DCC decisions an ambush
AMBUSH: ‘‘A surprise attack by people lying in wait in a concealed position’’ according to dictionary.com.
And that is what the decision made by the Dunedin City Council to build a fantasy bridge to nowhere for north of $20 million felt like to some ratepayers, especially when accompanied by the costs of this and other projects leading to a rates increase of 8%.
Should they have been surprised? These ideas could have been signalled in the last longterm plan.
The longterm plan (LTP) is, as it says, a proposal of the direction that the councillors and mayor for the time being support. Each three years the current LTP is updated by dropping off the three years which have happened, and projecting the plan out for a further three years.
The last LTP covered the period 2015/16 to 2024/25. The proposals contained in that LTP could have given us an idea of what the councillors and mayor were planning.
The councillors who were on the council then forecast a rate increase for 2018/19 of 4%.
The words which accompanied the proposed rates increases then started with:
‘‘In the 2014 Residents’ Opinion Survey Dunedin people made it very clear they wanted the council to keep rates in check by controlling debt and new spending. It is a message that is being taken to heart in this new strategy.’’
It then went on to say:
‘‘Renewal projects, such as pipe renewals, will be paid for out of rates rather than taking on further debt
. . .The council has avoided taking an easy path in setting its limits. By imposing on itself rates increases that are lower than today’s indicative calculations for years it has set itself a challenging task. The council is accustomed to identifying more efficient ways of doing things and maximising nonrates revenue sources.
Rate increase limit: Limit future rate increases to 3% unless exceptional circumstances.’’
So no notice was given in the previous LTP that council would vote as they did recently.
There was, of course, a major turnover of councillors in the last election, so we would perhaps have anticipated that new councillors would have new ideas.
But a search through both the continuing and the new councillor profiles (the description of who they are and what we can expect of them) on the Dunedin City Council website gives no hint the council would be likely to be opening our pockets in the way they did.
The common themes in these profiles are of people who said they would be transparent and accountable to us. The longstanding councillors, including the mayor and deputy mayor, reiterated their commitment to economic management of the city and proven experience. The profiles in general suggested what were priorities as each councillor saw them, with much emphasis on the environmental and economic needs of Dunedin. Some talk about debt reduction and financial prudence. Some of the profiles talk of their visions, none of which include a fantasy bridge.
The only comment anywhere by anyone now on council which could have led to the likelihood of voting for the bridge would be the last three words of the profile of Cr David BensonPope which say innocuously under the heading of current priorities ‘‘. . . better harbour access.’’
There is nothing in these profiles which suggest we could have expected rates increases of twice the amount proposed for this year in the earlier plan and three times the rate of inflation.
Neither is there anything in the information during the election campaign on the stories about mayoral candidates which would suggest such rates rises or bridge votes. And noone on the campaign trail was saying anything like ‘‘let’s double the rates increases’’ or ‘‘I will vote for an art work bridge for the cost of the Frankton traffic bridge’’, or even ‘‘I support cycleways which could include a $20 million cycle bridge’’.
Nor was there any campaigning by anyone suggesting they would vote for a project which twothirds of submissions would not support.
During the recent LTP discussions about the bridge, Cr Mike Lord did suggest it would be worth a thought to let the Harbour Basin be developed and then put in the bridge, but he was clearly a voice in the wilderness.
It does appear the unanimous vote for a fantasy bridge to nowhere really was an ambush, as was the vote for the rates increase.
We are halfway through the electoral cycle. Maybe we should start thinking about asking people standing for council more searching questions, and ask candidates to commit themselves to voting according to their electoral promises. — hcalvert@xtra.co.nz