The process remains responsive to the lowest common denominator: “ the squeaky wheel gets the oil!”
The following account of poor representation is a reflection of Local Authority priority spending that has lost its moral compass and as a result, communities are being left to die.
Read on.
It gives me no pleasure exposing this betrayal of trust by a Local Authority who claims to “ operate in the best interests of all constituents - irrespective of social standing or priority order of infrastructure spending” (where have we heard that before?)
You may well say that all Councils suffer from insufficient funds to cover the cost of unforeseen weather event repairs and it is to be expected that, in those circumstances, they will always have to “rob Peter to pay Paul” - a juggling exercise that is the responsibility of the Chairperson of the Council Budgetary Committee.
What is not expected is that, again in those circumstances, virtually all non budgeted storm damage expenditure would be given a higher priority rating than budgeted maintenance expenditure on iconic tourism structures that actually pay handsome dividends to the regional coffers. The unfortunate practice is colloquially referred to as “biting the hand that feeds you”.
In fact, as a result of this deliberate betrayal, the local tourism sector with its dependant businesses are suffering due to lack of maintenance of the main structure that ensures the steady stream of visitors and their money to our region.
And given the tourism destination in question - the iconic 100 yr old Tolaga Bay Wharf - has been partially closed to human traffic for over a year, the expected tourism income generated from those visitors who would normally go on to complete the East Coast round trip fails to materialise. Too bad!
The results for those families dependent on the local tourism trade are catastrophic.
But it could have all been avoided had the Council honoured its commitment to a written agreement between East Coast Communities and itself that covered the sector responsibilities for maintenance and future development expenditure on these iconic structures.
In order to gain a greater understanding of this monumental betrayal of trust, let’s look at what actually happened with this example of public expenditure as opposed to what should have happened.
On completion of Stage One of the wharf structural restoration work, costing in excess of $6million (money raised solely by the Community Trust), Council Engineers signed off on behalf of GDC by agreeing to an annual allocation of $20,000 to the Tolaga Bay Wharf maintenance budget.
Council owns all the East Coast wharves
Unfortunately, due to Council’s failure to oversee the maintenance budget with competent qualified staff, the allocated funds have been poorly spent and advice received that bears no relationship with the public safety status of this magnificent structure.
Consequently, Council have chosen to close the wharf for an extended period based on poor engineering advice rather than seek the advice of those marine engineers who oversaw the main restoration project.
Had it done so in accordance with its original commitment to the project agreement, none of this loss of income would have occurred which is ironically also affecting the viability of the Council’s recent purchase of the adjacent “Top Ten Holiday Park”.
You can’t make this up but it will come as no surprise to those mere mortals who have had to endure similar examples of arrogance masquerading as trustworthy oversight of community affairs.
And adding insult to injury, our Council now operates with five additional Maori Councillors who supposedly see their appointments as being part of a special safeguard for East Coast whanau interests.
Well, perhaps now is the time for them to show their commitment to the Coast “wellbeing” by using their influence in order to reopen the Wharf.
Surely this is the reason why we voted for Maori Wards in the first place.
Go figure!
Clive Bibby is a commentator, consultant, farmer and community leader, who lives in Tolaga Bay.
5 comments:
You voted for racist wards.
Welcome to the real world.
Are maori genuinely interested in the tourist aspect of the wharf? What did they contribute to the rebuild? Do they see it as another irksome reminder and monument to colonist industry and innovation? Do they welcome flashy tourists exhibiting their wealth, or do they resent intrusion into their quiet backwater? Do they welcome close scrutiny of their fishing activity off the wharf?
Failure to oversee with competent staff is now the hallmark of most Councils which have opted for the contract alternative. The only "skill" retained by staff is the ability to let contracts. Consulting engineers and other contractors take Councils for a ride. There is no independent staff able to assess.
9.07 am
No I didn’t but that is my point. .
Surely, it is reasonable to ask those that did and the current Maori Ward Councillors who gained a seat at the table because of that process to force a change in Council policy.
After all - they now have the numbers to make it happen. That is the real world!
We went around the cape quite recently and stayed in Tolaga Bay Top Ten park. We noted that the outer half of the wharf is railed off supposedly for safety reasons, however the bars have been bent and people just carry on out to the end. The main safety risk that we noticed was just that there were missing side railings at the very end of the wharf. The wharf to our unprofessional eyes was not in a dangerous state other than the above and the weight of a few people would be insignificant compared with the structures weight.
The wharf is one of the few dramatic structures available to the general public in this area and we feel it should be opened up following basic safety upgrades.
Perhaps a simple cost/benefit analysis is also in order? The cost, of those five Maori Councilors and their support, versus the benefits, which have been what precisely? Diddly squat, I'll wager.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.