Cr Bill Faulkner Faulkners Corner www.sunlive.co.nz

The double speak of some politicians in successive governments can be breath-taking.

This week Gerry Brownlee extolled the virtues of a new stadium for Christchurch. This despite him acknowledging that the capital cost of a new stadium is an uneconomic proposition. Mr Brownlee is part of a Government telling local government to get its economic house in order on the one hand and on the other advocating – quite correctly – that this sort of infrastructure is a desirable but uneconomic necessity in the community. Particularly Christchurch. This is not to demean a new Christchurch stadium but to use this example as a valid instance of the demands on ratepayers that add ‘uneconomic' debt to a council balance sheet.

One way of balancing out this unfair situation would be for central government to contribute a significant proportion of the cost of strategically planned major infrastructure up and down New Zealand. So there could be museums, art galleries, and stadiums – all ‘uneconomic' – accessible across a region rather than each city.

Something like V8 Supercars where Government finally stepped in to assist – after Hamilton failed financially. But don't beat local government over the head over finances while you are demanding councils provide uneconomic facilities, services and attractions solely at ratepayers' expense.

In 1996 in the UK on other council business I visited Chelsea Stadium along with others to have a look at its operation. No, there wasn't a game on! We met the owner, who told us the sad economics of stadiums. At that time it was privately owned and to make ends meet they were hiring out for weddings, funerals, parties – almost anything you could think of. He told us he would get a much better return on capital with bank deposits. And that's one of London's major stadiums at the time.

At Strategy and Policy Committee we had 38 minutes on tree removal. Two silver birch trees in Burnt Oak Drive, Pyes Pa, have grown massively and are causing havoc to the immediate neighbours. Council policy is not to plant more silver birches but those that are already there seem to get unjustified protection. If you've ever lived by silver birches you'll understand the grief they can cause. In two houses we have lived in the debris at certain times of the year meant we had to keep them closed up to prevent the inside being covered in those tiny little biddy-bids. This should be dealt with by staff under delegated authority with reasonable criteria. The two trees are to be removed and replaced with more suitable trees in consultation with neighbours. Petitioners will meet half the cost of removal and replacement.

A further debate on key issues for ratepayer funded Smartgrowth Growth Management. We agreed that Smartgrowth considerations will now be geared to a 275,000 city population but with no timeline. At present its 250,000 by 2050. Urban limits will be retained but consideration will be given to criteria for development outside urban limits. Alternative infrastructure funding options – see above item on stadiums – are on the radar. Nothing is likely to happen with this unless central government joins in. Items on the list are the regional council infrastructure fund; currently $188 million or thereabouts. Good luck on that one. Zero or low interest loans from Government. Good luck there too. Central government grants and subsidies. Regional income or payroll tax, regional GST/sales tax, visitor tax, airport departure tax amongst other unproductive monopolistic taxes. Almost a chapter to add to Alice in Wonderland in my opinion.

And finally, location and alignment of infrastructure capacity. Now that's a good idea but it needs to be done now and not drag on as some of the Smartgrowth initiatives have done. Rather than focus on amalgamation (which creates more problems than it solves) planning and spending on facilities and services across a region, avoiding duplication and sharing the costs – including Government – seems far more sensible.

A large deputation of freedom campers descended on the Council Chambers to submit to the Draft Street Use and Public Place by law. Freedom camping, we were told by submitters, is not camping for free. Rather it's having the freedom to stop where you like, in a certified self-contained camper (CSC). Certainly they make some valid points. If you provide your own facilities, self-containment of wastes, what is the difference between parking the CSC and sleeping in a parked CSC? Of course, there's the others who aren't self-contained and just have a mattress in the back, and who polices this, and how? These and other considerations will be deliberated in a fortnight's time. At present council says you may overnight in five designated places three CSC at a time. But Government has now decreed, we are informed, that now a CSC can overnight where it likes and councils must designate where you may NOT stay and give a reason why. The meeting was ducking and diving to get through the agenda as some submitters scheduled to speak didn't appear or others were there too early.

During one break we cut back to the Smartgrowth debate and Wayne Moultrie indicated he wanted to move a resolution. Chairman David Stewart asked him to wait while Terry Molloy asked a question, at the end of which Terry tried to move something. Much hilarity as the chairman said that Wayne wanted to move a resolution first and Terry said okay – I'll second it. Now that's a real spirit of co-operative politics.

This week's mindbender from George Bernard Shaw – in the spirit of taxation. A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the enthusiastic support of Paul.