A slightly edited version Published HBT 13 Oct 2015
The Hastings District Council decided recently by 10 votes to 3 that it would trial free parking in the CBD in the hope that it might lift the number of shoppers and boost retail spending. This, according to the Mayor, is a decision that will cost ratepayers $211 000 in lost revenue during the 4 month trial, and, depending on the extent of lost income from fines, could cost between $500 000 and $900 000 for a full year. The higher figure is nearly 2% of the Councils annual rates income. There was no research to support the claim of an increase in shoppers or retail turnover. In fact, one of the two other cities to have trialled free parking found it had made little difference.
Now, whilst the parking issue was decided by 10 votes to 3 - and this is a significant majority, the votes in opposition were all urban ward councillors (including this writer) whilst of the 10 votes in favour, five were from the group I have nicknamed the “tight five” because of their unwavering support for Mayor Lawrence Yule. They include the Deputy Mayor and the Chairs of three of the four all powerful standing committees. Significantly, the Mayor has sole right to appoint these Chairmen and seems able to rely on their votes, perhaps because historically those who have taken an independent position have subsequently been demoted.
A feature of this voting block is that, of the Mayor and 14 HDC councillors, five also have strong rural connections, either representing rural wards, living in or having close historical associations with the rural hinterland (i.e. retired farmers). Two of these are now starting their 3rd decade on council and one is approaching that milestone. Essentially the “tight five” and rural groups are the same people with just one addition or deletion. As a result of their unwavering support the Mayor can normally count on six of the eight votes required for an outright decision and, on some occasions when councillors are absent, the decision has effectively already been made before any debate has occurred. In addition the Mayor has a casting or additional half vote which allows him to force any issue in the event of a deadlock.
Use of this block voting is a regular feature of HDC decision making. Recently the tight five supported a resolution to use two million dollars of ratepayer’s money to fund the amalgamation of the RSA and National Service Club, without rigorous due diligence. Ratepayers were only saved from this expense because the National Service Club members rejected the proposal.
In another example the same group has repeatedly supported the spending of $12.5 million upgrading Civic Square, the area surrounding the library and Art Gallery, plus a further $5 million supporting a CBD hotel, based on essentially emotive justification. For the moment, Civic Square is on hold because of the undefined but clearly substantial cost of strengthening the Opera House, However it has already cost ratepayers around a million dollars for design and consultation, and this amount looks likely to be written off.
Yet again the rural/tight five group has without exception, supported the Mayors hard-line Animal Control policies that have resulted in many pets being euthanised and the reprehensible treatment of many owners. Rural folk seem to have a quite different view of animals to those living in urban areas. Of course all elected members do support the council position on menacing and dangerous dogs plus the registration of all dogs.
Earlier this year the group also voted as a block to oppose the restoration of the 100Kph speed limits on Farndon and Brookfield Roads following widespread public objection when the lower limits were introduced a year earlier and despite the assessment by council roading engineers that the roads were suitable for the higher speeds. On this occasion the decision went against the wishes of the Mayor’s “tight five” by just one vote.
It must be remembered that most council spending and the vast majority of regulatory activities relate to urban activity which of course is where the majority of people live. Think of potable water, sewerage, storm water and rubbish collection, sports facilities and all the rest of council spending, then add all the regulatory issues such as parking wardens, liquor management, and animal control and its easy to see that councils are primarily involved in urban activity. In contrast, rural interest is mostly concentrated on roads and bridges, yet it is the councillors with rural loyalties who effectively are deciding the outcomes of many issues that are mainly urban, and often don’t affect rural communities at all.
The repetitive block voting by the tight five/rural group means the Hastings District Council is making far too many poor decisions. Some are subsequently reversed, but often the outcome is higher costs and therefore higher rates and charges. Whilst most of this burden falls on urban ratepayers, rural ratepayers need to realise they are often required to contribute to these additional costs.
Readers no doubt realise that five or six people do not total an absolute majority, but the reality on most issues is that this number is sufficient to decide the outcome. Interestingly, if Napier Mayor Bill Dalton is successful with his proposed boundary realignment, the rural power base that is deciding the outcome of many Hastings issues might be reduced.
