Abandoning the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy

Abandoning the  Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy

Published HBT  8 May 2017

The Hastings, Napier and Regional Councils have been asked to sign off the first five year review of the Heretaunga Plains urban development strategy (HPUDS). HPUDS is intended to minimise urban sprawl which has merit but the emphasis on favouring horticulture above all other parts of the economy is unbalanced and could inflict significant damage on the Hastings and wider Hawke’s Bay economy.

Whilst the growing sectors are core to the economy many of the jobs provided are seasonal, poorly paid and low skilled and in fact are so unattractive that the growing industry has to import thousands of workers from undeveloped third world Pacific countries. Clearly the quality of employment provided contributes to our high levels of poverty and deprivation.

The claim recently made by the Mayor of Hastings (HBT 20/04/2017) and oft repeated that we have “some of the best soils in the world” seems unsupported by any authoritative supporting research. Whilst the Heretaunga plains are highly productive by New Zealand standards, New Zealand is considered to have quite poor soils.

The most recent version of HPUDS provides for a faster rate of population growth than previously anticipated and now estimates a further 10 600 new housing sites will be needed by 2045, up 2600 from the 2010 document. Of these, 40% are to be provided by intensification in the first 10 years rising to 60% in the final 10 years, with 50 % to be greensfields dropping to 35% and 10% rural declining to 8%.

If we are to achieve the intensification targets for the first 10 years an additional 214 dwellings a year will be needed at a density of 20 – 30 households a hectare, double that for greenfield developments. Such concentration is often resisted by existing property owners who feel it will change the character of their neighbourhood in much the same way a many object to building on the hills.

The strategy also calls for a balance in supply between Napier and Hastings, a requirement that seems to have no logic. That Napier has already agreed to sign off is hardly surprising because the policy clearly prevents Hastings exploiting its natural advantages. Hastings has more land on which to build both houses and factories and is providing the majority of new jobs. Most importantly it is not threatened by natural hazards such as tsunami, liquefaction and the possible threat of becoming a coastal hazard zone if the predictions of climate change and rising sea levels eventuate. Only last week at a public meeting in Napier the HBRC seemed enthusiastic about managed retreat from coastal areas. Hastings councillors also need to ask whether agreeing to HPUDS risks the HDC becoming libel for compensation in the event of these risks eventuating, in the same way councils became partially libel for leaky homes.

Townhouses and apartments are another option and certainly these seem ideal in Napier where they can be combined with ocean views but they are not for everywhere or everyone. Housing Corp past experience in both cities have been fairly disastrous and we do not want to impose Soviet style workers accommodation on our communities.

The issue of protecting the land is not new. Many decades ago another Hastings Council also reasoned the best soils needed saving and built Flaxmere on stony unproductive land. In doing so they created a suburb that is disconnected from the rest of the Hastings urban area and as it turns out was built some of the best grape growing land we have.

New housing is also needed to offset the ongoing conversion of residential areas to commercial use. Agricultural activity is also contributing to rural land losses because of the need to build Packhouses and Coolstores.

Additionally it seems HPUDS is making land banking attractive thereby restricting the availability of building sites, reducing competition and pushing up the cost of houses, exactly the type of activity government is threatening to legislate against in Auckland. It seems somewhat contradictory that the main supporters of HPUDS seem often to own large dwellings on attractive sections in rural settings.

We need an economy based on more than just horticulture and putting all our eggs in one basket could easily see return us to the conditions we experienced following the freezing works closures in the 1980’s and 90s.

To this councillor HPUDS seems to have become a roadblock to the development flexibility needed to provide a vibrant economy. Just why the Hastings Council has surrendered its sovereignty to the Napier and Regional Councils is unfathomable and if possible the HDC should withdraw from the joint policy so we can get on with the job.

I have to wonder if the two responders to my recent Talking Point on HPUDS actually read past the two sentences commenting on soil quality. Whilst Noel Congdon clearly has vast experience of soil science and as a former grower I can concur with his claim we have good soils. The point I was making was if we are to claim to have the best soils in the world this must be based on verifiable evidence not unsubstantiated opinion. Additionally I suspect our success in growing apples, grapes and some other crops is significantly improved by climate, drainage, irrigation, and infrastructure and fertilisers.

I am surprised Frank Long’s Vitriolic response was published as he seemed to contribute nothing to the discussion. Nor can I explain why he has an apoplectic fit every time he sees my name.  

HPUDS and the shortage of sections

In his recent Talking Point (23/03/17) Peter Bevan chastises Hastings District Councillors for agreeing to provide additional land for housing which he described as wasteful and profligate. Growers have previously also objected to industrial developments.

There is no doubt the pipfruit industry is crucially important to the Hawke’s Bay economy with over 20 000 containers of apples worth at least $200 million being exported from the region each year. But here is the catch. The pip fruit industry provides mainly seasonal employment, pays many of its staff low wages, and generally does not pay them at all if it rains or if the varieties are not ready to pick.

Horticultural is clearly a major contributor to our very low incomes and consequent high levels of deprivation and other problems. The industry struggles to attract workers and finds it necessary to bring in thousands of RSE employees from the Pacific for harvesting. Recently Radio NZ found evidence incomes for RSE workers in the grape industry are actually lower than 10 years ago. Whilst the RSE scheme contributes hugely to the success of horticulture, injects, millions into the Hastings economy and is easily this country’s best international aid scheme, its very existence suggests picking apples for a pittance is not attractive to many.

Most horticultural jobs involve minimal skills that can be taught in a day or less. Skill levels have a major impact on incomes as was clearly shown in the 2011 census. For someone without qualifications the medium income was $19 400, $27 200 with NCSA level one, $37 400 with advanced trade certificate, and $46 700 for those with a bachelor degree.

Mr Bevan has previously told me he would use all means possible to oppose direct flights to Australia in effect dismissing the needs of tourism and others sectors. An industry with this sort of employment history does not have the economic or moral right to impede other sectors from obtaining the resources they need.

He claims each hectare of land taken for housing results in the loss of three horticultural jobs, a figure that surprises me based on my 20 years growing for Watties. A report prepared for the HDC in 2016 estimated that adding 31 hectares of rural production land to the Omahu Road North Industrial zone would boost regional GDP by $168 million and create 724 high paying jobs, against a loss of $1,561,625 and 21 jobs if used for pip fruit.

Published HBT 1 April 2017

In Hastings a hectare of land provides a minimum of 12–14 housing lots including allowances for reserves and roading. If each of these were occupied only by couples receiving national super, the annual value to the local economy would still be nearly half a million dollars plus millions more in land development and building costs.

The HDC has a responsibility to the community that extends beyond the pipfruit industry and the decision to release more sections is in response to a clear shortage especially in Havelock North. This shortage is costing jobs and encouraging land banking causing rising section prices, thus making it especially difficult for first time buyers. In desperation some are now building in Napier on land already identified as being at risk of liquefaction and/or tsunami with the additional possibility of being declared a hazard zone if predictions of rising sea levels prove correct.

Reverse sensitivity issues with the mushroom farm has prevented further development on Arataki Road but the inflexibility of the HPUDS (Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy) has further delayed the substitution of land in Brookfields Road. As the Middle/Te Aute road development also appears delayed the HDC has decided to release 21 Hectares in Howard St, an area currently used for lifestyle and grazing horses.

HPUDS calls for 60% of growth to be accommodated with intensification. But this still requires willing developers, sellers and buyers. The Hastings Council supports intensification and has significantly reduced development levies to encourage infill housing.

That 75% of new housing is being built on greenfields or rural land shows cramming shoe boxes onto existing sections does not meet the needs of many people. Additionally neighbours often object because they perceive the character of their area will be changed, whilst multi storied and semidetached developments that are clearly attractive close to the waterfront in Napier, seem acceptable in Hastings.

Whilst Marie Antoinette is alleged to have said “let them eat cake” when told the peasants were starving, times have changed. If horticulturalists want to be taken seriously they could start paying a living wage. In any case we should not have all our eggs in one basket. One severe hail storm could wipe out an entire season. More industry could greatly improve the lives of many people.

Interestingly there never seems to be any shortage of growers willing to sell their land for development.

Selling the Port

Published HBT March 25 2017

The suggestion by Napier MP Stuart Nash that Hawke’s Bay must retain ownership of the Port of Napier may appealing but is not necessarily the best way forward.

In recent years two of this countries ports have been badly damaged by earthquakes. Cruise ships are still bypassing the Port of Lyttelton seven years after the 2010 Christchurch earthquake whilst container and other cargoes destined for Wellington are being diverted to ports including Napier as a result of damage following the Kaikoura earthquake last year.

Hawkes Bay is not immune from tectonic upheavals as we all know and therefore there is always the possibility of our own port being similarly affected.

The Port of Napier needs a significant injection of new funds to finance the expansion of facilities to provide for the expected growth in export volumes. The financing options include increased borrowing or attracting additional local or outside equity. Whilst borrowing the funds means the Regional Council retains ownership it also continues to carry the full risk of both natural catastrophes or manmade disasters including economic downturns and unfavourable commercial events such as shipping companies deciding to consolidate their operations elsewhere.

These risks which will be borne by the people of Hawke’s Bay can be reduced with a some external shareholding. External equity might also bring in additional expertise to improve port operations. The Port of Tauranga is a publicly listed company and it seems to have done them no damage. What ever we decide we must avoid creating an opportunity for another port to take control so as to concentrate trade elsewhere at our expense.

Of course allowing some outside shareholding must not result loss of control. The port is much more than a few million dollars a year to help keep regional council rates down. It is our gateway to the world for a whole range of horticultural, viticultural, agricultural and wood products.

The additional cost if shippers had to truck their products through another port such Tauranga is estimated to be around $1600 per container. For a container load of apples worth say $US6500 this extra cost could seriously affect the viability of horticulture. Additionally there would be a significant increase in the risk of damage to the cargo. When multiplied by the 22 000 containers of apples we currently export the additional cost of shipping to another port could cost us many tens of millions of dollars. If we add half a million tones of pulp, over a million tons of logs and as many containers again of meat and other products, the true value of our port becomes apparent.

So whilst the profit the port makes is useful, the true value of our port is the contribution it makes keeping exporters and importers cost effective and competitive.

We can go further and ask ourselves whether Heinz Watties could remain here without the ability to directly import tinplate and other materials needed for their manufacturing, then export high volume relatively low value food products to markets around the world.

Even the $20 million estimated spend by cruise ship passengers is totally dependant on the port, plus the port is a major local employer of highly skilled well paid workers.

We might even better secure the present income stream the port provides by reinvesting some of the capital now locked up in the business though I too share Stuarts concern over past decisions made by the Regional Council.

For now we have all our eggs in one basket and that can be a risky as both Lyttelton and Wellington have discovered. We must consider our own vulnerability when deciding how to move forward but what ever we decide we must do what is best for Hawke’s Bay and not allow ideology to steer us in a direction that impedes the Ports ability to provide the links that are essential for our prosperity.   

Direct trans- Tasman flights next step

Published HBT 20 Sept 2016 

I spotted a piece of great news recently embedded in an advertisement by Hawke’s Bay Airport Limited for two new management positions. These new jobs may or may not be good news in themselves and for the moment it doesn’t matter because in the general background about the airport  was the revelation that passenger numbers were up 90 000 or 19% year on year. 

It’s unlikely the airport has ever experienced this sort of growth before and of course there is essentially just one reason for it happening, and that is Jetstar. Jetstar started flying to Hawke’s Bay on December 1st last year and have added 135 000 extra seats a year all of them between Napier and Auckland. Whilst  Air New Zealand’s media announcements are always vague they seem to be claiming to have added another 35 000 seats. Whether this increase is spread across all three of their Hawke’s Bay routes or just flights to Auckland is unknown.

We can assume the year on year period referred to is the 12 months to 30 June 2016 the airport balance date. So effectively we have five more months of the Jetstar effect and therefore could end up with perhaps 130 000 extra passengers by the end of this year. 

This is fantastic but unfortunately there is no research on exactly who all these extra passengers are. Some will be on business, others on holiday or visiting friends and family and there may even be a few genuine tourists with no connections here. My cousin used to drive down every couple of years but now she can afford to visit every couple of months and I am sure many other people are similarly able to travel by air now that the price barrier of our previously outrageous fares has been removed. 

This is great news for Hawke’s Bay because at last we are starting to move into the 21st century. However had our Mayors not been so obstructive and their councillors so apathetic we might have been in this position ten years ago. The airport board also lacked vision and commitment, preferring the easy option of building more car parks.  Chairman Stuart McKinley was the only exception but was not reappointed by the Mayors possibly because he looked like being successful.  For the record I have opposed the appointment of all the other council directors because I think they lack the stuff we need to move our great region forward.

In fact the airport story is a graphic example of how Hawke’s Bay has ended up at the bottom of economic rankings for much of the last decade. We have far to many elected representatives and their various appointees willing to sit on their rumps rather than dong the hard yards. Back in 2004 when I first became involved in the airport issue both Qantas/Jetstar and Pacific Blue were providing domestic services. To attract them to Hawke’s Bay required a runway extension because these companies then employed jet only fleets. Estimated cost was around $5 million and this was said to be too risky. Yet around the same time the Mayor of Napier had no trouble blowing $18 million on the museum extensions whilst the Mayor of Hastings spent $15 million refurbishing the Opera House which is now requires a further  $11 million plus, for earthquake strengthening. The $5 million for the runway extension was a pittance and was eventually funded by the airport at absolutely no cost to ratepayers. The Museum and the Opera House together have yet to attract a fraction the number of additional patrons the airport has gained in just one year. The Museum and the Opera House have cost ratepayers well north of $40 million and need millions more each year to keep operating. Remember also the Mayor of Hastings wanted to spend $24 million on a velodrome and still hopes to use $5 million of ratepayers money for a new CBD hotel. Instead of gobbling up ratepayers money the airport now pays the council owners an annual dividend. 

For the record the two Mayors surrendered governance control of the airport to government, contrary to the original 1963 agreement and entered into a lease agreement on the airport land that effectively transferred millions in potential rental from the Councils to Government, whilst preventing public scrutiny of the proposed arrangements.  

Clearly the people we chose as leaders and their airport appointees got this issue seriously wrong choosing to listen to opinion from wingeing pseudo experts, advisers who were seriously comprimised by their association with Air New Zealand and a disingenuous monopoly claiming they were not over charging when clearly they have been doing so for years. We should now question every piece of advise Air New Zealand has ever given starting with their claims there is insufficient traffic between Hawke’s Bay and Australia to justify direct flights. If the arrival of competition can flush out more than 100 000 extra passengers on domestic services to just one destination in a single year, just imagine what direct trans-Tasman flights would do to Hawke’s Bays well being. We must also encourage Jetstar to start offering direct flights to Wellington with connections to Christchurch.  

We can continue doing nothing for another decade and remain at the bottom of regional rankings or we can start doing something about catching up. Local Government voting has already started. If instead of simply putting a tick beside the names of candidates that are recognisable because they are standing for the umpteenth time voters could do themselves a favour and seek those candidates with the knowledge, experience and track record to actually make a meaningful difference. 

Remember also politicians promises are being made with your money. 

Support should be tied to success of HOY event

 Published HBT Saturday  6 August (Paragraph in highlighted in red not published)

In her July 29 Talking Point Jessica Maxwell has raised a number of significant issues regarding “Horse of the Year”. As one of the HDC Councillors involved I believe more needs to be explained.  

For a start crucial decisions have been made without all relevant information being disclosed. When councillors were first informed of plans to tender the event in 2015 we were not told this situation had been precipitated by Kevin Hansen of EventPro, requesting a fee increase. Some including the Mayor may have known but most of my collogues had no idea of this situation.  

Councillors also had no role in the decision to appoint SMC Events Management and were told of the decision after it had been made. SMC were said to offer advantages as an experienced management company but information that has subsequently been gleaned casts some doubt on the wisdom of the decision. For instance SMC’s involvement in the Ellerslie flower show was not fully appreciated. SMC bought the Flower Show in 2004, ran it for just 3 years before selling it in 2007 to the Christchurch City Council for $3.0 million, receiving an average of $658 000 to manage each event. Whilst the first show in 2009 made a $224 700 profit, in every subsequent year the show incurred losses, other than 2011 when it was cancelled due to the earthquakes. In 2014 following a loss of $516 000 SMC’s contract was not renewed and further shows cancelled.

Also unknown was SMC’s involvement in another failed event, the A2B Blue Water Classic, a proposed race for super and maxi yachts from Auckland to Bluff. The event in 2014 was expected to cost $1.5 million with Government committing $440 000. Government actually contributed $100 000 up front and the Invercargill City Council $115 000. Venture Southland and Invercargill City had previously spent $15 000 on a feasibility study, but yacht racing legion Grant Dalton had warned as early as 2011 that the event would struggle to attract entries. Two years later when this eventuated the event was cancelled with none of the advanced money being returned. 

SMC do have some success stories such as the Wheet-Bix Kids Tryathlon and Port of Tauranga Marathon but these do not compare with HOY for complexity or difficulty. 

Following the revelation of the $170 000 loss by Horse of the Year in 2016, HDC Councillors were advised SMC had struggled with the complexity of the event and that there had been problems with the transfer from Eventpro the previous organiser. Additionally there had been additional costs of $50 000 for cleaning out the stables, $172 500 for temporary fencing and $30 000 for irrigation. 

For the record in HDC contributed $35 000 in 2015 and at the urging of the Mayor this was doubled to $70 000 for 2016. Effectively the combination of the $170 000 loss and the additional $35 000 grant means the event finances were $205 000 worse off. The initial $90 000 initial shareholder advance had already been used up

On July 19 Councillors were asked to approve a rescue package consisting of:

• $250 000 to recapitalise HOY 

• $150 000 annual contribution

• $600 000 reserve to cover future event risk

A decision on the $600 000 was deferred pending further investigation (but strongly opposed by this councillor), the annual contribution was whittled back to $120 000 a year (but still opposed by 4 councillors), and a one time bail out of $170 000 approved but opposed by 2 councillors. 

One councillor asked if the HDC would have been so accommodating had the Deputy Mayor not also been Chair of Horse of the Year? This raises the issue of whether this back door involvement by council is wise. All who remember the V8 fiasco in Hamilton will be wary of council’s direct involvement in eventing.

There was also support for a $200 000 grant to the A & P show grounds for fencing and an irrigation system, part of an unallocated $500 000 assistance provision. Helping the A & P society to provide these facilities meant a potential annual saving of $30 000 for HOY and also offered a permanent upgrade of this important local venue for all users. The value of these improvements effectively translates to a further increase in the annual grant to HOY.    

We are told repeatedly that HOY contributes $12.5 million to the local economy a figure supported by council officers but not verifiable by councillors. It is unquestionably an iconic Hawke’s Bay event but his does not mean council should be providing a blank cheque year after year. Clearly in hindsight it might have been very much cheaper to have agreed to the fee increase requested by Eventpro, but that option was never explored. 

Whilst the hiccups for 2016 seem plausible and some help justified, the HDC has been locked into additional support beyond 2017 if that year produces a similar outcome. The option of pulling the plug must be retained. 

Havelock has run out of sections

Published HBT 18 July 2016

Recently the Hastings District Council arranged a “building industries forum on residential land supply”. It seemed mostly to be a PR exercise by council officers to mollify the concerns of the local building industry over the perceived shortage of building sites especially Havelock North. The council maintains there is no shortage, but nearly 100 industry representatives surely can’t be wrong. 

Residential land development is a long convoluted process made more difficult by the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy or HPUDS which attempts to control the erosion of productive land by urban development.  Because of the time it takes to get bare land to the stage of being available for housing, wise and timely planning is essential, and its clear council has scored an own goal by failing to take the industry’s views seriously when the issue was bought to Council’s Economic Development Committee over 18 months ago. 

The problems are two fold. Council predictions are based on past averages but the market is cyclical so when demand accelerates as is now happening, supply may be inadiquite. Additionally in Havelock North the odour coming from the mushroom farm has resulted in the Arataki Extension being put on hold though the problem has also been known about for a long time. 

One solution is to develop Brookvale Road but unfortunately there is currently no structure plan so it will be at least a couple of years before anything happens, assuming landowners are interested. A second area is to the south of Havelock North between Te Aute and Middle Roads is more promising but will also be subject to a delay of at least 12 months and probably longer. 

Effectively Havelock North has run out of sections and there are also delays in bring more sections to market in both Northwood and Lyndhurst.

Council seems to think if no building consent has been issued then an empty section is available for someone to buy, but this is quite wrong. It’s possible the section owner has purchased the block with the intention of building at some undefined time in the future. Alternatively an empty section could be part of a builders supply chain to ensure as work on each dwelling comes to an end construction can commence on the next dwelling. This means builders must have a continuing supply of subdivided and serviced residential land. Larger building companies may be committed to buying a significant number of sections even though it may be some time before they are all built on. The reality is an empty section can only be assumed to be available for sale if council approaches the owner and confirms its availability. 

Nor is it realistic to assume that if a handful of sections are unsold there are still sections available for everyone. We live in a market economy not some Eastern European controlled economy. Not every section will appeal to every buyer. Yet it is important there are enough sections so all buyers can be satisfied. 

It is essential there is a good supply of sections. Single dwelling residential construction is a hugely important economic driver here in Hawke’s Bay as elsewhere with many individuals and businesses involved. If council does not ensure enough land is available, and  in the right areas, then millions of dollars of privately funded spending will be denied to the local economy. Shortages will also result in less competition and both higher section prices and land banking is likely to occur. Conversely if a developer thinks prices will be stable because of adequate supply they will be keen to move their sections to market. 

Council seems concerned  it will be left owing the money it has borrowed for infrastructure if it does not collect the development contributions. This must have happened in parts of Flaxmere where council owned sections have been unsold for decades but record low interest rates at present minimises the risks. The proposed 260 sections in Howard St will require $3.3 million for infrastructure, and the interest on this money at say 5% is just $165 000 a year.  When compared to the $750 000 cost of the free Hastings CBD parking trials, or the million dollars already spent on Civic Square, neither of which has provided any economic benefit, the risk on residential development seems affordable.  

Hawke’s Bay is a great place to live but in terms of population we are nearly the slowest growing region in the country. One of the reasons for this is a lack of well paid permanent jobs.The Hastings District Council invests heavily in economic development so clearly believes it has an important role to play yet seems willing to permit a damaging shortage of residential sections to happen.

At last weeks Horticultural Field Days in Hastings BNZ economics guru Tony Alexander suggested Hawke’s Bay will not share in New Zealand’s rapidly growing economy. He also predicted the current housing boom would run out of steam by the end of next year, as interest rates started to increase again. It would be a great shame if lack of timely action on residential development by the HDC further impacted on our well being.  

Wrong parking strategy in Hastings

Published HBT 8 July 2016

The Hastings District Council has finalised its 2016/17 budget with a proposed rate increase of 3.1%  for RA1 the urban area, and 1.5% for the rural area RA2. 

The average increase could have been 0.5% higher had council not decided to raid the million dollar parking reserve instead of using rates to fund the $270 000 of lost revenue resulting from the third free parking trial. Councillors ignored the 80% of respondents to the Council’s Annual Plan survey and confirmed by 80% of those taking part in a focus group consultation who stated they wanted paid parking rather than a rates increase. A cynic might connect the reluctance to make a hard decision with the forthcoming local government elections. 

In theory at least, the parking experiment has not directly impacted on rates. The first trial from November 2015 to February 2016 resulted in $170 000 of lost revenue paid from the rating surplus, plus a further $109 000 for consultants from the parking reserve. The second trial from March to June 2016 differed from the first by reintroducing pay and display charges in council off-street carparks, suggesting perhaps that people may be willing to pay for their parking. The total cost for the three trials is approaching a massive three quarters of a million dollars. 

  

The consultants analysis following the first trial revealed whilst Hastings has experienced a significant improvement in business conditions, retail turnover had actually increased by more for those businesses operating outside of regular shopping hours, and also for those retailers offering free parking. Whilst welcomed by shoppers free parking made no difference to spending. This should not have been a surprise because Councillors were advised that a similar exercise in Rotorua had found no significant impact on either pedestrian counts or retail turnover.

Whilst free parking is very nice it is debatable whether a third trial was necessary. Additionally free parking has not been matched by a reduction in costs so the lost revenue has had to be met from elsewhere. Clearly in time either parking charges will have to be reintroduced, or rates increased to make up the shortfall, but either way the parking reserve will be depleted.

Whilst the total cost of the free parking trials is significant it is just one of the dream schemes council has come up with in recent years to rescue the CBD, all welcomed around the council table with glowing oratory and much enthusiasm. Many have simply vanished from sight or have failed to make any difference but not before gobbling up quite a lot money and great deal of staff time.  

• Over $4 million has been spent on street improvements and new parks. 
• In 2010 a $3.7 million scheme was hatched to remove the fountain and reconnect the two halves of Heretaunga St. 
• A proposal to inject two million dollars of ratepayer funds to encourage a chartered club merger was thwarted when the idea was rejected by the National Service Club. 
• A proposal for pedestrian access linking the 300 block to the Council’s Queens St car park was abandoned but not before costing a couple of hundred thousand dollars.
• The $12.5 million Civic Square or Tihei Heretaunga proposal is on hold but has already cost up to a million dollars. 
• The $5.0 million CBD hotel investment seems unlikely to proceed. 
• The proposed $10 million strengthening the Opera House is being partly justified by the promised boost to the CBD. 

The things that seem to have worked best are generally those with the least council investment. New office developments, the new Farmers store and the Kiwi Bank call centre have probably done more to boost the CBD than anything the council has done on its own. Sure Council was involved in the Kiwi Bank initiative but the money was mostly private as was the risk. 

There seems to be an unwillingness around the council table to understand basic issues. Firstly the population of Hawke’s Bay is expanding at near the slowest rate in the country. Secondly if we want Kmart and Mega Mall type developments, and it seems we do, then there will be fewer shoppers and less money for CBD retailing. This situation is likely to be further exacerbated by the imminent relocation of both Briscoes and Rebel Sports. Thirdly Internet or on-line buying will also continue eating into traditional retailing with an increasing share going to overseas suppliers. And lastly the continuing growth of Havelock North must also be dragging shoppers away from the Hastings CBD.

Providing free parking will have an on going cost of between $500 000 and $1 million a year. Rather than throwing more good money at bad ideas perhaps Council would be better to start spending these funds on shrinking the CBD by buying up then demolishing some of the buildings and using the freed up space to increase free parking, whilst at the same time reducing the cost of parking administration.