The Taxpayers’ Union is crying “foul” after yet another local authority has demonstrated it regards some citizens as more equal than others.
The authority in question is the Horowhenua District Council, which has voted to give iwi and hapū first right of refusal over six council-owned properties.
Taxpayers’ Union spokesperson Tyler Groenewald reminds us that those properties were bought using $2 million of taxpayer-funded Better Off grants
“When they are sold, the council’s job should be to get the best possible deal for ratepayers.”
That brings taxpayers into considerations. Better Off Grants came from the previous Labour Government’s Better Off Funding package for local councils, introduced as part of the Three Waters reform programme.
The Horowhenua District Council, which secured $4,990,000 of this lolly, initially allocated this package across 11 community-wellbeing and infrastructure projects.
The council decided to allocate $2 million of this to buy properties for the Levin Town Centre Transformation project in 2024 and later that year confirmed it had acquired six properties on Oxford Street – the main drag and a part of State Highway 1.
The aim was to improve the town centre’s east-west connectivity ahead of the opening of the Ōtaki to North of Levin expressway bypass.
The council is now wanting to sell the properties, but not necessarily to get the best possible deal for ratepayers.
Tyler Groenewald – with good cause – says:
“Giving one group first right of refusal risks shutting out other buyers before the wider market has had a chance to compete.
“If iwi or hapū put forward the best offer, they should win through an open and competitive process. Ratepayer-funded assets should be sold on what delivers the best value, not preferential access.”
But we learn from The Post that a majority of Horowhenua councillors have different ideas.
They have opted to give iwi first right of refusal – preferential treatment – on the six properties.
“When they are sold, the council’s job should be to get the best possible deal for ratepayers.”
That brings taxpayers into considerations. Better Off Grants came from the previous Labour Government’s Better Off Funding package for local councils, introduced as part of the Three Waters reform programme.
The Horowhenua District Council, which secured $4,990,000 of this lolly, initially allocated this package across 11 community-wellbeing and infrastructure projects.
The council decided to allocate $2 million of this to buy properties for the Levin Town Centre Transformation project in 2024 and later that year confirmed it had acquired six properties on Oxford Street – the main drag and a part of State Highway 1.
The aim was to improve the town centre’s east-west connectivity ahead of the opening of the Ōtaki to North of Levin expressway bypass.
The council is now wanting to sell the properties, but not necessarily to get the best possible deal for ratepayers.
Tyler Groenewald – with good cause – says:
“Giving one group first right of refusal risks shutting out other buyers before the wider market has had a chance to compete.
“If iwi or hapū put forward the best offer, they should win through an open and competitive process. Ratepayer-funded assets should be sold on what delivers the best value, not preferential access.”
But we learn from The Post that a majority of Horowhenua councillors have different ideas.
They have opted to give iwi first right of refusal – preferential treatment – on the six properties.
The Horowhenua District Council recently bought six properties along State Highway 1/Oxford St from the Government allocation of $2 million better-off funding.
The buildings would likely be sold for development and one idea was they would be demolished and turned into a laneway.
This was part of the Levin Town Centre Transformation project, which planned to overhaul the middle of the town by the time the Ōtaki to North of Levin expressway opened in 2029, bypassing Levin.
Fair to say, the council was split on the issue.
At Wednesday’s council meeting, councillors were divided over a decision about the re-development of the Oxford St properties.
Councillors voted 6-5 to apply the first-right-of-refusal-to-iwi policy and provide an exclusive iwi and hapū expression of interest opportunity before selling the properties on the open market.
The Post report includes a photo of Cr Nina Hori Te Pa, who (according to the caption) “believes applying the first-right-of-refusal policy will have benefits”.
Benefits for whom?
Beneath the photo, we learn a bit more:
Hori Te Pa said iwi partners would remain long after councillors had gone and she asked what legacy would be left behind.
Whoa.
Do iwi partners live longer than councillors?
Or is it that councillors are susceptible to being thrown out of office?
Te Pa goes on:
“This does not impede council’s ability to sell those properties. This does not impede their ability to gather the resources it will collect to move forward the Levin township.”
No, it does no impede the council’s ability to sell the properties. But it does not ensure the council gets the best deal.
Cr Sam Jennings disagreed with giving people preferential access to publicly owned property based on ethnicity.
“We have already had iwi partners participate in other property expressions of interest in the town centre without the need to apply this policy and that’s the beauty of [not applying the policy] rather than [applying it], is that all iwi partners can still participate in the process.
“They can put forward their proposal and their vision for these sites just as anybody else can. I don’t believe iwi need a special exclusive opportunity.”
He said it didn’t allow the market to give the council a “range of outcomes” for the properties.
No. And Mayor Bernie Wanden was among those who supported the decision that rules this out.
Voters might care to remember that, when they next get the chance to vote for their council.
Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog HERE.
No comments:
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.