The recent disclosure that a $500 000 donation by Higgins Contracting towards the Regional Sports Park was conditional on the company being awarded $1.8 million in work, raises serious issues about the way council matters are being handled.
The announcement of the so called gift was made with great fan fair a week earlier by the Sports Park Chairman who happens to also be the Mayor. It is no secret the park has struggled to get sponsorship due to the economic downturn that started to bite way back in 2007 and it seemed like the first positive step in breaking the funding drought.
In the early days of the park development, local entrepreneur Sam Kelt was in charge of the fund raising and was being paid $300 000 a year for his troubles. Almost certainly nothing was raised though strenuous efforts were made to conceal the details. At the time we all believed he would be donating one million dollars towards the development. It is still not entirely clear if any money has, or ever will be received under this arrangement. Certainly the chances seemed to shrink after some sort of disagreement between the Mayor and Mr Kelt.
It's impossible to find out exactly what is going on at the Sports Park because many decisions have been made behind closed doors, and much of what has been said has been subject to serious spin doctoring, necessary only when the truth is unpalatable.
As I recall the contracts for construction of the all weather athletics track and parts of the Grandstand were also awarded to Higgins without any formal tender process.
Again the Mayor claimed these were very good deals. Perhaps!! But the reality is the only way to know for sure that something is a very good deal is for all interested parties to submit their best prices. Other than “for free” anything else costs ratepayers.
Now while nod nod, wink wink hand shake deals might be convenient there is no place for them when public money is involved. Remember we are talking about millions of dollars.
There are several things seriously wrong with the latest sports park deal. The fact that substantial contracts were let without being subject to competitive tender breaks the councils own rules. Shifting control to a 100% council owned trust is simply manipulating the situation to avoiding the rules that normally apply. For instance the price for work could have been jacked up to cover the cost of the donation. The next step on such a path is graft.
The process has also disadvantaged other contractors . They employ people, pay rates and contribute to our society. The risk is over time others may become cynical and not bother to submit their best deals in future because they know its a waste of time. It may even force some not to stay in business or not to stay in Hawke's Bay.
The fact it was necessary to exclude any public scrutiny makes clear the deal was not squeaky clean. The whole sordid business was opposed by only a handful of councillors who realised the full implications of favoritism when handing out valuable work. Full marks to those who did stand up and be counted but clearly nepotism is not dead at the Hastings District Council.
When I read of the Mayor claiming he had done no wrong, ringing in my ears was US President Richard Nixon proclaiming “I'm not a crook” just before he was impeached by congress over the Watergate scandal.
Its now time to ask other questions about the sports park. Much has been said about the $3.5 million pledged for the Velodrome by Unison and the Regional Council. On the surface quite generous but this money is in effect all public money that has been taken from the community. A lot more is still needed and it seems significant contributions will be required from Government and/or Bike New Zealand.
In addition to providing a valuable facility for aspiring Olympians such a facility could boost our visitor industry but we cannot count on it happening.
We are not the only ones pitching for official endorsement. Palmerston North, Wanganui and Auckland are all aspiring to have the first all weather north Island velodrome. So if we don't win this battle for funding do we lose the $3.5 million already pledged or can it be used for other Sports Park projects?
It is time for the Mayor to stop fudging the facts and reveal the exact state of affairs.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Friday, March 19, 2010
Beach errosion
Last Sunday night coastal areas were hit with monster waves generated by a low pressure system hundreds of kilometers off shore. Te Awanga, Haumoana and Clifton, all part of the Hastings District were the most affected.
The Hawke's Bay coastline is built from shingle bought down by the various rivers and distributed along the foreshore by tides and waves. Every so often large swells arrive and this process is accelerated so what might seem like stable ground suddenly starts moving, sometimes being eroded, and some times being built up.
The problem is decades ago houses were built on the foreshore when the sea seemed not be be a problem, and now many are right on the edge of the beach having lost most of their frontage to previous storms.
Several batches and sheds have already been destroyed, and the process can expect to continue forever, unless or course we have another 1931 type tectonic event when perhaps the land might be lifted higher instead of dropping lower as happened last time.
Anyway people with houses in the area do what most of us would do in similar circumstances. They try to make their houses safe mostly by building protective walls.
In doing so they have come up against the policies of the Hastings District Council and the Hawke's Bay Regional Council both of whom seem to favor what is rather delightfully called a managed retreat, meaning abandoning their properties.
The Dutch might be interested in this ohilosophy.
Of course it's very easy to support such an idea when it is not your house being threatened.
The residents not unsurprisingly disagree.They want to build protective barriers. The Hastings District has ruled these structures require resource consents before work can even start. One local who had rebuilt a wall originally built by a previous owner, was recently taken to court and fined.
The locals also believe the solution is a series of groynes along the coastline. Of course ratepayers might no be so keep on paying for what some think is a battle that cannot be won. Some in the wider community believe those who choose to live by the sea cannot expect the wider community to pay for their protection.
The councils seem to agree yet this approach seems inconsistent with their decisions on other similar matters.
For over seventy years the Heretaunga plains have been protected by stockbanks or levees built during in the 1930's during the depression and unquestionably valuable farm and cropping land has been saved from inundation from foods, especially during Cyclone Bola in the late 1980,s when the water was within centimeters of coming over the top. In 1989 responsibility transferred to the Hawke's Bay Regional Council.
Another valuable asset protected with man made fortifications is the Port of Napier. Few if any would contest the value of the port to this area, but the massive concrete blocks, boulders and other engineering works are there to prevent the sea disrupting activities. As it happens the port is owned by the Hawke's Bay Regional Council.
Thirty years ago Westshore was a very pleasant beach. Not any more. Some claim port development has caused the erosion. The Regional Council seems to have accepted some responsibility and over recent years huge quantities of shingle have been trucked at great expense from Marine Parade to Westshore to replace material eroded from the beach.
Elsewhere retaining walls and other barriers to the elements are normal practice for protecting roads, airports, and just about anything else we consider valuable.
In just a few hours last Sunday night the the road to Clifton recently built to replace an earlier road was all but washed away again. How much did the new road cost, who paid, and what happened to the managed retreat policy?
One point that has become apparent from the latest assault, is that if the group of 21 houses at Haumoana disappear into the sea, the road to Te Awanga will be threatened. Protection might be cheaper than building a replacement for the several hundred homes that will be cut off, as a new road could involve the purchase of some rather pricey land financed by ratepayers.
As long as the residents are fighting the battle with their own money they may be doing the wider community a great service. It seems quite unreasonable to load individual citizens with monstrous consent costs when all they are trying to do is protect their houses with fortification built on their own land at their own expense.
For the moment council officers seem to be enforcing their entrenched views by placing every possible obstruction in the way of these people.
The Hawke's Bay coastline is built from shingle bought down by the various rivers and distributed along the foreshore by tides and waves. Every so often large swells arrive and this process is accelerated so what might seem like stable ground suddenly starts moving, sometimes being eroded, and some times being built up.
The problem is decades ago houses were built on the foreshore when the sea seemed not be be a problem, and now many are right on the edge of the beach having lost most of their frontage to previous storms.
Several batches and sheds have already been destroyed, and the process can expect to continue forever, unless or course we have another 1931 type tectonic event when perhaps the land might be lifted higher instead of dropping lower as happened last time.
Anyway people with houses in the area do what most of us would do in similar circumstances. They try to make their houses safe mostly by building protective walls.
In doing so they have come up against the policies of the Hastings District Council and the Hawke's Bay Regional Council both of whom seem to favor what is rather delightfully called a managed retreat, meaning abandoning their properties.
The Dutch might be interested in this ohilosophy.
Of course it's very easy to support such an idea when it is not your house being threatened.
The residents not unsurprisingly disagree.They want to build protective barriers. The Hastings District has ruled these structures require resource consents before work can even start. One local who had rebuilt a wall originally built by a previous owner, was recently taken to court and fined.
The locals also believe the solution is a series of groynes along the coastline. Of course ratepayers might no be so keep on paying for what some think is a battle that cannot be won. Some in the wider community believe those who choose to live by the sea cannot expect the wider community to pay for their protection.
The councils seem to agree yet this approach seems inconsistent with their decisions on other similar matters.
For over seventy years the Heretaunga plains have been protected by stockbanks or levees built during in the 1930's during the depression and unquestionably valuable farm and cropping land has been saved from inundation from foods, especially during Cyclone Bola in the late 1980,s when the water was within centimeters of coming over the top. In 1989 responsibility transferred to the Hawke's Bay Regional Council.
Another valuable asset protected with man made fortifications is the Port of Napier. Few if any would contest the value of the port to this area, but the massive concrete blocks, boulders and other engineering works are there to prevent the sea disrupting activities. As it happens the port is owned by the Hawke's Bay Regional Council.
Thirty years ago Westshore was a very pleasant beach. Not any more. Some claim port development has caused the erosion. The Regional Council seems to have accepted some responsibility and over recent years huge quantities of shingle have been trucked at great expense from Marine Parade to Westshore to replace material eroded from the beach.
Elsewhere retaining walls and other barriers to the elements are normal practice for protecting roads, airports, and just about anything else we consider valuable.
In just a few hours last Sunday night the the road to Clifton recently built to replace an earlier road was all but washed away again. How much did the new road cost, who paid, and what happened to the managed retreat policy?
One point that has become apparent from the latest assault, is that if the group of 21 houses at Haumoana disappear into the sea, the road to Te Awanga will be threatened. Protection might be cheaper than building a replacement for the several hundred homes that will be cut off, as a new road could involve the purchase of some rather pricey land financed by ratepayers.
As long as the residents are fighting the battle with their own money they may be doing the wider community a great service. It seems quite unreasonable to load individual citizens with monstrous consent costs when all they are trying to do is protect their houses with fortification built on their own land at their own expense.
For the moment council officers seem to be enforcing their entrenched views by placing every possible obstruction in the way of these people.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Local Government Emergency
Recently Regional Councillors Neil Kirton and Tim Gilbertson called for greater co operation between our five councils. This followed a Chamber of Commerce letter suggestion a referendum on amalgamation be held in conjunction with this years local Government elections. Something I have also been suggesting.
Apparently talks on greater co operation have been going on for 10 years or more but little progress has been made.
Just two days after the report an event occurred which to me highlighted the disjointed relationships between our local councils. I am talking of course about the Tsunami scare following a massive 8.8 earthquake off the coast of Chile.
A major natural disaster is always on the cards for Hawke's Bay. A couple of thousand years ago ( geologically only yesterday) a massive eruption where Lake Taupo now is, smothered Hawke's Bay with ash. It is at least the 4th time this has happened and it will likely happen again.
Seventy nine years ago we were hit by a major earthquake that all but destroyed both Napier and Hastings. It could and probably will happen again.
In the 1960's our coastline was battered by a Tsunami that originated of the coast of South America where the latest one started. There was some damage, no lives were lost, but it shows these events are not isolated.
I have had some encounters with Tsunami. In 1975 while working in the Solomon Islands I flew over an area not long after a massive Tsunami had hit the coast, traveling hundreds of meters inland and killing thousands of villagers. From the air it was just a dirty brown scar reaching from the sea but clearly on the ground it was total disaster.
One night a little later in Rabaul on the island of New Britain there was a large earthquake in the middle of the night. Next morning I was shown a serious of photographs on display in the foyer showing the result of a previous earthquake. A wall of water travelled across the harbour hitting the sea wall maybe 100 metres from the motel then continued across the grass and road until it hit the outer wall of the building where I had been sleeping. After smashing through the ground floor units it continued out the other side of the rooms perhaps a metre and a half deep. One astonishing shot showed a wall of brown water pouring into the swimming pool at one end while at the other end it was still calm and blue.
Of course these are just tiddlers. When the Indonesian volcano of Krakatoa exploded in the 1880's, a wall of water was so high it swept away people who had climbed a hill over 30 metres high for protection.
So what has all of this got to do with Hawke's Bay. Throughout the day of the Tsunami I received a constant bombardment of media releases updating me on the tsunami.
At least six bulletins came from the Regional Council, four from the Napier City Council and I assume more were put out by the Hastings District Council.
Three organisations were working to minimise the threat to the people of Hawke's Bay. In the field there seemed to be inconsistency. In Napier the market on Marine parade was in full swing, where as Haumoana and Te Awanga were both evacuated and Waimarama self evacuated. In Clive I heard a woman asking the Police why her area had not been evacuated. The police seemed to be operating under different instructions again.
I am not criticising those in the field. They were doing what seemed right, but it seemed to me the three organisations were unaware of each others actions. It was after all a single threat to the whole area.
Natural disasters are real threats to our safety. It is only a matter of time before the big one, what ever it is, hits Hawke's Bay. Parts of Napier including the airport are only a couple of meters above high tide. A three meter Tsunami on top of a king tide could well reach into the suburbs threatening lives.
We need one controlling civil defence authority possibly working under the control of full time emergency agencies of Fire, Ambulance, and Police. Fire in particular are probably the only organisation with the necessary skills and equipment to handle a major disaster.
Not only would there be a better co-ordinated response, presumably there would also be financial savings for ratepayers.
We should consider the Tsunami a dry run for the real thing. When the real thing does happen we must be prepared in the best way possible.
So if our councilors have any real intention of working in unison then a single emergency management organisation would be a good place to start.
Apparently talks on greater co operation have been going on for 10 years or more but little progress has been made.
Just two days after the report an event occurred which to me highlighted the disjointed relationships between our local councils. I am talking of course about the Tsunami scare following a massive 8.8 earthquake off the coast of Chile.
A major natural disaster is always on the cards for Hawke's Bay. A couple of thousand years ago ( geologically only yesterday) a massive eruption where Lake Taupo now is, smothered Hawke's Bay with ash. It is at least the 4th time this has happened and it will likely happen again.
Seventy nine years ago we were hit by a major earthquake that all but destroyed both Napier and Hastings. It could and probably will happen again.
In the 1960's our coastline was battered by a Tsunami that originated of the coast of South America where the latest one started. There was some damage, no lives were lost, but it shows these events are not isolated.
I have had some encounters with Tsunami. In 1975 while working in the Solomon Islands I flew over an area not long after a massive Tsunami had hit the coast, traveling hundreds of meters inland and killing thousands of villagers. From the air it was just a dirty brown scar reaching from the sea but clearly on the ground it was total disaster.
One night a little later in Rabaul on the island of New Britain there was a large earthquake in the middle of the night. Next morning I was shown a serious of photographs on display in the foyer showing the result of a previous earthquake. A wall of water travelled across the harbour hitting the sea wall maybe 100 metres from the motel then continued across the grass and road until it hit the outer wall of the building where I had been sleeping. After smashing through the ground floor units it continued out the other side of the rooms perhaps a metre and a half deep. One astonishing shot showed a wall of brown water pouring into the swimming pool at one end while at the other end it was still calm and blue.
Of course these are just tiddlers. When the Indonesian volcano of Krakatoa exploded in the 1880's, a wall of water was so high it swept away people who had climbed a hill over 30 metres high for protection.
So what has all of this got to do with Hawke's Bay. Throughout the day of the Tsunami I received a constant bombardment of media releases updating me on the tsunami.
At least six bulletins came from the Regional Council, four from the Napier City Council and I assume more were put out by the Hastings District Council.
Three organisations were working to minimise the threat to the people of Hawke's Bay. In the field there seemed to be inconsistency. In Napier the market on Marine parade was in full swing, where as Haumoana and Te Awanga were both evacuated and Waimarama self evacuated. In Clive I heard a woman asking the Police why her area had not been evacuated. The police seemed to be operating under different instructions again.
I am not criticising those in the field. They were doing what seemed right, but it seemed to me the three organisations were unaware of each others actions. It was after all a single threat to the whole area.
Natural disasters are real threats to our safety. It is only a matter of time before the big one, what ever it is, hits Hawke's Bay. Parts of Napier including the airport are only a couple of meters above high tide. A three meter Tsunami on top of a king tide could well reach into the suburbs threatening lives.
We need one controlling civil defence authority possibly working under the control of full time emergency agencies of Fire, Ambulance, and Police. Fire in particular are probably the only organisation with the necessary skills and equipment to handle a major disaster.
Not only would there be a better co-ordinated response, presumably there would also be financial savings for ratepayers.
We should consider the Tsunami a dry run for the real thing. When the real thing does happen we must be prepared in the best way possible.
So if our councilors have any real intention of working in unison then a single emergency management organisation would be a good place to start.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Public Transport
Last year the Hawkes Bay Regional Council awarded the urban Bus contract to “Go Bus”, dropping long time provider Nimons who had been running services for close to a hundred years.
While urban bus services are not profitable as stand alone operations, they are made attractive to operators with ratepayer subsidies. These subsidies remove much of the risk faced other by other providers such as taxi's. The money has to come from somewhere and that somewhere is you. Take a look at your Regional Council Rates demand and you will find exactly what you are being charged whether or not, you are a bus user. Additionally Government provides some financial support.
A hundred years or so, few people owned their own transport.
For most mobility was greatly enhanced with the arrival of the railways from the 1880's, followed by electric trams after 1900.
Yes, the first cars were becoming available around the same time, but it was not until the 1950's and 1960's that growing incomes made then affordable to most people.
Private cars offered unrestrained travel and freedom of where to go, and when, and where to live and work.
They also filled the streets with traffic and parked cars.
Eventually the authorities realised the futility of building more and more new roads, bridges, motorways and parking buildings and started to encourage people to use public transport.
Some major cities such as London, New York, Tokyo, and others could not function without mass transport systems. Of course public transport existed well before the arrival of private cars so the travelling and living patterns of the inhabitants developed around the transport system not the other way around.
Wellington is the only city in this country with an effective urban rail system. There, about a quarter of commuters use public transport, compared with just four percent of people traveling into Auckland's CBD, and only one percent in Christchurch. It probably helps that a large number of public servants with their nine to five work ethic, and down town work places provides the numbers and concentration of traffic needed.
To some extent it was just luck that the rail tracks built in the 1880's were still there in the 1940's when the system was electrified. Significantly there has been little improvement in 70 years.
Public transport is clearly loosing out to the private motor vehicle everywhere in New Zealand including Hawke's Bay. This in spite of massive subsidies for public transport funded from taxes, rates, and private motorists.
In Hawke's Bay we have little history of using public transport. Low density urban expansion and widely spread employment generally prevents the concentrations of passengers needed for an effective public transport system.
Schools, the EIT and the hospital do provide the necessary hubs to concentrate traffic so these are the exceptions.
So in spite of the hype pumped out by the Regional Council the reality is urban bus services in Hawke's Bay are failing to attract good passenger loadings and this is supported by general observation of empty and near empty buses.
For the second quarter of 2009 total bus patronage was 110 000 passengers. Fully 85% were travelling free or on some sort of concession and over half were children or students.
Only 15%, or 16 500 trips were full fare paying adults. Sounds a lot but divided over the 65 work days this averages 254 trips a day. Now allowing for each person traveling both from home, then back, this represents only 127 people a day, an absolute minuscule fraction of the over 50 000 people estimated to work in Hawkes Bay each day.
Even this over states bus usage, because not all of these trips are traveling to work, and some must be using weekend services.
So the many are paying for just a few to have an almost personal transport service.
While buses to Flaxmere, the hospital and the EIT do appear quite well supported, by far the majority of services are not.
Remember these buses are costing you the ratepayer over a million dollars a year so ratepayers have a right to question the purpose of the service, how the routes and frequency are decided, and how much it should cost.
The reasoning behind urban transport lacks rationale. My guess is the last Government imposed it on the Regional Council who are more than happy to expand their empire.
Pressure from just a a few individuals may have convinced council that the community is demanding such a service but few of these people ever seem to catch the bus themselves.
While on the surface subsidised urban transport seems like a good idea because in theory it removes vehicles from the roads in reality it can be wasteful because it encourages people to live further from their work place than they might otherwise do, shifting the cost of getting to work onto others.
Only by imposing onerous penalties for car drivers such as tolls, congestion, and parking charges plus massive subsidies can people be shifted out of their cars. Hardly surprising considering the inconvenience and unhealthy atmosphere experienced with public transport.
Those who drive to work face the full cost. There is also the issue of fairness. Clive gets a service. Haumoana, and Te Awanga do not, nor do Waipukarau, Waipawa or Wairoa.
Now I believe we do need buses, but we need to drop the myth we are getting cars off the road. In Hawke's Bay buses are mainly a social service for those who don't have access to private motor vehicles.
Rational thinking must prevail. Subsidies promote waste.
If particular services are not supported by a reasonable numbers of people, then they should be discontinued. The Regional Council does not have a mandate to waste ratepayers money in pursuit of unrealistic sustainability aims.
While urban bus services are not profitable as stand alone operations, they are made attractive to operators with ratepayer subsidies. These subsidies remove much of the risk faced other by other providers such as taxi's. The money has to come from somewhere and that somewhere is you. Take a look at your Regional Council Rates demand and you will find exactly what you are being charged whether or not, you are a bus user. Additionally Government provides some financial support.
A hundred years or so, few people owned their own transport.
For most mobility was greatly enhanced with the arrival of the railways from the 1880's, followed by electric trams after 1900.
Yes, the first cars were becoming available around the same time, but it was not until the 1950's and 1960's that growing incomes made then affordable to most people.
Private cars offered unrestrained travel and freedom of where to go, and when, and where to live and work.
They also filled the streets with traffic and parked cars.
Eventually the authorities realised the futility of building more and more new roads, bridges, motorways and parking buildings and started to encourage people to use public transport.
Some major cities such as London, New York, Tokyo, and others could not function without mass transport systems. Of course public transport existed well before the arrival of private cars so the travelling and living patterns of the inhabitants developed around the transport system not the other way around.
Wellington is the only city in this country with an effective urban rail system. There, about a quarter of commuters use public transport, compared with just four percent of people traveling into Auckland's CBD, and only one percent in Christchurch. It probably helps that a large number of public servants with their nine to five work ethic, and down town work places provides the numbers and concentration of traffic needed.
To some extent it was just luck that the rail tracks built in the 1880's were still there in the 1940's when the system was electrified. Significantly there has been little improvement in 70 years.
Public transport is clearly loosing out to the private motor vehicle everywhere in New Zealand including Hawke's Bay. This in spite of massive subsidies for public transport funded from taxes, rates, and private motorists.
In Hawke's Bay we have little history of using public transport. Low density urban expansion and widely spread employment generally prevents the concentrations of passengers needed for an effective public transport system.
Schools, the EIT and the hospital do provide the necessary hubs to concentrate traffic so these are the exceptions.
So in spite of the hype pumped out by the Regional Council the reality is urban bus services in Hawke's Bay are failing to attract good passenger loadings and this is supported by general observation of empty and near empty buses.
For the second quarter of 2009 total bus patronage was 110 000 passengers. Fully 85% were travelling free or on some sort of concession and over half were children or students.
Only 15%, or 16 500 trips were full fare paying adults. Sounds a lot but divided over the 65 work days this averages 254 trips a day. Now allowing for each person traveling both from home, then back, this represents only 127 people a day, an absolute minuscule fraction of the over 50 000 people estimated to work in Hawkes Bay each day.
Even this over states bus usage, because not all of these trips are traveling to work, and some must be using weekend services.
So the many are paying for just a few to have an almost personal transport service.
While buses to Flaxmere, the hospital and the EIT do appear quite well supported, by far the majority of services are not.
Remember these buses are costing you the ratepayer over a million dollars a year so ratepayers have a right to question the purpose of the service, how the routes and frequency are decided, and how much it should cost.
The reasoning behind urban transport lacks rationale. My guess is the last Government imposed it on the Regional Council who are more than happy to expand their empire.
Pressure from just a a few individuals may have convinced council that the community is demanding such a service but few of these people ever seem to catch the bus themselves.
While on the surface subsidised urban transport seems like a good idea because in theory it removes vehicles from the roads in reality it can be wasteful because it encourages people to live further from their work place than they might otherwise do, shifting the cost of getting to work onto others.
Only by imposing onerous penalties for car drivers such as tolls, congestion, and parking charges plus massive subsidies can people be shifted out of their cars. Hardly surprising considering the inconvenience and unhealthy atmosphere experienced with public transport.
Those who drive to work face the full cost. There is also the issue of fairness. Clive gets a service. Haumoana, and Te Awanga do not, nor do Waipukarau, Waipawa or Wairoa.
Now I believe we do need buses, but we need to drop the myth we are getting cars off the road. In Hawke's Bay buses are mainly a social service for those who don't have access to private motor vehicles.
Rational thinking must prevail. Subsidies promote waste.
If particular services are not supported by a reasonable numbers of people, then they should be discontinued. The Regional Council does not have a mandate to waste ratepayers money in pursuit of unrealistic sustainability aims.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Venture Hawke's Bay
Over past couple of months there have been accusations, and counter claims concerning the performance of an organisation called Venture Hawkes Bay.
This organisation started out as Hawke's Bay Inc and from the outset has attracted continuing low level criticism.
The name may have changed but the dissatisfaction remains. VHB was established to foster economic development in Hawkes Bay and ratepayers and citizens are paying the bill so need to be aware of what is going on. Initial funding was about $1.5 million a year was split equally between the Regional Council, Hastings District, and Napier City Councils.
At some point both Hastings and Napier disengaged, so from 2009 both control and funding have been managed by the Regional Council. Look at your Regional Council rates assessment and you will find a targeted amount for Venture Hawke's Bay.
The cost has increased as with all Regional Council projects and now seems closer to $4 million a year, with some of that financed from Government grants. Staff establishment has exploded to 17 employees.
Most of the criticism involves Venture Hawke's Bay's tourism activities. Of course this is the most visible of their responsibilities and there are many businesses and people are directly involved in the visitor industry.
I have been one of the critics almost since the beginning. In my opinion most of the problems are due to the unsuitability of the people running the organisation.
Ross Bramwell founding Chairman of the Regional Council was the first Chairman. In my opinion he given the job simply as a sort of gratuity. Ross is a pleasant fellow but I certainly don't think he's got the necessary skills for the challenge.
As proof he failed at least twice to find a suitable Chief Executive and hang onto them. It took nearly a year to find the first incumbent who resigned and departed within 10 months following months of rumors about serious dissatisfaction.
The next appointment was Tom Hamilton a former Hawke's Bay man who was working in Singapore. I have met Tom several times over the years and I could never understand why he was selected to lead Hawke's Bay into the future.
He made three tips to New Zealand for interviews, then a briefing then the final shift with his family. The process took months and cost a fortune.
It seemed just weeks had passed when whispers again suggested great dissatisfaction and right on the obligatory 12 months he also departed.
Number three Chief Executive is Janet Takerangi, also a Ross Bramwell appointment made not long before he handed over the chairmanship to Regional Councillor Neil Kirton in 2009.
She has not impressed some people. Mid 2009 she claimed visitor numbers were up but overlooked the figures she was using were seriously distorted by overseas fruit pickers. In that same month Molliner shot several police officers an event that dragged in at least 100 police and army personnel plus a significant number of media people adding perhaps 1000 bed nights to the statistics.
Neil Kirton worked in the Health sector before being swept into Parliament with the New Zealand first avalanche of 1996. As associate Minister of Health and of Customs I personally supported some of his initiatives such as the 100% speedo checks on imported second hand vehicles.
He was in constant strife with Bill English and did not seek re-election in 1999, and would not have been returned anyway.
Two years later he was elected to the Hawke's Bay Regional Council and has been re-elected twice.
I question whether his knowledge or background have equipped him to head up an economic development agency, and I certainly have seen nothing to suggest Neil knows much about tourism. He was for years a critic of Hawke's Bay Inc so one wonders if he was silenced with an offer of the chairmanship and the $50 000 a year he is understood to earn as Chairman.
The other major player in the tourism story is Regional Promotion and Marketing Manager Michael Wan who hails from NZ Post. At this stage it is far from clear whether he has the skills to drive the visitor industry.
The most recent criticisms of VHB concern a recent TV advertising campaign, and redesigned internet web site both part of measures intended to attract more visitors.
Many accommodation practitioners suggest the TV campaign has been ineffective and the web site unsatisfactory, and are able to produce antidotal evidence to support their arguments. They also complain of lack of consultation. Accommodation and visitor industry operators collectively spend millions on advertising and marketing so have knowledge of the issues. They also need to know what is going on so they can co ordinate with any official programmes.
The downturn seems to have hit some moteliers hard. A couple of years ago they were doing well so what exactly has changed?
When they complained Neil attacked them suggesting they were offering an unsatisfactory product. This knee jerk reaction appears very defensive. The ultimate measure of success is surely an improvement in the official statistics.
Hawkes Bay Inc and Venture Hawke's Bay have cost ratepayers more than $10 million since inception and there is not a lot to show for the money.
The criticisms and complaints require answers. To succeed people need to perform and this is more likely if they have a proven track record. It seems so far at least, this is not the case. With elections looming it is time for transparency and accountability so we can decide whether to continue to support Venture Hawke's Bay or not.
This organisation started out as Hawke's Bay Inc and from the outset has attracted continuing low level criticism.
The name may have changed but the dissatisfaction remains. VHB was established to foster economic development in Hawkes Bay and ratepayers and citizens are paying the bill so need to be aware of what is going on. Initial funding was about $1.5 million a year was split equally between the Regional Council, Hastings District, and Napier City Councils.
At some point both Hastings and Napier disengaged, so from 2009 both control and funding have been managed by the Regional Council. Look at your Regional Council rates assessment and you will find a targeted amount for Venture Hawke's Bay.
The cost has increased as with all Regional Council projects and now seems closer to $4 million a year, with some of that financed from Government grants. Staff establishment has exploded to 17 employees.
Most of the criticism involves Venture Hawke's Bay's tourism activities. Of course this is the most visible of their responsibilities and there are many businesses and people are directly involved in the visitor industry.
I have been one of the critics almost since the beginning. In my opinion most of the problems are due to the unsuitability of the people running the organisation.
Ross Bramwell founding Chairman of the Regional Council was the first Chairman. In my opinion he given the job simply as a sort of gratuity. Ross is a pleasant fellow but I certainly don't think he's got the necessary skills for the challenge.
As proof he failed at least twice to find a suitable Chief Executive and hang onto them. It took nearly a year to find the first incumbent who resigned and departed within 10 months following months of rumors about serious dissatisfaction.
The next appointment was Tom Hamilton a former Hawke's Bay man who was working in Singapore. I have met Tom several times over the years and I could never understand why he was selected to lead Hawke's Bay into the future.
He made three tips to New Zealand for interviews, then a briefing then the final shift with his family. The process took months and cost a fortune.
It seemed just weeks had passed when whispers again suggested great dissatisfaction and right on the obligatory 12 months he also departed.
Number three Chief Executive is Janet Takerangi, also a Ross Bramwell appointment made not long before he handed over the chairmanship to Regional Councillor Neil Kirton in 2009.
She has not impressed some people. Mid 2009 she claimed visitor numbers were up but overlooked the figures she was using were seriously distorted by overseas fruit pickers. In that same month Molliner shot several police officers an event that dragged in at least 100 police and army personnel plus a significant number of media people adding perhaps 1000 bed nights to the statistics.
Neil Kirton worked in the Health sector before being swept into Parliament with the New Zealand first avalanche of 1996. As associate Minister of Health and of Customs I personally supported some of his initiatives such as the 100% speedo checks on imported second hand vehicles.
He was in constant strife with Bill English and did not seek re-election in 1999, and would not have been returned anyway.
Two years later he was elected to the Hawke's Bay Regional Council and has been re-elected twice.
I question whether his knowledge or background have equipped him to head up an economic development agency, and I certainly have seen nothing to suggest Neil knows much about tourism. He was for years a critic of Hawke's Bay Inc so one wonders if he was silenced with an offer of the chairmanship and the $50 000 a year he is understood to earn as Chairman.
The other major player in the tourism story is Regional Promotion and Marketing Manager Michael Wan who hails from NZ Post. At this stage it is far from clear whether he has the skills to drive the visitor industry.
The most recent criticisms of VHB concern a recent TV advertising campaign, and redesigned internet web site both part of measures intended to attract more visitors.
Many accommodation practitioners suggest the TV campaign has been ineffective and the web site unsatisfactory, and are able to produce antidotal evidence to support their arguments. They also complain of lack of consultation. Accommodation and visitor industry operators collectively spend millions on advertising and marketing so have knowledge of the issues. They also need to know what is going on so they can co ordinate with any official programmes.
The downturn seems to have hit some moteliers hard. A couple of years ago they were doing well so what exactly has changed?
When they complained Neil attacked them suggesting they were offering an unsatisfactory product. This knee jerk reaction appears very defensive. The ultimate measure of success is surely an improvement in the official statistics.
Hawkes Bay Inc and Venture Hawke's Bay have cost ratepayers more than $10 million since inception and there is not a lot to show for the money.
The criticisms and complaints require answers. To succeed people need to perform and this is more likely if they have a proven track record. It seems so far at least, this is not the case. With elections looming it is time for transparency and accountability so we can decide whether to continue to support Venture Hawke's Bay or not.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Upgrade the Airport before its too late
For over 5 years a group of concerned citizens has been engaged in a battle with the Mayors of Napier and Hastings to get some action on upgrading the local airport so we can have passenger jets come here and perhaps even direct flights to Australia.
This battle has only been necessary because in 2004 the Airport Board accepted a very misleading $30 000 report from a well known firm of public accountants.
To put it bluntly the report was riddled with errors. Clearly the board did not realise how inadequate it was until the issue was exposed in local papers but then both they and the consultants failed to put matters right.
Incredibly neither the Mayors of Napier or Hastings did anything about it either.
Only after years of criticism did the two councils commission a second report in 2007 at a further cost to ratepayers of $60 000. At the same time a third privately funded report costing nearly $40 000 was commissioned.
The findings of both these new reports were so convincing, the Airport Board was instructed to develop plans to financing a runway extension to 1900 metres.
Another three years has been wasted but at long last the Airport Board has announced it is extending the runway to 1750 metres.
This will not give us flights to Australia, though it will allow other airlines such as Pacific Blue and Jet Star to fly domestic services and we badly need competition to break the Air New Zealand monopoly on on air services to Hawke's Bay.
Passenger jets will also allowed increased capacity at times or on special occasions when needed while providing the sort of aircraft that already fly to places such as Hamilton, Rotorua, Dunedin and Queenstown.
OK you say “who cares, doesn't affect me I never fly anyway”. This is a very narrow and selfish view of the situation. The same retarded thinking would have us still using stagecoaches, steam trains, morse code, or dial up internet instead of broadband.
If we are going to survive in today's tough world and compete with other cities for businesses, for conferences, for tourism and other forms of commerce then affordable, convenient air services are essential. Business people need regular contact with customers and suppliers.
The high cost of airfares has been given as the major reason local business people are deterred from travelling outside the area.
We should also continue the fight for direct links to Australia, this countries biggest source of manufactured imports, biggest export market, largest source of overseas investment monies, and biggest recipient of overseas investment by New Zealanders. Our business people need easy access to Australia to help them prosper and provide more employment . Right now they are seriously disadvantaged by having to fly via Auckland or Wellington at double the cost and double the travel time.
Over half of all New Zealanders travelling overseas, are heading to Australia. Many Hawke's Bay people have children, relatives or friends living in Australia who they would like to visit, or have visit.
And even more importantly Australia is the source of over half of all overseas visitors to this country. And that percentage is growing fast. If people in Australia find Hawke's Bay too difficult and expensive to travel to, they simply won't bother to come.
The visitor industry is a major employer. After the 3 main centres we are 7th largest of 29 regions for visitors but our growth rate is near lowest.
We pay through the nose for airfares and suffer from the other monopoly practices employed by Air New Zealand. Actions that should be illegal but somehow never seem to escape the attention of regulatory authorities. Excessive airfares could be robbing our community of at least $10 million a year.
So why has the airport board sat on its hands for so long? Probably because the airport is also a monopoly so there is no pressure for then to act. Its just a comfortable old man's club.
Why have our Mayors and other civic leaders dithered for so long? They seem willing to spend mega dollars trying to get people to come here, but have failed to make it easier for them to do so.
Remember it's not going to cost ratepayers a thing. The airport is profitable, about the only council activity that is, and has at least $5 million in reserves. More can be borrowed if needed.
In reality the extension should not stop at 1750 metres. The 1900 metres needed for direct flights to Australia has been estimated to cost as as little as a million dollars if done at the same time.
That's the order of money the Hastings District Council has to pour into Splash Plant or the Opera House every year.
Venture Hawke's Bay costs ratepayers $3 million dollars a year, and that organisation has a very unsatisfactory record of success.
May be you are one of the few who still don't agree with the runway extension. You are in the minority. The 2007 investigation found 90% support and only 3% opposed. A 30 to one majority of supporters over opponents.
This battle has only been necessary because in 2004 the Airport Board accepted a very misleading $30 000 report from a well known firm of public accountants.
To put it bluntly the report was riddled with errors. Clearly the board did not realise how inadequate it was until the issue was exposed in local papers but then both they and the consultants failed to put matters right.
Incredibly neither the Mayors of Napier or Hastings did anything about it either.
Only after years of criticism did the two councils commission a second report in 2007 at a further cost to ratepayers of $60 000. At the same time a third privately funded report costing nearly $40 000 was commissioned.
The findings of both these new reports were so convincing, the Airport Board was instructed to develop plans to financing a runway extension to 1900 metres.
Another three years has been wasted but at long last the Airport Board has announced it is extending the runway to 1750 metres.
This will not give us flights to Australia, though it will allow other airlines such as Pacific Blue and Jet Star to fly domestic services and we badly need competition to break the Air New Zealand monopoly on on air services to Hawke's Bay.
Passenger jets will also allowed increased capacity at times or on special occasions when needed while providing the sort of aircraft that already fly to places such as Hamilton, Rotorua, Dunedin and Queenstown.
OK you say “who cares, doesn't affect me I never fly anyway”. This is a very narrow and selfish view of the situation. The same retarded thinking would have us still using stagecoaches, steam trains, morse code, or dial up internet instead of broadband.
If we are going to survive in today's tough world and compete with other cities for businesses, for conferences, for tourism and other forms of commerce then affordable, convenient air services are essential. Business people need regular contact with customers and suppliers.
The high cost of airfares has been given as the major reason local business people are deterred from travelling outside the area.
We should also continue the fight for direct links to Australia, this countries biggest source of manufactured imports, biggest export market, largest source of overseas investment monies, and biggest recipient of overseas investment by New Zealanders. Our business people need easy access to Australia to help them prosper and provide more employment . Right now they are seriously disadvantaged by having to fly via Auckland or Wellington at double the cost and double the travel time.
Over half of all New Zealanders travelling overseas, are heading to Australia. Many Hawke's Bay people have children, relatives or friends living in Australia who they would like to visit, or have visit.
And even more importantly Australia is the source of over half of all overseas visitors to this country. And that percentage is growing fast. If people in Australia find Hawke's Bay too difficult and expensive to travel to, they simply won't bother to come.
The visitor industry is a major employer. After the 3 main centres we are 7th largest of 29 regions for visitors but our growth rate is near lowest.
We pay through the nose for airfares and suffer from the other monopoly practices employed by Air New Zealand. Actions that should be illegal but somehow never seem to escape the attention of regulatory authorities. Excessive airfares could be robbing our community of at least $10 million a year.
So why has the airport board sat on its hands for so long? Probably because the airport is also a monopoly so there is no pressure for then to act. Its just a comfortable old man's club.
Why have our Mayors and other civic leaders dithered for so long? They seem willing to spend mega dollars trying to get people to come here, but have failed to make it easier for them to do so.
Remember it's not going to cost ratepayers a thing. The airport is profitable, about the only council activity that is, and has at least $5 million in reserves. More can be borrowed if needed.
In reality the extension should not stop at 1750 metres. The 1900 metres needed for direct flights to Australia has been estimated to cost as as little as a million dollars if done at the same time.
That's the order of money the Hastings District Council has to pour into Splash Plant or the Opera House every year.
Venture Hawke's Bay costs ratepayers $3 million dollars a year, and that organisation has a very unsatisfactory record of success.
May be you are one of the few who still don't agree with the runway extension. You are in the minority. The 2007 investigation found 90% support and only 3% opposed. A 30 to one majority of supporters over opponents.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Land Grab Unacceptable
A recent decision by independent commissioners finding against the Hastings District Council building the Northern Arterial Route linking Havelock North with the Napier Hastings Expressway sends a clear message to the council. Using local government powers to grab land is unacceptable and it that land is owned by Maori it is especially unacceptable.
Two years ago the same council lead by the same mayor proposed using the Public Works Act to take ownership of the road leading to Ocean Beach. Access over the road was never an issue so the action seems unnecessarily provocative, but probably had more to do with the councils involvement in the proposal for major beach subdivision.
New Zealand's short 200 year European history started with minimal impact on Maori when sealer's and whalers setting up camp in the inhospitable deep south. In 1840 organised migrations by the New Zealand Company saw a huge increase in settlers. British officials signed a treaty with Maori stating amongst other things the rights of Maori to retain their lands. Unquestionably it was a genuine effort to preserve their rights whilst establishing conditions suitable for European type settlement. Of course the advantage lay with the settlers because they controlled the process, were accustomed to a formal legal system and had a written language to record the details of the agreement.
Over time the spirit of the agreement was overlooked, ignored or forgotten and some fairly unscrupulous actions were used to wrench ownership of land from tribal owners. Whilst Maori often objected to these actions they were always powerless to stop the process.
By 1975 there was a concerted move for compensations highlighted by a protest hikoi from the far north home to Wellington led by 80 year old Dame Whina Cooper. Ultimately this led to the establishment of a formal treaty settlement process intended to investigate and compensate for the unlawful loss of lands. The cost already is more than $1 billion.
So what has all this to do with the recent actions of the Hastings District Council. Well in the light of history it seems totally inappropriate that the Mayor and Councillors of the Hastings District Council keep trying to repeat the wrong doings of our forebears 150 or more years ago. Do we really want to burden for our descendants with new claims some time in the future?
That $1.8 million has been spent on this project, much in recent years when the issue was already heading to court is astonishing. Better judgement might have seen the writing on the wall before significant funds were committed.
Two years ago the same council lead by the same mayor proposed using the Public Works Act to take ownership of the road leading to Ocean Beach. Access over the road was never an issue so the action seems unnecessarily provocative, but probably had more to do with the councils involvement in the proposal for major beach subdivision.
New Zealand's short 200 year European history started with minimal impact on Maori when sealer's and whalers setting up camp in the inhospitable deep south. In 1840 organised migrations by the New Zealand Company saw a huge increase in settlers. British officials signed a treaty with Maori stating amongst other things the rights of Maori to retain their lands. Unquestionably it was a genuine effort to preserve their rights whilst establishing conditions suitable for European type settlement. Of course the advantage lay with the settlers because they controlled the process, were accustomed to a formal legal system and had a written language to record the details of the agreement.
Over time the spirit of the agreement was overlooked, ignored or forgotten and some fairly unscrupulous actions were used to wrench ownership of land from tribal owners. Whilst Maori often objected to these actions they were always powerless to stop the process.
By 1975 there was a concerted move for compensations highlighted by a protest hikoi from the far north home to Wellington led by 80 year old Dame Whina Cooper. Ultimately this led to the establishment of a formal treaty settlement process intended to investigate and compensate for the unlawful loss of lands. The cost already is more than $1 billion.
So what has all this to do with the recent actions of the Hastings District Council. Well in the light of history it seems totally inappropriate that the Mayor and Councillors of the Hastings District Council keep trying to repeat the wrong doings of our forebears 150 or more years ago. Do we really want to burden for our descendants with new claims some time in the future?
That $1.8 million has been spent on this project, much in recent years when the issue was already heading to court is astonishing. Better judgement might have seen the writing on the wall before significant funds were committed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
