The Auckland District Court has ruled that the Council is free to apply at the High Court to sell activist Penny Bright’s house to collect the Rates arrears going back to 2008.
From Radio NZ
House can be sold over unpaid rates
Updated at 6:38 pm on 24 October 2014
The hopes of Auckland activist Penny Bright of stopping authorities from selling her home for unpaid rates have been dashed by the district court.
And a trip to Armageddon Labour Weekend is HERE! For some that means going away, for others it is the peak Spring to Summer Garden Time, and for others … Continue reading Labour Weekend
Auckland Council CEO details options to prevent forced house sale
Auckland Council CEO Stephen Town has today written to Penny Bright making it clear that the forced sale of her house because of her long-term overdue rates arrears was not the council’s preferred course of action.
Legal proceedings to recover the $33,288.25 of her outstanding arrears would result in the sale of her Kingsland house. Ratings sales are rare as most ratepayers with overdue rates make suitable arrangements with council to pay.
Mr Town says that in her case, as with other outstanding rate arrears cases, the council would prefer to resolve the payment without having to resort to legal action.
In his letter, Mr Town has reminded Ms Bright of the options available to pay her rates which includes a rates postponement.
Council has provisionally assessed her rates arrears situation against the criteria for a postponement of rates and concluded that this option would be available to Ms Bright. This would be on the basis that she applies and is willing to meet and adhere to the requirements of a repayment scheme.
“Ms Bright has today indicated her interest in a rates postponement option. We have provided her with a way forward and the name of a senior council staff member who can assist. The ball is now in her court,” says Mr Town.
“The council has a responsibility to ensure there is a fairness and equity in the payment of rates for all ratepayers and we have tried for over seven years to encourage Ms Bright to pay her rates.”
To date, 20,051 Auckland ratepayers have qualified for a rates rebate and council has agreed to a rates postponement for 337 households.
Aucklanders are being urged to have their say on where psychoactive substances, commonly known as legal highs, can be sold in the city.
The council’s Local Approved Product Policy consultation, which will decide where the products can be sold, opens on Tuesday 28 October and proposes that:
Licenses to sell legal psychoactive substances in all of Auckland (apart from the city centre) will not be granted in:
areas of high deprivation
neighbourhood centres
within 500m of a school teaching students year seven and above
within 200m of a school teaching students between years one and six inclusive
within 500m of a mental health or addiction treatment centre
within 500m of an existing psychoactive substances retail licence
areas identified as restricted areas.
Licenses to sell legal psychoactive substances in the city centre will not be granted:
in areas of residential deprivation
within 100m of an existing psychoactive substances retail licence.
Councillor George Wood, chairperson of the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee says the council is working hard to ensure the proper, responsible balance is found.
“We have done extensive work on this draft policy, to try and minimise the risks to those most vulnerable in our community,” he says.
“Our vision, to become the world’s most liveable city, will be achieved in part through Auckland being a safe and healthy city. These proposed measures will help ensure that is the case.
“By setting up our policy on the sale of the products before they are licensed by government, we will be prepared for when they are once again legal to sell.
“And while we can’t stop their sale altogether, the council is being as responsible as possible by proposing these restrictions of sale.
“So we want as many people as possible to have their say on the policy, as the sale of these products has the potential to affect everyone in Auckland. Making your views heard now on this issue is absolutely vital.”
The consultation is open from 28 October-28 November and can be completed via shapeauckland.co.nz.
——ends—–
Head to Shape Auckland to have your say on where Legal Highs can be sold
While the investigation goes on into what caused the fire at the Penrose Substation and the resulting three-day blackout on the Eastern Isthmus of Auckland it seems we need a new Chairman, and CEO of Vector – the lines company that delivers the juice to residents and businesses across Auckland.
From the NZ Herald
Get used to power cuts, Vector chairman says
6:20 AM Thursday Oct 23, 2014 – Bernard Orsman
Power cuts are a part of life and Aucklanders should get used to it, says Vector chairman Michael Stiassny.
Vector bosses spent much of yesterday’s annual meeting in Auckland discussing the fire at a substation in Penrose on October 5 that cut power to 85,000 customers.
Mr Stiassny and Vector chief executive Simon McKenzie were unable to say what caused the fire until an investigation was completed, possibly early in the new year.
Only then, Mr McKenzie said, could the company discuss compensation for households and businesses, some of whom were without power for several days.
Compensation could take the form of the “Vector promise” of $50 for households and $200 for businesses. It would be premature to speculate on compensation above that, he said.
Affected businesses and homeowners have demanded compensation from whoever is responsible for the network failure. Paymark figures showed that the outages caused an estimated $4.3 million drop in spending on October 5, a busy Sunday trading day.
Coralie van Camp, a Vector shareholder and longtime critic of the power network company, told the meeting that people could have died due to poor maintenance at the substation.
She criticised Vector for paying out too much in dividends instead of investing in maintenance.
Mr Stiassny called it a serious incident that could have been worse, but said the company and electricity users could not afford a gold-plated network.
It would cost $500-$600 million for Vector to upgrade each of its 14 substations to achieve reliability above 100 per cent. State-owned Transpower, which provides bulk electricity to Auckland, would have to spend more, he said.
The company produced figures showing people in the affected areas had 99.8 per cent reliability of power in the past 15 years.
$600 million to so-called gold plate the network which actually translates to a power network that rivals the European Union, parts of the USA, and Japan where they don’t get such systemic failures (if they do they are super rare unlike ours which is about every 2-4 years). That is around six years worth of those AECT dividends that you get in your letter box around September each year if we calculate the current dividend out at $335/household.
So the question you need to ask yourself is the following:
Still want that dividend and risk the major failures we get every two to four years and throw out what food you had in the freezer?
Forsake the dividends for three years to fund 50% (and Vector uses other sources to get the other 50%) and bring the network up to EU standard where such failures would be super rare
Getting our network up to the specifications similar to the EU where we have redundancy capacity ample enough is not gold plating, it is good investment and good business. And if the Vector Chairman, CEO, and Government Energy Minister can not see that then they all need to be sacked immediately.
Consider ourselves lucky we do not operate large Nuclear Power Stations which are reliant on an external feed to keep the reactors online. As the USA and Canada found in their last cascading failure when you lose the external feed the reactors need to be shut down for safety reasons making the power situation worse as you take more supply offline….
Note: This does not include reaction to the Air Quality debate as any resentment should be directed at Government where the order came from – not Council who are simply complying with central legislation
It was brought up in conversation over the Long Term Plan that criticisms and resentment towards the Council seems to be more naked, concentrated, and getting rather well-informed than the usual junk you can see often being flung. What makes the criticism more concentrated and naked is that once residents understand how the rating system works they hone their criticisms rather sharply back at the Council. So is such criticism warranted towards the Governing Body or is the City over reacting to the large and wider situation at play.
My own reaction (in-lieu of the discussion) was:
The City is openly critical for three reasons
City Building – not seeing it unless you are in the City Centre or a community getting cut backs (85% of Auckland)
People just want to be left alone, live, work play in a decent city without being rated to hell in back
And the Council (that includes Auckland Transport, and Auckland Council Property Limited) perceived to be well, tone-deaf
Endless meetings and workshops are being held in a desperate attempt to reconcile the Mayor’s 10 year budget with Auckland’s community aspirations. The public were sold a pup during the unitary plan process. It did not duly consider the cost of meeting infrastructure investment with population growth. Furthermore planners were working on a different set of data from infrastructure providers. Now in desperation we are trying to ration sparse resources to ensure we can meet our responsibilities. This has translated into an unacceptable proposal to cut parks and sports investment by nearly 40% over the next 10 years. All of this could have been avoided if there had been leadership in managing the statutory processes bringing policy and funding together in the Auckland Plan, LTP and Unitary Plan.
Ben RossYes and No Councillor Fletcher. The Central Government can ware some of the blame through the statutory time frame set to the Unitary Plan as well as being too hands off unlike their New South Wales, Victorian, and Queensland counterparts as seen here: https://voakl.net/…/queensland-gets-it-right-auckland…/As for Council well I have seen the Mayor’s 10 Spatial Priorities being floated around. If funding is so limited then wouldn’t be wise to focus on those 10 Spatial Priorities. After five years we move onto another ten and so on and so on.
The alternatives and way forward is all there for the Governing Body, whether the Governing Body advances into the 21st Century in thinking, planning and having to go outside the box is yet to be seen
Christine FletcherIt is totally irresponsible to commit to new developments knowing we are unable to care for our existing infrastructure with renewals etc. Council should have staged the unitary plan, carefully rolling it out in an orderly and financially sustainable manner with social and physical infrastructure in place. I am absolutely sure government would have supported this process if the issue had been properly presented to them.
Ben RossI would safely the say the Government knows very full well what is going on otherwise the Environment Minister would not be approving SHA’s in North West Auckland (If Adams and now Smith were doing their jobs properly that is).
Furthermore on that assumption the Government has no appetite to stage any part of the Unitary Plan otherwise the 2016 deadline would have been kicked to say 2018. Procedural Minute 10 from the Hearings Panel also gives weight to that the MofEnviron is again aware but choosing not to intervene in any great measure.The Ministry for the Environment is about to use a senior analyst to review the Unitary Plan Hearings Processes thus far. What the review will find and whether the Government will intervene from that is yet to be seen.
All said if the Minister and Ministry have no idea what is really going on since the Unitary Plan went out for notification then what the heck was in their submission and what are they honestly doing that does not involve blinkers.
Impetus now lays with the Minister
Seems Central Government might be partly to blame for where we are if we take both the Unitary Plan and Long Term Plan in account.
So are the critiques too harsh, too soft, or about right as we come to the 2015-2025 Long Term Plan – the Council’s master budget document?
So much more out there than the CBD Also less smog with the new bylaw?
From Auckland Council – and read the bit in bold carefully too
Proposed Air Quality Bylaw tackles pollution
Auckland Council’s Regulatory and Bylaws Committee adopted a draft Air Quality Bylaw today to tackle Auckland’s air pollution. The proposed bylaw has been recommended as a way of meeting national air quality standards, as required by the Government.
In winter, 75 percent of Auckland’s air pollution is due to fine particulate emissions (PM10) from open fires and old, non-compliant wood burners. The inhaling of fine particles – which can lodge in the lungs – has raised the level of respiratory illness in the region, a surprise to many who thought that vehicles or industry pollution was to blame. The proposed Air Quality Bylaw will focus on the management of indoor fires to reduce the emissions of these fine particles into our air.
“It is hard to comprehend that the warmth emanating from that wood fire we enjoy on a cold winter night is the cause of serious health issues. By concentrating on the air pollution culprit in winter – indoor fires – we will not only achieve cleaner air, we will be well on our way to meeting national air quality standards,” says Calum Penrose, Chair, Regulatory and Bylaws Committee.
The committee held a robust discussion about the various implementation timings of the bylaw and Councillor Penrose was pleased with the resulting recommendation of prohibiting both open fires and older wood burners (pre-2005) in October 2018. This will allow homeowners and landlords time to consider alternative heating sources.
All regional councils are required to monitor air pollution levels to ensure particle concentrations are within National Environmental Standards for Air Quality (AQNES) requirements and that we identify any areas – airsheds – where air quality may exceed standards. The Ministry for the Environment now requires all councils to meet the AQNES standards with no more than one exceedance per year in a region by 2016.
The bylaw is expected to be tabled at Auckland Council’s Governing Body meeting later this month. Calls for public submissions will begin on 10 November.
Further information on the Ministry for the Environment requirements around air quality and national standards can be found at mfe.govt.nz/issues/air/
—-Ends—-
The Urban Air Shed where the restrictions will be in place by the order of Central Government per Resource Management Act – National Environmental Standards for Air Quality
Penny Bright.
Talking Southern Auckland 