DCC Proposed Reserves and Beaches Bylaw : Real-deal submission

[click to enlarge]

Dunedin City Council
Current consultations: Proposed Reserves and Beaches Bylaw 2017


Received from JimmyJones
Sat, 17 Mar 2017 at 10:03 p.m.

Subject: RE: Reserves and beaches consultation failure

Message: Find attached an outstanding submission on the horse-hating bylaw. I am sure there were many good subs, but I noticed this one from an 11-year-old who has a horse called Tonka. She makes a very good case for freedom. Like many of the other submitters, she bypassed the professionally organised DCC misinformation and understood that the DCC are threatening a total ban on horses on beaches.

I think other people should see it, I have removed her name from the submission in case she wasn’t expecting widespread publicity.

The submitters tell us that no other Council has a ban on horse riding on beaches in New Zealand.

Related Post and Comments:
8.2.17 Hands Off Enjoyment of OUR Beaches #DCC

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.


Filed under Adventure sport, Business, Corruption, DCC, DCC Bylaws, Democracy, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Education, Events, Geography, Health, Health & Safety, Heritage, New Zealand, ORC, People, Perversion, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Public interest, Resource management, Sport, Tourism, Transportation, Travesty, What stadium

14 responses to “DCC Proposed Reserves and Beaches Bylaw : Real-deal submission

  1. Hype O'Thermia

    What a good submission. She points out the benefits to herself and her pony and to other people who get delight from seeing them, and from patting the pony. What she’s on about is getting full value from life, from our land, from nature, from bonding with animals and all the commitment and dedication involved in that. It’s a whole different thing from the petty rule-making mindset that sees “value” only in $$$ terms.
    And is all too happy to waste other people’s $$$ thinking up more rules to address non-problems in cack-handed ways that waste other people’s time and reduce the values that make life worth living.

    Down with the pettifoggers! Cut their numbers till they’re too busy doing necessary work to find fidget-work with the aim of enhancing their apparent importance.

    • Gurglars

      Hear bloody Hear.

      A bureaucrat is only required to say no. A yes makes him redundant.

      Parkinson’s law states that expenses will rise to meet income, that is why reducing rates and taxes benefit humans, there is less legislation and thus less stupid legislation.

      • Hype O'Thermia

        If only, Gurglars: true, “expenses will rise to meet income” but there is no guarantee that lowering income will reduce STUPID expenditure instead of, say, maintaining essential infrastructure. What have we observed in Dunedin, eh?

  2. Elizabeth

    Having grown up with horses and riders of all kinds on Waikouaiti Beach, I just love the honesty and truth of the submission altogether.

    This is the constructive caring community-savvy youth of New Zealand I would rather support –


    [As opposed to the down and outs seen on George St, of an evening, from the university student ranks – some of whom will grow up to be dud writers of deformative hate policy like the Proposed Reserves and Beaches Bylaw. Jesus, save a dry sand molecule.]

  3. Hype O'Thermia

    Those sand molecules have mummies and daddies too, Elizabeth, you heartless sand-murderer!

  4. Karen Beeby

    Awesome work Such a good discussion raised by an 11 year old.

  5. Peter

    I prefer horses on a beach than fucking motorbikes and other motorised toys.

    • Hype O'Thermia

      Peter, I couldn’t agree more. How often do horses go hooning over dunes and deliberately monstering wildlife and annoying other beach users with their noise and exhaust fumes? Even the fartiest horse doesn’t fart the whole time it’s moving!

  6. JimmyJones

    Yes, Karen Beeby, she does a very good job of explaining the consequences of this bylaw. She reminds us that there would be a lot of other children affected. The Hearings Panel need to carefully read this and every single submission – even though they know that the overwhelming majority of them are strongly opposed to the efforts of our freedom-hating DCC and councillors. Some submissions contain important legal points that staff have not brought to the attention of the Panel. The Hearing Panel are councillors: Andrew Whiley, David Benson-Pope and Conrad Stedman.

    Councillor Kate Wilson deserves a special mention because it was she who asked for beaches to be included in the new bylaw. By extending the rules for reserves to also cover beeches she has excluded horse riding and many other harmless activities from our hundreds of beaches in the district. Reserves are not the same as beeches. Kate Wilson was also a driving force behind the prohibition of motorised vehicles on John Wilson Ocean Drive. No doubt, she will be looking round for other people having fun and trying to put a stop to it.

    You might wonder how Kate Wilson was able (as it appears) to direct staff to do her bidding without other councillors having the chance to have a say or a vote. I have not yet found an answer to this. This shows that Kate seems to hate democracy as well as fun, freedom, horses and cars.

    • Elizabeth

      A confused individual is our Kate (the lineage doesn’t help). The best thing Middlemarch district can do is put up someone powerful and credible to replace.

      Under her DCC chairship of infrastructure services accumulates lack of prioritised budgets and massive underspend on core works – all of which Audit NZ will be monitoring.
      Not sure a bored housewife is the right person to bring about recovery.

  7. Elizabeth

    Wed, 22 Mar 2017
    ODT: More information sought
    By Chris Morris
    A Dunedin City Council hearings panel says it needs more information before finalising new rules for the city’s beaches and reserves. The panel, headed by Cr Andrew Whiley, spent about two hours yesterday deliberating on the draft reserves and beaches bylaw, after hearing from some of the 433 submitters on the issue at last week’s hearing. The bylaw would extend the reserves bylaw to cover beaches and introduce new restrictions on drones, vehicles and horses on beaches. Cont/

  8. JimmyJones

    Rejected by the ODT:

    The DCC needs to abandon their heavy handed, freedom-hating Beaches & Reserves Bylaw because of multiple failures with the consultation process. One of these is that they have failed to count 142 submissions which are contained in one document. The total submitters is 574 not 433.

    The most serious problem has been the DCC’s consistently deceptive descriptions of which beaches would be subject to the ban on horses. The consultation documents lead readers to believe that only four beaches would be subject to the ban whereas the actual proposed bylaw prohibits horses from nearly all Dunedin District beaches – which is hundreds of beaches.

    Also, the DCC has misled the citizens by saying that the current rules also ban horse riding on beaches – we read that: “Until now, horses had technically only been allowed at four Dunedin beaches – Tomahawk, Smaills, Waikouaiti and Island Park – although the rule had not been enforced” (ODT 16/3/17). This is false: currently horses are allowed on all beaches – except a few which happen to be DCC reserves. This bylaw would be a huge change and the size of this change has been kept secret by the DCC and the ODT. This process has been unfair.

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 )

Connecting to %s