Residents awoke to the local newspaper’s report about a new bridge location and the shifting of the town’s main arterial route through their back streets. There was no prior notice and the exact details were covered by the large blob of blue over a map, but the council was adamant that this was it. So adamant that they described four options of their own invention, with no public input, selected their preferred one and gave the residents a choice between Option C and… no, that was it, just Option C.
The Local Government Act Section 82 requires consultation according to the following principles:
That persons who may be affected by the decision should be provided with reasonable access to relevant information in a manner and format that is appropriate to the preferences and needs of those persons;
That the views presented to the council should be received with an open mind, and should be given due consideration in making a decision.
The council utterly failed to comply with the law
The decision to proceed with Option C had already been made. The finer details could be up for debate but none of the logical alternatives on the outskirts of the town would be considered.
The blue blob created confusion over which particular streets faced massive disruption from roadworks (including losing the verges, trees and street parking that create Cambridge’s character), bridge construction (including demolition of riverfront houses) and the resulting 100-fold traffic increase (noise, safety and pollution issues). Instantly, nobody would risk purchasing a property anywhere near the blob. At least 100 families were now trapped with their major asset devalued. At a conservative estimate, this is $50 million in losses. The human cost is greater.
Waipa District Council has a history of consultation failures
Like many councils, they took the bribe of taxpayers’ funds to implement Innovating Streets: Waka Kotahi’s Labour-inspired anti-car fiasco. The deliberate interference with the daily commute was done without any public consultation and the feedback was harshly negative, forcing the removal of most of the interventions. One example was painted dots through several intersections with the stated purpose of distracting drivers so they would slow down. The concept of distracting drivers is usually regarded as a serious safety hazard to be avoided at all costs. This was insanity.
In 2022, the council tried to ban dogs at a dog park. The consultation was conveniently left off the annual dog registration letter and hidden several layers deep on the council website (who checks that regularly?), with only a single week for feedback. I stumbled across it and alerted the many dog lovers. Again, the feedback was harshly negative. The council justified the ban as being culturally sensitive to Maori. This was simply a lie. Apart from the fact that Maori had kuri (dogs), I also had a consultant report from two years earlier – when the land was identified as a good site for a council building. The secretive attempt to ban dogs was to make the land available for their ulterior motive.
The council admitted fault, apologised and then undertook new consultation via an online forum, so that many of the retired dog lovers (e.g., most of Cambridge) didn’t know how to access it.
Given this history, public feedback to the blue blob was angry. We have had enough.
The backlash again caused the council to backtrack. They are slow learners – one may even say retarded – from the original French for slow.
A public meeting was hastily arranged for 50 people. Five hundred turned up. But key council staff members didn’t; leaving Mayor Susan O’Regan unable to answer questions. This was strangely reminiscent of Hamilton’s deputy mayor declaring she didn’t know much about 20-minute cities in a similar setting. Like that meeting, O’Regan departed quickly, leaving behind a furious crowd.
She later ‘apologised’ in a letter, but spent most of the words blaming the public for the failure.
To add insult to injury, the council made the decision to drop the blob in a Public-Excluded Workshop. Local ratepayers have been complaining for years about the secrecy of such meetings, and the Ombudsman had recently concluded that the council is not allowed to make decisions in such workshops.
Andrew Bydder
Critic of Waipa District Council as a private citizen
Hamilton City Councillor
Andrew Bydder is a is a Hamilton City Councillor, a professional problem solver, a designer, and a small business owner. This article was first published HERE
1 comment:
Great article calling out local government incompetence. Not just happening in Waikato either! Sadly MSM doesn't seem to want to print real problems such as the farce of public consulting in NZ, government and others hiding bad decisions with public money under privacy and other rules, so local government decisions are getting worse. It is alarming the rise of less transparency and, corruption increasing under secrecy, and costs ballooning out of proportion for taxpayers and ratepayers.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.