Cull’s state of denial…

See previous post:
24.9.12 DCC against imposition of local government reforms

Comment received.

Calvin Oaten
Submitted on 2012/09/25 at 7:43 pm

Dave Cull and Paul Orders submitting on the proposed local government reforms to a select committee hearing is entertaining to say the least.
Dave says “the DCC should be left to tackle debt levels and rates rises without new controls imposed by the Government”. Is he ‘avin a laugh’? It is just that which brought about the Government’s interest in this problem in the first place. He says rates and debt were two issues already at the top of his council’s agenda, and the Government’s proposed changes risked “unintended negative consequences”. He’s ‘avin a laugh again’. The man’s sense of humour knows no bounds. The proposed limit on rates rises would erode council’s previously “unfettered” ability to raise revenue through rates, he says. It’s almost like he is in a ‘drug rehabilitation programme’ and is in denial about his addiction. Classic response, don’t admit any problem, just leave me alone and I will sort it.
Sorry Dave, but you and your equally drug driven cohorts are in serious denial and the citizens are paying a very big price. He worries that to restrict them now would upset the ‘drug peddlers’ (banks) and cause the price to rise. That, of course would increase the pain and he just couldn’t stand that. It would seriously affect his sense of wellbeing and confidence in his own ability. The man is desperately in need of being loved by all.
Lee Vandervis, as our only hope, I hope you can mediate around that table and get some traction. I am not holding my breath.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under Business, Construction, CST, DCC, DCHL, DVL, DVML, Economics, Fun, Geography, Hot air, Media, Name, ORFU, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Site, Sport, Stadiums, Town planning, Urban design

One response to “Cull’s state of denial…

  1. Calvin Oaten

    My letter in today’s ‘D Scene’ was abridged due to space constrictions. Unfortunately, this often misses the point. For what it is worth here is the full context.

    The unanimous passing of the DCC’s economic development strategy approved, highlights the participation of what Mayor Cull describes as “highlighting the beauty of the city wide collaboration on the plan”. It is a bold statement no doubt. Among other goals it “aims to grow 10,000 jobs in the city in ten years, and was created with the help of a core group of key stakeholders from sectors around the city”.

    All this reminds me that we have seen it all before. This time, I suspect will be no different. An enthusiastic start, a lot of discussions and costs and then a quiet fading into oblivion. Pessimistic, I know, but that is the way it is. Firstly, the job creation numbers are way too optimistic which means a shortfall will be deemed a failure, loss of interest will follow, and a lot of costs, both in money, resources and time will have been spent.

    Just go back to 2001 when the “Choices For the Future Towards 2021” programme was launched with great fanfare. It was endorsed by a myriad of public entities from the then Governor General Dame Sylvia Cartwright to people like Laurie Mains and other sporting personalities. It was the brainchild of Jim Harland, Peter Brown and the then chair of the DCC Economic Development Committee Malcolm Farry. Among its grandiose aims was to create 2,000 new jobs by 2005, and a further 4,000 by 2010. A total of 6,000 positions to add to the present 40,906 FTEs (full time employees). On the strength of this the DCC expended vast sums on rate rebates and financial aids such as upfront beneficial funding of factory developments. None more so than those for Fisher & Paykel Ltd. Where are they now? Last I heard they were in Mexico. Before 2010 the city lost not only F&P but Wickliffe Press, Cotton Soft Products, Mainland Cheese, and Tamahine Knitwear. All beneficiaries. The job creation over that period was actually negative. Anyone heard of “Choices” lately?

    I think it would be a good idea if the DCC and the others just took a very deep breath, before getting too carried away. Probably the best way to encourage growth and development would be for the DCC to simply take a long hard look at the costs it imposes on business, back off, ease off on compliance costs, don’t try to pick winners, strive to make Dunedin the most cost effective place to do business and it will happen. Too much to hope for? With the Town Hall full of “improvers and meddlers”, I suspect so.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s