Posts by Roger
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
In regard to the mayoralty there has been some discussion of campaign limits of $70k. This would present a significant problem... as to put a single letter with a stamp in every letter box in the region would cost in the order of $250k... so $70k is never going to do it.
But that is only the start. There would be absolutely no point in capturing the mayoralty if you did not have a ticket of councillors to give you a majority on the council.
So you need to fund the mayoralty, plus 8 'at large' campaigns, plus selected ward seats. This would inevitably require a national election party campaign, but with no (as yet suggested) ratepayer funded media buy.
-
But they will do just that and they will have a budget. And my guess is that budget will not be small and it will employ lots of nice folks to keep the local area clean/pretty/artistic/etc/etc/etc
You are right in part Bart... the local boards will get a allocated budget from the central council and they will nbe able to lobby for the aplication of local targeted rates (similar to mainstreet rates that we have for some town centres now), but they are precluded from employing any staff. All staff support will come from the centre after passing through the filter of the central council and the Auckland Chief Executive.
And, presumably, 20-odd councillors will never have the time to look at them either. Not when they have to deal with consents for the entire region.
Which leaves....who exactly?
Richard... that leaves independant commissioners or staff delegations for almost all resource consents, but I guess that you knew that.
-
Thinking of the wards - given the strict interpretation of the + or - 10% population rule as the present law requires... you can't get to 12 without significant re-drawing of the existing council boundaries.
-
On another note, they've gutted the provisions for a new way of delivering social services, from today's report
The regional economic development agencies have also been replaced by an economic development plan
-
To get less than 30 community boards you need 47,000 per board area or more. This suggests as a start point:
Old Rodney District - 2
Old North Shore City - 5
Old Waitakere City - 4
Old Auckland City - 9
Old Manukau City + Papakura District - 8
Old Franklin District - 2Given that the + or - 10% population rule does not apply strictly to community boards, this probably means yes to a CBD board
-
Every Munter from Bluff to Herne Bay crossing the Harbour Bridge. Now that would be a Big Day Out on Spaghetti junction.
What?
With the Stadium being adjacent to the end of the new busway, transport from town could not be easier. Certainly no need to drive.
-
And if Mt Smart was to be levelled, wherefore the Big Day Out? I can't think of another suitable venue.
North Harbour stadium could be made to work well with a range of noise-insulatable sites surounding a central spot for a main stage. But as others have said security would be the issue, but not impossible.
-
Anyone serious about having the new proposals adopted needs to seriously address local representation issues, for example by proposing a larger number of 2nd-tier councils than the current six.
What you need to bear in mind however is that the proposal sees water, wastewater and raods go to regional entities. This takes away about 80% of their capital expenditure and 60% of rates income. If the remaining bodies are not reasonably large they simply will not have the critical mass in terms of resources to actually do anything.
I realise that some activities need to be shared to reduce costs but that could be worked out with a modified ARA.
Also I really do not care to hand over our sewage and water to WaterCare Service. I cannot think of a worse body to look after these services..You certainly can share activities to reduce the costs, but how will the people of North Shore, Manukau and Waitakere feel about paying to fix Auckland City's water and wastewater woes once there is s regional water entity?
-
I do like the school of thought that holds that our problems are simply a function of too many regulations. To quote Sir Roger Douglas (13/3/09):
In terms of the failure of the US financial system, it is becoming increasingly clear that that crisis was not caused by deregulation. The banking sector is the most heavily regulated sector of the US economy.... If anything, the financial crisis should make us more - not less - sceptical of Government interference in markets.
There are many questions, but only one answer... "The market will provide!"
-
And then there is this...