WHAT’S ON IN THE BAY THIS WEEKEND
Bistronomy owner and chef James Beck argues the proposed funding cuts to tourism will halt momentum gained in Hawke’s Bay. He chats to Mark Story.
1What’s your main objection to the proposed cuts to tourism?
I think it is very short-sighted. I don’t see my business as essentially a tourism business, I am in the business of feeding people and a great number of my clients are locals. But I undoubtedly benefit from the great work done by Hawke’s Bay Tourism in attracting visitors to the Bay. I hate business. I wish I could just cook beautiful food and that would be enough. But I know, as well as anyone else in business knows, that you have to keep pushing. If you stop pushing you go backwards. The last five years have seen a great push from myself and my colleagues spurred by the potential that the team at Hawke’s Bay Tourism have seen in us as a collective. It’s actually incredible, the FAWC movement (created by Tourism Hawke’s Bay) is now the biggest food movement in the country. However, there are plenty of other regions ready to take our place and happy to spend the money to do so.
2What percentage of your customers are tourists?
I would say that over the summer period 60-70 per cent of my customers are tourists, both international and from around the country.
3Many have said tourism shouldn’t get a handout as other industries don’t, what do you say?
I don’t think the tourism industry should get a handout. Stuff them! I am in the hospitality industry I don’t need tourists. I just spent $35,000 with a local refrigeration guy putting a walk-in chiller and freezer in to my restaurant. Seriously, he thinks the same thing I do — stuff them, I mean, he is in the refrigeration industry. He spends all summer helping local restaurants cope with the extra demand put on their refrigeration units by the extra demand and makes a killing at the same time. Why should he help the tourism industry? Really my refrigeration guy should spend some money with Hawke’s Bay Tourism the same way that myself and any other business in the entire region do that are remotely connected to tourism. I recently heard an argument that the tourism industry shouldn’t have a handout because the jobs they are providing are low-skilled, minimum wage. Rubbish! At Bistronomy we are living wage employers, and I know there are many other employers in my industry providing young people with sometimes the only option they have to grow and shape their career.
4Some have suggested unless we shore-up the Bay’s environment there’ll be no tourism — do you agree?
I absolutely agree that we need to protect our environment. Anyone who knows me and the business I have developed locally over the last nine years will know this is a key tenet of my business practice and philosophy. I can’t quite work out where the “it’s either tourism or the environment” argument has come from. Surely the two are mutually inclusive. I mean, HRBC doesn’t just spend money on tourism and conservation does it? Correct me if I am wrong — I’m pretty sure there are a fair few years worth of funding that have disappeared into the Ruataniwha Dam hole, and other places.
5Is there a compromise/would you accept a smaller cut in funding?
You’re asking me this as if I am a big player in tourism. I’m not. I run a great little restaurant that happens to benefit from the great work that Hawke’s Bay Tourism has done to promote our region. Go ahead HRBC, cut the funding, I will still have a great little restaurant — one of the top 12 in the country. I guarantee though, that our region will suffer. The tourist dollar won’t stop but it will slow down. All the little local businesses that rely on that little topup, those extra coffees sold, that extra Art Deco hat sold, that extra bottle of milk, packet of chips, etc, will lose. Then, we will have to start all over again from square one. I only hope the talented folk from Tourism Hawke’s Bay are there to pick up the pieces.
If a proposed 19 per cent rates rise wasn’t enough, some Hawke’s Bay ratepayers could be hit with even high increases under the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council Long Term Plan 2018-2028.
The LTP, called Facing our Future, proposes a rates rise of 19 per cent in the first year, with 13 per cent of this to go toward environmental priorities. Rises over the remaining nine years would be limited to about 3.75 per cent.
The regional council has released an online tool to check the increase for specific addresses. It was using this tool that a Havelock North resident, who did not want his last name used, realised he was in for an “obscene” rates rise.
His projected total rates rise from $221 to $311 — an increase of 40 per cent. His general rates increase 131 per cent from $61 to $141.
Previous estimates the council released for consultation using sample properties showed a Havelock North ratepayer could expect his rates bill to increase to about $316 — up 18.4 per cent, or $49.
He said that in his 17 years at the property he had never received such a dramatic rates rise.
“There is something wrong in principle that the increase should be so massive,” he said.
“In today’s world rates increases of that magnitude are just abominable.”
As a retiree on a fixed income, when asked what options he had to pay the increase, Ian said: “I don’t have any options.
“For a lot of elderly its not going to be easy. Somebody has to pay for it, so we’ve got to find the money from somewhere.
“Its not that I don’t think environmental problems should be addressed, but it should be the ones that caused them paying.”
A Hawke’s Bay Regional Council spokeswoman said the reason for the increase was that “the majority of the rates increase is on general rates due to the public good element of the new initiatives”.
“General rates are based on land value. This particular property has a large land valuation of $560,000 so the increase is larger than a property with a medium or low land value.
“There is also the increase in Civil Defence and the new Coastal Erosion rates which are a set amount per rating unit (for everyone in Napier and Hastings).”
She said a rating increase of $77.87 was higher than the average increase of $52 “but there are obviously those above and below that point”.
The rate rise has also been criticised by the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union, which has said good fiscal practice would be to set a budget first, then work within that budget to achieve environmental outcomes.
“Instead, it seems the Council has given itself an open chequebook to spend as much as it wants on environmental gestures, disregarding the ultimate effect on ratepayers.
“It’s great that councillors care about the environment, but they’re meant to act on behalf of ratepayers. In the Taxpayers’ Union’s experience, the biggest concern for ratepayers is quality services for reasonable rates. A 19 per cent rate hike is simply not reasonable – it’s 12 times the rate of inflation.”
Council chair Rex Graham said the council had set a budget, but they were faced with a number of legacy environmental issues which they needed to tackle.
“We are asking for a significant rate rise, but we will be consulting with the people of Hawke’s Bay, not self-appointed apostles who live in Wellington.”
As indicated by sample properties across the region, the highest percentage rate increase will be felt by Central Hawke’s Bay, where rates will rise 22.31 per cent, and Napier South, with a 21.58 per cent increase.
The additional cost next year ranges from between $15.75 for Flaxmere ratepayers, to an additional $63.70 for Taradale ratepayers. WHAT DO YOU THINK?
"There is something wrong in principle that the increase should be so massive. In today’s world rates increases of that magnitude are just abominable." A Havelock North resident