TCC's horrific debt history continues unabated, ballooning from $58 million in 2004 to a projected $500 million plus in 2018/2019. Currently the fiscal profligates have demolished a perfectly good administration building: $60 million; eyeing up a new museum: $40 million, library: $35 million, rugby stadium: $50 million and upgrades for the Performing Arts Centre, Memorial Park, and Bay Venues. The list of ‘wishes' is endless and now we have an insane $430 million monorail idea. They've let essential infrastructure fall into disrepair and won't address Turret Road/15th Avenue and Hairini Bridge widening.
Consultancy with ratepayers is zilch, with no transparency, no openness, no honesty and showing no financial nous. TCC elected members are over-optimistic and always under-deliver so we have ‘castles in the air' with less than five per cent of citizens using them while the other 95 per cent have no use for them.
TCC consistently breach tenets of the Local Government Act while splurging money on parasitic outfits (non-contributors) reeking of self-interest, indulgency and elitism. It seems to fulfil the criteria of the unqualified being selected from the unfit, by the apathetic voters, to do the unnecessary, supported by a bureaucracy providing a sure method of transferring energy into solid waste. New Year's resolution: they must go and the quicker the better for Tauranga's financial well-being.
R Paterson, Matapihi.
18 comments
Councils spending
Posted on 29-12-2017 09:50 | By phoenix
You have just described the western bay of plenty district council mentality as well. what is it that councils think rate-payers have an unlimited supply of money to build their egos and dreams?
Bay venues performing WELL,
Posted on 31-12-2017 10:55 | By R. Bell
Check it out R. Paterson and bring yourself up to date. Sunlive 30-12-17. Robin Bell.
Interesting use of the word tenets,
Posted on 31-12-2017 16:10 | By R. Bell
R.Paterson. When constantly criticising the principles in the treaty, you now apply them to the Local Government Act. I know you won't demean yourself by replying, but consistency is required, even for you sir. Robin Bell.
principles in the treaty?
Posted on 03-01-2018 10:38 | By MISS ADVENTURE
I would be 100% supportive if in fact that was what the WT was propagating, it isnt and therefore all objections, concerns, separatism and race based consequences are indeed valid. Perhaps you should take a look at the foundations of your theories, dreams, myths and so on. There isnt anything there!
Bay venues best performing
Posted on 03-01-2018 15:51 | By MISS ADVENTURE
That is more likeit and some. There is nothing useful served by this outfit, it gobbles up money faster than Godzilla could gobble up anything. The stories tabled with TCC are so crazy and non-realistic that they almost are good enough to qualify as a WT claim.
Chocka full of principles,
Posted on 03-01-2018 16:26 | By R. Bell
all contractual agreements between parties contain principles. Honesty, intent, integrity etc.The treaty is no exception, not even in your befuddled world missy. That you see yourself as the arbiter of such matters is a real hoot .How is it all going so far?I'm really missing waxings destruction of your theories. Robin Bell.
The principles in the treaty are:
Posted on 03-01-2018 17:10 | By MISS ADVENTURE
1. The Queen's law shall apply to all settlers, part Maori and natives equally, 2. Only NZ Government can buy land ex part Maori (not the indigenous peoples of NZ?) and 3. Ceded sovereignity irrevocably to the Queen of England. This all aligns perfectly with the actions of the parties at the time and in addition is a perfect translation of English-part moari-english as 100% evidenced by the signed treaty and the final Littlewood Draft of 6/2/1840.
really missing waxings ?
Posted on 04-01-2018 10:42 | By MISS ADVENTURE
The nearest that will get for you is an actual waxing, do you feel the pain already? Yes you are right as such to say "all contractual agreements between parties contain principles. Honesty, intent, integrity" but then yuou do an about face and walk away from that? It is indeed baffling but completely understandable that you would. It is reported that about 2% of WT claims are valid based on the correct translation of the treaty. However the WT does not even consider the multiptude of travesties, murders and breeches of the treaty by part maori tribes of the times.
There are no other Treaty principles!
Posted on 04-01-2018 10:54 | By MISS ADVENTURE
See below, I have spelled them out clear as Dey. There is nothing else in the treaty (if translated correctly, which I have). Whatever other dreams you have, stories, myths, legends dont matter one little bit.
Bay Venues
Posted on 04-01-2018 12:50 | By MISS ADVENTURE
Rampant spending, that is all they do, costs mushroom, staff numbers are rampant and the rates monies needed to keep the doors open just keep on increasing without reason.
Honour the Treaty
Posted on 04-01-2018 15:13 | By MISS ADVENTURE
That was only of any use until most part maori chiefs signed it (willingly did so for many reasons) then it became a surplus document. It no longer had any ongoing value at all as it was surpassed later in 1840 by legislation passed in the UK.
MISSADVENTURE, you missed part of the Treaty clause 2
Posted on 05-01-2018 09:14 | By Peter Dey
MISSADVENTURE, the Littlewood document was a final draft for the translation of Hobson's English Treaty version into Maori. It is not an exact translation of the Maori version because the Maori text uses government (kawanatanga) instead of sovereignty in Littlewood, and in clause 2, which you missed, it uses unqualified chieftainship over valued possessions (tino rangatiratanga o taonga) with no time limit, instead of possession of lands, dwellings and property in Littlewood.
MISSADVENTURE, the Treaty is now law not surpassed
Posted on 05-01-2018 09:21 | By Peter Dey
MISSADVENTURE you seem to be on a fantasy journey when you say that you have translated the Treaty correctly and it has been surpassed. The Treaty has been New Zealand law since 1975, clearly not surpassed. Also the attempts by people who cannot speak Maori to debate the translation of the Treaty with fluent speakers is another fantasy journey that you seem to be travelling.
Littlewood final draft
Posted on 08-01-2018 15:08 | By MISS ADVENTURE
Was used as the translation to part maori and it translates both ways perfectly. When of course you apply part maori from the time. Sadly the misinterpretation you are applying is wrong because many a word has been re-engineered as to its meaning to something entirely different. That is like rewriting a contract to suit ones self (indeed what has happened) then somehow expecting all to accept.
Treaty is law?
Posted on 08-01-2018 15:09 | By MISS ADVENTURE
Sorry no, never has been, have anotehr guerss/dream on that one.
MISSADVENTURE, kawanatanga is government not sovereignty
Posted on 09-01-2018 06:38 | By Peter Dey
MISSADVENTURE, the Littlewood document has sovereignty where the Maori Treaty has kawanatanga (government), and the Littlewood document has possession where the Maori Treaty has tino rangatiratanga (chiefly control over). You are in denial if you say these are the same.
MISSADVENTURE, Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975
Posted on 09-01-2018 06:42 | By Peter Dey
MISSADVENTURE, the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 puts the Treaty of Waitangi and the principles of the Treaty into New Zealand law. This is undeniable fact.
principles of the Treaty
Posted on 14-01-2018 12:28 | By MISS ADVENTURE
Are what the parties present and who signed agreed to on 6/2/1840, nothing more, nothing less. The 1974 Act does not replicate that fairly and equitably as stated and intended at the time.
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to make a comment.