the Unitary Plan – set down for September – until after the election. This would push it out until next year.

Mr Wood cited community concerns at Milford and Devonport in his North Shore ward for the council playing a game of “Russian roulette” before the Unitary Plan was notified.

…

 

Okay so this has come about with some “further engagement” to happen post May 31 – the deadline for the first round of feedback but before formal notification of The Unitary Plan (whenever that now is).

Personally to me this is more of an annoyance than anything else what has come about from the Notice of Motion. My reaction from what came out of the Governing Body yesterday was the following:

Ben Ross : Auckland · 61 like this

13 hours ago ·

  • I am beginning wonder if the nine Councillors concerned should be spending more time with the community and less time on the waves about the UP. Short of Central Government pulling one off I do not see anything changing soon so it is time to best use with the cards we have here.
    If I can make heads and tails of this and run informative commentary on the Unitary Plan – then I don’t see why the Councillors can not. (Either that or I start billing them $500/hour + Disbursements + GST to do their informative and consultation work for them)

    Ben Ross : Auckland And TotaRim Consultancy Limited is already geared up to take on such affairs here in Auckland

 

(And yes folks I am GST registered with the company also registered with the Companies Office – so all legit and above-board)

 

So for those that can adapt to having some of the rules changed – but still with the same cards still in your hands it is time to best make what has resulted. What does that mean this end? BR:AKL and Unitary Plan Community Meetings wise it means carry on as normal. However, on my entrepreneurial side it does mean position oneself to take an opportunity presented by the Governing Body.

 

Meaning?

 

If Council is dead serious with pursuing “further engagement” post May 31 but prior to notification then I am calling for Council to shift over and let the private sector step in for this “further engagement” phase.  As I said: ‘I am beginning wonder if the nine Councillors concerned should be spending more time with the community and less time on the waves about the UP. Short of Central Government pulling one off I do not see anything changing soon so it is time to best use with the cards we have here.

If I can make heads and tails of this and run informative commentary on the Unitary Plan – then I don’t see why the Councillors can not. (Either that or I start billing them $500/hour + Disbursements + GST to do their informative and consultation work for them)”

 

So I do honestly wonder if the Councillors can not grasp this now then how on Earth are they going to grasp it post May 31 in the “further engagement” process. Thus I call for Council to shift over and allow the private sector to undertake the process of this “further engagement.” My reasons (but not limited to)?

  • Neutrality away from the Councillors, Local Boards, Mayor and Bureaucrats (nothing stopping them representing but a “one step of separation” measure has been introduced to take off the direct effects situation)
  • Nimble and flexibility (including use of resources) to the changing environment when out consulting the communities. This includes pulling off a better result in getting feedback from RIGHT ACROSS THE CITY – something the public meetings are failing at rather badly (and as I have commented on before)
  • Fresh set of eyes, ears, and (hate to say it) brains to go over the complex document and all the feedback collected thus far
  • Professional second opinion
  • [will add more as it comes to mind]

 

Before someone quotes Conflict of Interest in getting the private sector to undertake the next round of “further engagement” rather than Council; I can fire right back that Council in its entirety has a larger conflict of interest when ever the line between bureaucrat and politician starts to get blurred. Specialist consultancy firms are already bundling up submissions on behalf of their private sector clients as one would expect. So it is up to Council to be more proactive and search out more reputable sources who can act neutral and undertake the “further engagement” round. Either that or Catch-22 will apply to this UP process.

 

Some might agree (looking a feedback received thus far it would seem that way) with the sentiment I have, others might not. Even though I am running commentary flat tact with the Unitary Plan through the blog and community meetings as noted in my “A CASE OF CIVIC DUTY,” there will be a time where I will flip over from “civil duty” to a more “professional” tact for my Unitary Plan work.

 

Above all else though; my own submission writing for the Unitary Plan continues as I hit draft version 8 at this point and time.

 

BEN ROSS : AUCKLAND

BR:AKL: Bring Well Managed Progress

The Unitary Plan: Bringing Change

Auckland: 2013 – OUR CITY, OUR CALL

 

2013 – #3

Posted on by

Who will Be the Next Mayor or Councillor

 

Another blog  ran a post on who will be mayor and who will be our councillors that make up the next Auckland Council after we post our ballots next year for the Local Government Elections.

 

I was searching through my posts from this year and found past commentary on my take of the Local Government Elections next year and found that; “yep – we are still heading down that path.”

 

So for a recap on 2013, I shall link my 2013 articles here as an easy reference for your holiday thinking:

  1. 2013

  2. 2013 – PART TWO

  3. 2013 – YOUR CITY – YOUR CALL! # INTRO #

  4. 2013 – YOUR CITY – YOUR CALL! #1

  5. 2013 – YOUR CITY – YOUR CALL! #2

  6. 2013 – YOUR CITY – YOUR CALL! #3

  7. 2013 – YOUR CITY – YOUR CALL! #4

 

Quite comprehensive isn’t it? And the coverage of 2013 – Your City – Your Call will start in earnest next month especially as I ramp up my campaign for Papakura Local Board next year.

 

And oh, Communities and Residents (C&R) must be have a strategy session over the break if they want to achieve that 6-seat swing in Council to regain control…

 

Fun times ahead for all – indeed :o

 

Local Board Service Provisions Falter

Posted on by

Local Boards Starved of Needed Cash – So Another Way to Provide Local Services?

 

Just recently Manurewa Local Board Chair – Angela Dalton posted some rather sad pictures on the state of affairs in regards to maintenance to civic places like parks and berms in Manurewa. I’ll let the photos do the talking here:

 

Now after Angela had posted the photos, the Council contractor raced out with the mowers to err trim the grass – and leave it all behind (which would have made great hay for my chickens) (oh and miss the edges too). However as the Manurewa and Papakura Local Boards will attest to, service provisions for these Local Boards from the main Council and its contractors who look after civic places has basically fallen off a cliff. And these Local Board Service Provision stories I keep seeing on Facebook due to either Local Boards facing cuts in their budgets to fund provisions or services, or super city amalgamation being a catalyst to decrease in either services or quality of services are appearing time and time again.

 

So the question is ‘what on earth is going on here?’ Why are our Local Boards being hurt with inadequate service provisions and ratepayers/communities having to suffer from reduced service levels from Auckland Council. Last month I ran a post (AN INVESTIGATION) highlighting the discussion about rates and service provisions to our local communities.

I had basically said that we need to look at how we fund things, how we fund the Local Boards, and how the Local Boards should be properly resourced to provide adequate service provisions for their communities. An example of what I said was:

Just a refresher (just in case) Bulk Funding the Local Boards goes like this. Orakei currently pays $106m in rates to the “Council” yet “Council” only gives $10m (about 10%) back to Orakei to run its Local Board and services. The proposal I am running with is Orakei pays $106m to “Council” and Council gives back (and that is a must, no if’s buts or maybes) 25-33% (up to Local Board’s decision on level) back to Orakei so Orakei can run and maintain its Local Community Services, Events plus any CAPEX spending as it sees fit (of course with dialogue with its residents and businesses).

The Governing Body can not touch the 33% as it is ring fenced to Local Boards. This also includes the Governing Body unable to hike the rates beyond 1.6x the rate of inflation at max with all spending spelled out per the current Better Local Government MK II Bill/Act/Paper

You can read the rest of that post by clicking HERE.

 

After I posted the “An Investigation” post, Botany National MP – Jami-Lee Ross posted and kicked off this discussion with me about Local Board funding and service provisions”

 

Rates Due to Hike Again – So Time for An Investigation

Okay, some idiot in Council mentioned rates and rates rises again giving the hapless ratepayer a sour stomach as we approach Summer and the Silly Season (although for Council, it is always the Silly Season with the Ratepayer Credit Card). Here is a piece from Councillor Cameron Brewer via Facebook with all the comments below (I am pasting this to draw context on where I am going with this):

 

  • Andy Cawston likes this.
  • Jami-Lee Ross In my view, the simplest way to fund local services would be as follows:
    1) have a clear definition of what is local and what is regional
    2) everything regional is funded from a general rate set by governing body. They are accountable for it. 
    3) everything local is funded from a local services targeted rate, funded from within that ward and kept within that ward. Local board set this targeted rate and are accountable for it. No cross subsidisation on local projects. Complete control for local boards when it comes to local issues. High spending local boards can spend whatever they want. Frugal local boards can likewise do so and not see their savings going back into the general pool.

    This model would ring-fence local funding for local initiatives, but would still see regional infrastructures and services funded. It would empower local boards much more as well as demand greater accountability.
  • Ben Ross You and I are on the exact same page here Jami-Leein regards to your comment :D:D Now then can we do such a thing or do we need you guys (Central Govt) to a legislation change?
  • Jami-Lee Ross Auckland can do that by itself. It would just require discipline and a willingness by the governing body.
  • Ben Ross Okay so in other words a great amount of difficulty then :P:P if you know what I mean
  • Jami-Lee Ross Im not sure we are on the same page – bulk funding as you describe it would see the governing body still in control of the level of funding to local boards. I would suggest LBs decide themselves and be accountable for it. If LB-A wants to ramp local rates up by 25%, they should be able to, but have to fund that from within their own local board area. If LB-B wants to have a 25% cut in local rates, they should also be able to, but have to find the saving within their own area.
  • Ben Ross Okay a similar page then but none the less ideas that can be worked on. We are both wanting similar outcomes just at this point in time different ways in achieving it. Although I am sure we can flesh out points and build a solid idea/proposal/case
  • Jami-Lee Ross It’s all academic anyway. Chances of seeing the governing body give up some power is near zero.
  • Ben Ross Sadly yes

A good discussion of ideas there about Local Board funding and service provisions. And a (mature) discussion to be honest and frank we as a community and a city need to have.

I’ll tell you what, I will go look into these ideas some more and get back to you. However I am willing to run in my election to Papakura Local Board next year stating that; If elected to Papakura Local Board 2013, I will advocate and push for a full and frank discussion with the residents and businesses inside the Papakura Local Board area on Local Board Funding and Service Provision. Do you want the status quo as currently; or do you want something like bulk funding and increased “power” over your Local Board service provisions whether it be the method I suggest OR the method Jami-Lee Ross suggested. Which ever option you chose will be the option pushed to lobby the main Council/Governing Body!

Just a quick note though, the wheels of the governing body and bureaucracy turn slow. So even if and when the discussion began, it will take some time to push the governing body and bureaucracy to change and adopt the provisions you want for your community. Patience would be the key thing here, something even I need and have to persevere with as we go through the motions with the Manukau South Link.

 

Service provisions for our Local Boards funded or provided by the main Council is a sore point with local residents, businesses, communities and Local Boards. Alternatives are being searched for and once found should be presented to the local community/communities for their input and discussion. At the end of the day it is the local that gets stuck with how and what local service provisions are provided and funded for – whether it be from the main Council or via bulk funding. I am ready to have that robust discussion for a Better Papakura and Better Auckland – are you?

 

From David Thorton – Wages and Actual Representation

Posted on by

David Thorton Comments on the Current Situation Around Council and High End Labour Costs

 

 

From David Thorton (all references, rights and credits to David Thorton)

 

Auckland Council salaries – my thoughts.

The news that Auckland Council Chief Executive, Doug McKay, is paid an annual salary of $750,000 should not come as a surprise.
Mr McKay is responsible for managing a staff of 8,000, including the Council Controlled Organisations [CCOs], and a capital and operating budget of well over $3 billion.

However the report that 1,165 staff are paid $100,000 is surprising as that represents 14% of the total of 8,000 employees. These salary figures are directly related to the sheer size of the organisation, the largest local authority in the Southern Hemisphere, and larger than any local authority in Europe, and possibly any country which operates on the English style of local councils.

That size has presented a real problem for the Mayor and Councillors, none of whom had any experience of governance of such a huge organisation.
This was a significant challenge facing newly elected members and it must be said that this first Council has failed to meet that challenge.
The record of political decision-making during these first two years has provoked strong anti-council feelings among ratepayers and residents.
The root of the problem is that too much political decision-making power has been placed in too few hands, The Chief Executive is paid to manage the organisation, which, in my experience is functioning reasonably well in terms of the mechanisms required for such a large organisation.
But the political representation needs an urgent review, particularly in respect of the ability of ratepayers and residents to influence decision-making.
A stronger representative structure, with more control passing down to purely local levels, would start to put the ‘local’ back into local government.
And bringing back some of the CCOs under direct council control should reduce the number of six-figure salary earners.
-ends-
My comment to David’s last three sentences can be seen at my COMMENT ON OUR TOWN CLERK post where I too call for the restoration of Local meaning Local!
A piece from that post:

And as my first piece of “policy” I am setting about research in the feasibility of resetting funding back towards Local Boards to adequately fund community services, advocacy and capital projects. Using a particular Local Board as an example, the community inside that Local Board’s jurisdiction pay $106 million in rates to Auckland Council but only get 10% (if that back) per year to fund those “community services, advocacy and capital projects.” I believe control needs to come back to the local level away from the disconnected central body (Council and the Bureaucracy) thus between 25-33% of all rates revenue from a Local Board’s ratepayers should come straight back to the Local Board for those “community services, advocacy and capital projects.” Why? Because Local Boards are more accessible and responsive to the needs of their communities than the central body of Council and the bureaucracy ever could. And yes that means shifting some of the “responsibilities” over to Local Boards away from the central body. But proper resources and staff (that Boards do not have) would and should be able to handle this move.

So time for some research on the above policy. If it is feasible then we run with it and advocate strongly to Auckland Council, if non-feasible then back to the drawing board. But in any case I am putting the above policy out there for consideration and dialogue (leave comments below).

 

I will continue to develop ideas and write commentary as we progress to 2013 and the Local Government Elections. Dialogue and constructive comments are welcome as always.

 

BEN ROSS : AUCKLAND

Shining The Light –
To a Better Auckland

Auckland 2013: YOUR CITY – YOUR CALL

2013 – YOUR CITY – YOUR CALL! #2

Posted on by

2013 – YOUR CITY – YOUR CALL!

 

It Starts NOW

 

(Well as far as I am concerned it does)

 

Professor Wendell Cox talks about – Regionalism (Or Super City-ism)

From his New Geography piece: Regionalism: Spreading the Fiscal Irresponsibility.

 

From the 2013 Local Election page here at VOAKL:

View of Auckland will be exclusively shining the light at the upcoming Election and subsequent campaign as incumbent councillors, Local Board members, the mayor, plus candidates wanting the fore-mentioned positions of Office go out and “work the floor” for our vote (the one’s that can be bothered to do so).

 

Professor Cox wrote an article at New Geography on the pitfalls on “Regionalism,” or in our own way “Super Cities.” You can read his article at New Geography by hitting the link above. What I intend to do in this “Your City, Your Call” series article is highlight the observations Professor Cox has made over in the USA in regards Regionalism, and see what if any comparisons can be made here in New Zealand. Okay this piece might be more for the Super City wonks, but I’ll endeavour to point out how “Regionalism” (as Professor Cox put it) has actually affected Auckland and possibly soon other areas in New Zealand (especially Wellington).

Professor Cox pointed out six aspects that in his academic opinion are the implications regionalism has against the ordinary citizen (notice I said against not for), they are:

  1. Smart Growth
  2. Regionalism
  3. Local Government Amalgamation
  4. Regional Tax Sharing
  5. Spreading the Financial Irresponsibility
  6. Either Way the Threat is Very Real

 

As I said earlier, you can read the six aspects against the ordinary citizen or ratepayer in Professor Cox’s Regionalism: Spreading the Fiscal Irresponsibility.

 

Now the question is how does those six aspects affect Auckland and why am I shining the light at this. The answer is simple. Check your rates and water rates bills – do they alarm you? Does Council spending alarm you? Does paying more for the same if not less level of services provided by Council alarm you? Does being roughshod by Council or the Council Control Organisations alarm you? If you answered yes to any of this then what I am going to say below might be of interest to you.

This is my take on each of the six aspects pointed out from Professor Cox.

Smart Growth

I do not believe in it and when compiling my submission to The Auckland Plan I basically said I was dead against the aspects of Smart Growth. I favour the more liberal mixed approach where you have some intensification (Brownfield) development and some sprawl (Greenfield) development. The market would be the best provider of which is needed more or less and all Council has to do is lay the zones and “assist” in providing the core infrastructure. Citizens, businesses, developers, investors, and industries build, maintain and give life to cities – not Councils and certainly not their bureaucrats called Planners. So to me Council needs to butt out and provide the basics for the City of Auckland, we will do the rest.

 

Regionalism

It’s here and happened as Auckland is now one big super city with one Council and Mayor. What we have to watch and as I have alluded to in an earlier post is the patch verse regional methods of thinking. Unfortunately for Auckland we got lugged with a system where we have Wards elect their councillor(s) who then sit around the Council table with the Mayor and supposedly represent their Ward’s views. We did not get a system where Auckland has a mix of Ward councillors representing their Wards and Councillors at-large elected by the entire City (so they have no Wards). The purpose of “at-large” Councillors was to give a sense of balance to the Council. The Ward Councillors could focus on their Wards while at-large Councillors focus on the region of Auckland as a whole. However we have what we have and it runs the risk of “patch-wars” (as seen in the Long Term Planning forums) where people are focused solely on their patches and not the region as the whole. That in itself is not good as you get fragmentation, and as you know fragmentation gets us no-where.

So what can we do about this, especially as the rates debate has bitterly divided the city. To be honest there is not a lot with the current legislation, so reaching out and fostering cooperation amongst the wards is the best approach we have.

 

Local Government Amalgamation

I highly suggest reading the New Geography article first to get Professor Cox’s take on this. In particular it is this point I want to raise:

Yet the “bigger is better” faith in local government amalgamation remains compelling to many from   both the Right and Left. Proponents claim that smaller local governments are obsolete, characterizing them as being from the horse-and-buggy era. The same logic could be used to eliminate county and even state governments. However, democracy remains a timeless value. If people lose control of their governments to special interests (which rarely, if ever, lobby for less spending), then democracy is lost, though the word will still be invoked.

Support of local government amalgamation arises from a misunderstanding of economics, politics and incentives (or perhaps worse, contempt for citizen control). When two jurisdictions merge, everything is leveled up, from labor costs to service levels. The labor contracts, for example, will reflect the wage, benefit and time off characteristics of the more expensive community, as the Toronto “megacity” learned to its detriment.

Further, special interests have more power in larger jurisdictions, not least because they are needed to finance the election campaigns of elected officials, who always want to win the next election. They are also far more able to attend meetings – sending paid representatives – than local groups. This is particularly true the larger the metropolitan area covered, since meeting are usually held in the core of urban area not in areas further on the periphery. This greater influence to organized and well-funded special interests – such as big real estate developers, environmental groups, public employee unions – and drains the influence of the local grassroots. The result is that voters have less influence and that they can lose financial control of larger local governments.The only economies of scale in larger local government benefit lobbyists and special interests, not taxpayers or residents.

The last part in bold is the “hitting the nail on the head” point that caught my attention the most. Because it is damn well true and Aucklanders know it. How much influence has the average ratepayer (business and resident) lost towards Auckland Council due to these special interests which included our Council Controlled Organisations – The CCOs. Do I need to point out a list of how the average ratepayer got the bum’s rush due to these special interests:

  1. The V8s and Councillor Goudie’s rather stupid declaration
  2. The Local Government New Zealand Conference in Queenstown (which reminds me I need to follow that up)
  3. The Long Term Plan
  4. The Auckland Plan
  5. The Cruise Ship Terminal

The list could go on.

What can we do? The best weapon’s is two-fold: first continue to shine the light onto Council and the CCOs and ask those brutal questions as it is our democratic right to do so; second elect representatives who are honest and with integrity who will remain open and honest, but most of all help in shining that light into the dark murky corners of Council and the CCOs. Now I know both are tough especially when options are so few (the second one comes to mind most) but at the end of the day:

 Citizens, businesses, developers, investors, and industries build, maintain and give life to cities – not Councils and certainly not their bureaucrats called Planners. Because OUR CITY, OUR CALL!

 

Regional Tax Sharing

In my intro post to the Your City – Your Call series I had mentioned this:

“I also agree with Desley, Orakei paying $105m in rates and only getting $10m approx back to the Local Board for local operations and projects is a bit off. If the Super City was done properly 25-33% of a Ward’s rates should go straight back to the Local Board to use as they (and their residents) see fit.”

And I strongly believe in that as I have seen money being stripped from Local Boards and dumped into the CBD or things like the V8s. Manurewa Local Board and its Chair Angela Dalton can give a testament to Council stripping her Local Board of cash and sending it else where. In my submission to the Auckland Plan, I was a strong believer in giving the Local Boards true power and actual money to do their jobs. Although in my submission it was in the case to urban planning (page 27 it gets the first mention), it can be easily extended to other aspects like pools and parks as well.

 

So if Council had half a clue then between 25-33% of all revenue from rates in a particular Ward should be given back to the Ward via The Local Board, from the Governing Body so The Local Board can provide the local services for its communities. And by services I mean (for example):

  • Libraries
  • Pools
  • Community Centres
  • Local Parks and Gardens
  • Local Roads (in coordination with Auckland Transport)
  • Local Events (or in cooperation with Council if deemed a regional event)
  • Advocacy for citizens
  • Sports fields (in coordination with Council)
  • Maintenance and enhancement of local town centres
  • Over-seeing any urban development in their area
  • Small-scale capital projects

How this could work is that a cap of say 33% of all rates revenue raised can be given back to the particular Local Board to do as they need in service provision depending on the Local Board’s ten year and annual plans. So if for the 2012/2013 year Papakura Local Board needed 20% of revenue it raised to carry out its functions then it would get the 20% from Council. In the 2013/2014 year the Local Board need the full 33% due to some capital projects then it will get the full 33% from Council. Finally in the 2014/2015 year the Local Board did some savings and finished it capital projects so only requested 19% from Council to which it would get. Furthermore, if the Local Board did not spend its budget for the year, then it would carry over for up to a maximum of five years or 50% of their average revenue (over the life of the Long Term Plan)(so which ever is first up) before the Local Board surrendered the surplus back to the Governing Body.

This way I believe we get a better return from our Local-Community Democracy (the Local Board) where the Boards have real money for real service provision while being able to be the advocacy point for locals in the community – unlike current.

 

There is one revenue sharing gripe I do have and it is with Central Government. You see with our rates bill, it includes the 15% GST which goes straight to Central Government’s coffers and to me that blows. I therefore suggest two things to Central Government:

  1. Give all the GST collected from our rates back to the city. You might find Council being able to afford the CRL a little bit better than current.
  2. Or if you can’t or won’t do that then remove GST off our rates and save us 15%

Technically a win-win-win no matter which of the options you take. Take option one and Council would be able to fund more things although it then has an incentive to drive rates up to get more GST revenue back. Take option two and with the savings we get on our rates the money re-enters the economy increasing the tax-take anyhow.

So sharpen up your pencil Bill English – Minister of Finance and share the cash.

 

Spreading the Financial Irresponsibility

This bit caught my attention:

The voters are no match for the spending interests with more efficient access to City Hall. The incentives in such larger jurisdictions are skewed against fiscal responsibility and the interests of taxpayers. Making an even larger pool of tax revenues available can only make things worse.

At the same time, the smaller, suburban jurisdictions around the nation are often the bright spot in an environment of excessive federal, state and larger municipal government spending. Their governments, close to the people, are the only defense against the kind of beggar-the-kids-future spending that has already captured the federal government, state governments and some larger local jurisdictions.

Yeah well we can see that already happening in Auckland with those special interests now near the tap of larger pool of rates revenue. More revenue – more spending. And our Council is being damn reckless with its spending as the bitter rates debate is showing.

I have a challenge to Council, shave 10% off your OPEX bill (in real times) by the end of the current long-term plan (2022). It just might mean an actual reduction in our rates bill coupled with a healthier city not burden by Council debt or fiscal irresponsibility. Tough challenge but I say it can be done because we SHOULD ALL LIVE WITHIN OUR MEANS.

Just on that I picked up a comment on Facebook and it went something like this:

Households set a budget by drawing up the income first then drawing up the expenses that it can afford from its income. If expenses exceed income it is either cut costs, raise more revenue, or run with debt in hoping to pay it down rather soon. If income exceeds expenses you either spend more, invest, pay down debt or save – rather simple.

Council does the opposite. Draw up your expenses then work out how to get the revenue to pay for your expenses. Rather than draw up your revenue first then work out what the heck you can afford.

Something does seem fishy with that analogy does it not? Time to correct it next year when you elect your new Council, Mayor and Local Boards. As Council should: draw up your revenue first then work out what the heck you can afford. 

 

Either Way the Threat is Very Real

A message to Wellington and others up to be Super City sized. Be-wary! Auckland is still going through its infancy of Regionalism – Super City-ism in which is having mixed results. 2013 ratepayers will determine the threat of being relegated below special interest groups as our money gets pissed away like it from some limitless source while our sense of democracy including holding those in Council accountable is diminished.

For me personally I will be looking for (when choosing a representative and mayor) who will be: fiscally responsible with MY money, actively LISTEN to what I have to say, engage in DIALOGUE not Monologue, properly resource my Local Board so it can provide advocacy on my behalf and run our community facilities, and stay the heck out of my way as

 Citizens, businesses, developers, investors, and industries build, maintain and give life to cities – not Councils and certainly not their bureaucrats called Planners.

 

Because OUR CITY, OUR CALL!

 

2013 – YOUR CITY – YOUR CALL!

 

 

References

Submission to The Auckland Plan

Submission to The Long Term Plan