 |
Cr Bill Faulkner Faulkners Corner www.sunlive.co.nz |
Public submissions to the draft Historic Village Strategy were heard at least week's Strategy and Policy Committee meeting. There were only 29 submissions which was surprisingly few, considering the perceived public support for the Historic Village at 17th Avenue.
Many of these submissions were from Village tenants. The Village tenancy is a mix of social services, commercial tenancies and some retail. There's the first clash of interests. The Village is supposedly self supporting from the tenants' rents but that's not the full story. Ratepayers are funding a capital improvement programme to upgrade infrastructure. Operations, funded by rents, include staff costs but a lot of maintenance is, in my opinion, being deferred or ignored to balance the books. The Village has a long history of struggle financially and there's nothing I can see on the horizon that is going to alter that – short of massive ratepayer subsidy.
Built on a swamp it was originally a Government work scheme project funded by Central Government/taxpayers. It's had many forms over the years including a depository for a lot of old bits and pieces that people couldn't bear to throw away. They used to leave this precious (to them) stuff at the front gate after hours. The tug Taioma was put down there courtesy of Bob Owens. But lack of maintenance/money saw it gradually fall into disrepair. The Taioma was returned to the sea and is now a dive site, sunk off the bottom end of Motiti. There were other old relics of yesteryear that suffered the same lack of attention. So where to from here will be an interesting discussion. Tenants have their own interests to preserve, and in some cases that's controlling their rents, commercial people just want to run their business and retail want public promotion, but all at whose cost?
The Museum faithful want it back in its perceived former glory. Whatever, it's all going to cost – plenty. And in the end it's a conglomeration of old buildings, on a swamp, some below Moturiki datum (below the official waterline for building). I've an open mind on its future with the rider that there be no extra ratepayer funding spent down there. Historically it's proved to be a bottomless pit for ratepayers. The Compass Trust that ran it for a few years helped with proceeds from poker machines couldn't make it a go. Government/taxpayers couldn't keep up. Another suggestion is to shift it to Dive Crescent. Some suggest selling it. That's the only option that doesn't involve ongoing expenditure, but does someone want to buy it? Council will make the decision on the Village future soon, after deliberations.
On the subject of our city history, there was lively discussion, in confidential, about a proposal from The Elms Foundation. It was confidential because of other people's private information but the outcome was brought into the public section. Council is supportive of The Elms Foundation initiative to purchase 29 Mission Street. There is no money attached to that support at this time. The purchase of this property almost completes restoration of the original Mission title. The Maxwell family had sold off various titles surrounding the Mission House (The Elms) over the years to enable the Mission House to be retained. The Mission House was only purchased by The Elms Foundation about 15 years ago after Mr Duff Maxwell passed away. It was his private home although he very generously made it available to the public. Council used to assist in days of yore in its upkeep in recognition of his public spiritedness.
Council is also facilitating discussion between The Elms Foundation, The Museum Trust and Tangata Whenua to ensure there is some level of alignment between their proposed projects. The objective might include minimising duplication, identifying complementary activities, minimising competition for external funding grants, distributing our historical collection appropriately. Put simply, there needs to be rationalisation to effect best use of diminishing resources.
There needs to be more rationalisation across many aspects of Council/ratepayer interest and we are now discussing this to find a way forward. It's all about ratepayer funding liability. Many organisations will not be happy to have their 'patch” intruded on. Patch defence is a national pastime with a plethora of excellent reasons why they should remain at the status quo with scant regard for the greater ratepayer interest. Well, an option is always to forgo Council/ratepayer funding and go your own way.
As I've written many times previously, Local Government reform required to reduce ratepayer liability will be unpopular and painful to those who have been on the gravy train for so long. And that statement includes all aspects of Local Government. And Central Government too – for its part in the unsustainability of rates and the inadequacies and the unfairness of the present rating system.
The first tentative step of reform was taken at Full Council with the amalgamation of the Waterfront and Hotel taskforces into one. Statements of Intent for Councils arm's length company's (CCOs) were discussed with the CCOs and TCVL who run Baypark and TCAL who run the pools. This is where we try to write down what Councils want the CCOs to do. As with most things it's very difficult to capture everything in writing and there has to be goodwill and understanding as well. This depends significantly on personal relationships which you can't write down. Some of you will remember when a nod and a handshake sealed a deal and your word was your bond. But not these days! If it's not in writing it doesn't count.
This week's mindbender from Henry David Thoreau - When were the good and the brave ever in majority?
