December 11, 2010
The proposal for an amalgamation of Nelson and Tasman's local government has brought some strong feelings to the surface, writes Geoff Collett .
--------------------
If some of the more extravagant expressions of opinion are to be believed, next week's hearings into the Nelson-Tasman amalgamation debate will be compulsory viewing for anybody who is into bloodsports.
Wading through the 450 submissions lodged on the proposal, an unavoidable sense emerges that among the many rational and reasoned arguments, ancient rivalries are being revived, long- simmering grudges given new life, even some deep-seated grievances and occasional hatreds bubbling to the surface.
There are conspiracy theories and impassioned pleas; two-word missives ("no amalgamation"), form letters and hand-scrawled rants; and deeply researched, painstakingly constructed treatises. Promises that amalgamation will deliver far superior local government are countered with vows that individuals will flee the region rather than live under a single council, particularly one dominated by Nelson city.
What there is not is anything like a groundswell of enthusiasm for amalgamation among those who have written their thoughts down and sent them to the Local Government Commission, as it considers what to do about Aldo Miccio's petition requesting a review of the region's local government structure.
If the number of submissions could be taken as anything like a guide to the wider public mood, it would suggest that there is a general indifference to the amalgamation question in Nelson City, while in Richmond and beyond there is outright hostility. Fewer than 40 submissions of the 450 came from Nelson, about 30 of those expressing support for amalgamation or at least for the question to be properly investigated.
From the Richmond-Wakefield area, in contrast, came more than 150, the huge majority opposing amalgamation, many in vehement terms.
Motueka was similarly opposed: roughly 50 out of 65 from there were against. Golden Bay provided 100 submissions. Given the widely reported discontent there with Tasman District Council's performance, there was unsurprisingly strong support (more than 50 per cent) for the commission to at least investigate a new model for the region, even if joining with Nelson was not necessarily embraced.
Many of those who have made submissions cast Aldo Miccio in a villainous role, some dismissing his high-profile petition campaign (run together with his successful bid for the Nelson mayoralty) as an ego trip, even as dubious.
But some reserve their venom for the Tasman District Council, which has run its own determined campaign opposing the amalgamation argument and has made by far and away the heaviest-weight submission on the issues which will be argued about at the hearings from Monday.
For instance, Nelson businessman Robin Whalley cites the "obfuscation" and general lack of cooperation he encountered from the Tasman District Council while he was a member of the Tasman Bays Heritage Trust (responsible for the provincial museum). Nelson surveyor Simon Jones expresses "shock" at the "fearful anti- amalgamation propaganda" disseminated by the Tasman council. A joint submission by a small group of business professionals complains about the "prejudicial" behaviour of TDC staff in preparing anti-amalgamation arguments. Even a TDC staff member, Ross Shirley, who made his own submission, offers a critical assessment of his employer: "Currently there is little willing co-operation between the two councils, rather Nelson are seen as the 'enemy' or threat from across the border, " he writes.
But most of the Tasman residents who felt moved to write submissions say they are happy with the TDC, and repeat its claims that a single council would be dominated by Nelson City, and that Tasman people's rates would rise while Nelson people's would drop (although the TDC itself admits it cannot be certain of that).
Some other common concerns include that Nelson would impose parking meters on Richmond; that it would use the wider region to bankroll its wishlists for capital projects in the city; that the city council's history of fractious debates would hinder Tasman; that the city council is more difficult and less friendly to deal with than the TDC.
A few put the boot in. Teresa Sefo calls the Nelson council "idiots". Hermione Frankpitt suggests that Tasman people prefer councils made up of "community-minded" concerned parents and grandparents and do not want them "overtaken" by those who place business interests first and who have led to Nelson having "an over-abundance of eating places, liquor outlets and adult entertainment".
Fay Emily Baker says that because past Nelson City councils have allowed building on geologically unstable hills she would object to her rates being used to pay for repairs of resulting earthquake damage. Robert Murphy rails against the state of Trafalgar St with its "empty shops, overgrown trees . . . parking meters, youth crime, crazy council policies".
Claire Illes tells of living "miserably" in Nelson for 24 years until moving to Tasman with its "awesome" outdoors facilities. "Nelson has nothing for people who enjoy the outdoors, their parks are full of homeless people, " she says, describing the city's growth as "spread[ing] like a disease".
For its part, the TDC has produced a lengthy submission with a wad of supporting documents, which drill deeply into the arguments over the need or otherwise for a review of the two councils. While it includes the contentious and widely publicised claims about what might happen to rates and representation, much of its submission is focused on arguing that it does a good job as a standalone council and there is no compelling argument that a union with Nelson city will improve things - a bottom-line requirement to justify an overhaul.
The Tasman council describes Mr Miccio's supporting evidence for his campaign as "an example of a marketing strategy . . . lacking information, facts, and containing popular misconceptions and innuendo".
It is not the only local body uneasy about the amalgamation idea. It has allies in the West Coast Regional Council and Buller District Council which have both expressed reservations about major structural changes to their northern neighbour. The regional council's chief executive, Chris Ingle, says he would be "very concerned" if Tasman and Nelson amalgamated, given the risk he sees that it would shift the enlarged council's focus towards Nelson city.
Mr Miccio has approached this latest, crucial stage in the review process using similar tactics he has taken from the start, marshalling a range of allies to back his view that a single council will deliver meaningful gains to the whole region - such as more community boards to ensure better local representation, an end to "sub-optimal decision making", "greatly enhanced" service delivery, and cost-savings through economies of scale.
His submission carries the supporting names of a sprinkling of high-profile businesspeople (former King Salmon chief executive Paul Steere, Network Tasman chairman Ian Kearney); a couple of his city council colleagues (Ian Barker and Kate Fulton); some unsuccessful candidates from the last election (Nigel Dowie, Hugh Briggs, Phil Thompson); and some prominent local corporates, including Gibbons Construction and the Wakatu Incorporation.
Wakatu and another pan-iwi Maori group, the Tiakina Te Taio, are notable supporters of the amalgamation cause, pointing to the onerous demands they face in having to work with two councils. They both make the point that Maori would expect specific representation on a new combined local body. They, along with all other proponents of the amalgamation argument, will be pushing their case as a clear minority when the commission starts its hearings on Tuesday.
No comments:
Post a Comment