Their hopes and dreams, our money

THE Dunedin longterm plan (LTP) consultation which arrived in our letterboxes was apparently approved by the Auditorgeneral as providing an effective basis for public consultation.

It would appear he had his eye on whether there was sufficient information provided to allow us to focus on what was actually being proposed.

It may provide clearer information of some sorts but it reads as a marketing document using one of the oldest ploys in the sales manual, ‘‘the assumed close’’.

The assumed close is when the salesperson assumes you want to buy the product and the only discussion is about whether you want the basic model or the bellsandwhistles one, or which colour you want.

In the LTP consultation, the assumption is that you do want the money spent; the only question is whether you want to spend a lot of money or an even more mouthwatering amount of money.

In the feedback section you have the big or bigger options, but no option of ‘‘I don’t want either’’, or ‘‘we can’t afford it’’.

The graph (below) shows what will happen if the proposed rates increases are confirmed by the Dunedin City Council, alongside what national superannuation payments will do if they continue as they have in the last five years.

This shows rates increases close to 60%, while super would increase by less than 25%.

National superannuation and other benefits increase in line with average wages. To assume that ratepayers can afford even the cheaper options, which take no account of their likely incomes, is a big leap of faith.

Perhaps the rot set in when council approved the LTP last December and did not produce a resolution acknowledging the proposed rates increases. Apparently the possible effect on the rates was discussed, but clearly noone thought it was important enough to have a resolution about what this effect would be. Curiously, all of the resolutions are about how to spend our money, not where it comes from.

Then, when the words about the proposal came out in the consultation document, much was made of the idea that we need to play catchup with spending on drainage, clean water and measures against flooding.

Little detail is provided about the nicetohave bits, beyond the preferred option concerning the bridge involving a particular architect as if there has already been some sort of tender which the preferred architect has won.

Somehow our council seems to think we suddenly have spare money for items described ominously as aspirational and bold.

The problem about the council spending money on their hopes and dreams is that it is their dreams and our money.

For those on a fixed income which will only increase at half the rate the council increases will require, these plans leave ratepayers with less and less disposable money, if they had any to start with.

Where will the money come from for the hopes and dreams of pensioners, whose quality of life depend on little luxuries like paying for the internet to keep in touch with their families? How will those on average incomes afford to pay someone to get scaffolding to clean out their gutters, especially since we are no longer allowed to pay people to go up on ladders?

There is little said about the proposed rates increase for farmers being over 10% for the first year then no information for the next nine years. This must be particularly concerning for farmers who already feel they are not getting the use of much of the facilities, and those farmers on the Taieri who are being asked to pay half of their pool.

US film director Billy Wilder is quoted as saying ‘‘An audience is never wrong. An individual member of it may be an imbecile, but a thousand imbeciles together in the dark, that is critical genius.’’

We could perhaps convince the council that if there are 1000 of us who are against the whole idea of overspending, even if they think we are imbeciles, the idea might be seen as critical genius.

If you are not happy to have to choose between ‘‘dear’’ and ‘‘unbelievably expensive’’, cross out the choices, and put in the comments ‘‘I don’t want money spent that we can’t afford. Leave me to spend any money I have left on my own hopes and dreams please.’’

hcalvert@xtra.co.nz

❛ Somehow our council seems to think we suddenly have spare

money for items described ominously as

aspirational and bold.