Dunedin’s second generation district plan (2GP) —notes on Natural Hazards

Received from Neil Johnstone
Wed, 3 May 2017 at 7:19 p.m.

Message: Last Thursday (27 April) I presented the remainder of my submission on Natural Hazards. Notes attached in case they might help anybody’s further efforts.

{The notes from Mr Johnstone are public domain by virtue of the consultative 2GP hearing process. -Eds}

****

2GP PRESENTATION NOTES: LANDSLIDES
Neil Johnstone

I have no property interest in any landslide hazard area (although I did previously), nor in the Water of Leith catchment, nor in South Dunedin. My main purpose in appearing at this stage is to bring to the panel’s attention that the expert (so-called) opinions received from Otago Regional Council’s (ORC) natural hazard analysts are often deficient to the detriment of the 2GP process and the city’s residents.

I am a long-term resident of Dunedin and am highly experienced in flood control issues and solutions. I am appearing here on my own behalf, therefore not strictly as an Expert Witness in this instance, although I have done so in past years both in both the High Court and the Environment Court. I also acted as lead technical advisor to the NZ Govt investigation into the massive 1999 Clutha flood. My detailed investigations have ranged from simple issues such as the Water of Leith (as Investigations Engineer at Otago Catchment Board and ORC) to the entire Clutha catchment (in varying roles). These investigations have often incorporated the construction and operation of accurate, properly verified models.

I am now semi-retired MIPENZ, but still running my own consultancy on a reduced basis. I am a highly experienced expert in flood issues, I am much less so wrt landslide identification and mitigation (but I know a nonsensical report when I read one). ORC hazard analysts responsible for the landslide buffer zones originally imposed across my former property (and many others) need to accept that their approach was seriously flawed, and far from expert. Paul Freeland has mentioned to me in a recent phone conversation that Dunedin City Council (DCC) should be able to have confidence that ORC hazard analysts are expert. I have no strong criticism of Mr Freeland, but those days have passed – in this region at least – when expertise was based on proven performance, and not on a position’s title. A property previously owned by my wife and me in Porterfield Street, Macandrew Bay was quite ridiculously misrepresented in ORC’s landslide report of September 2015. The landslide hazard zone on that property has apparently now been removed, but uncaring damage has been done to us, and no doubt to many others. The Hazard 2 zone was reportedly imposed without site inspection, or without anybody properly reviewing output or checking accuracy of references.

[Reason for submitting: Natural Hazards section of 2GP dominated (undermined) by ORC hazards staff input and DCC failure to verify/review; DCC presumption that ORC “experts” do/should have appropriate expertise. We appear to be witnessing a proliferation of Hazard Analysts in NZ Local Government with little relevant experience or skill.]

****

2GP PRESENTATION NOTES: SOUTH DUNEDIN
Neil Johnstone

The comments re South Dunedin flood hazard contained in my original written submission were written prior to DCC’s producing its inaccurate flood reports in respect of the South Dunedin flooding of early June 2015 in which high groundwater levels were held to blame. These DCC reports were eventually released in late November 2015 and April 2016 respectively. My analyses (well after my original submission) demonstrated that the prime cause of widespread flooding in South Dunedin was DCC’s failure (in order of probable significance) to utilise the bypass facility at Tahuna Wastewater Treatment Plant, to fully utilise its stormwater pumping capacity at Portobello Road, and to maintain its stormwater infrastructure (mudtanks etc). Inflow of “foreign” water from the St Clair catchment added to the depth of inundation in some areas. All these can be remedied by a diligent Council. Some have already been remedied, as positively demonstrated in the admittedly rather over-hyped rain event of the subtropical cyclone remnant around this past Easter.

ORC natural hazard analysts were probably responsible for the origin of the groundwater myth as a cause of the South Dunedin flooding in their Coastal Otago Flood Event 3 June 2015 report. Reference was made there to “elevated” ground water levels. They followed up with a contentious report (The Natural Hazards of South Dunedin, July 2016). This opens by stating that the June 2015 flooding was caused by heavy rainfall and high groundwater levels, with no mention of mudtanks, or pumping failures (plural). Such reporting cannot be treated as balanced, nor its authors credible. Elsewhere, ORC essentially conceded the groundwater myth in Rebecca Macfie’s excellent NZ Listener article entitled Flood Fiasco (June 11, 2016).

Shortly after, however, ORC produced the aforementioned South Dunedin Hazards report (backed up by an embarrassingly inaccurate video presentation) that seems to reflect a desire to preach doom rather than convey a balanced defendable scientific analysis of South Dunedin realities and solutions where needed.

One of the worst features of the report and subsequent video was the depiction of projected permanently inundated areas of South Dunedin based on ORC modelling of rising sea level effects. These depictions made front page news in the Otago Daily Times with flow-on reporting nationally. The mapped areas of inundation are actually taken from an earlier ORC report entitled The South Dunedin Coastal Aquifer and Effect of Sea Level Fluctuations (October 2012). The modelling was based on limited information, and the findings would therefore be expected to be of limited reliability. The 2012 report essentially confirms this, noting that modelling of existing conditions overestimates actual groundwater levels (by the order of half a metre in places). Figure 2 (Scenario 0) of that report shows significant permanent ponding for current conditions. None exists in reality. Almost lost (in Section 3.8) are the following (abbreviated, and amongst other) concessions:

• Uncertainty of input data
• Potential inaccuracy of model predictions
• High level of uncertainty
• Groundwater system is poorly to moderately well characterised
• Aquifer properties are poorly understood or quantified
• Each of these uncertainties could have the effect of overestimating the groundwater ponding in the current setting.

The reader is advised to read the full Section 3.8 to ensure contextual accuracy. In my view (as an experienced modeller), a study that cannot even replicate known existing relationships is imperfectly calibrated and unverified. It cannot therefore be relied on. Strictly speaking, it does not qualify as a model. The relationship between possible sea level rise and consequent groundwater impact remains highly uncertain.

Unfortunately, the 2016 ORC South Dunedin Hazards report (and video) chose to reproduce the 2012 ponding predictions using more recent data (but without any better appreciation of aquifer characteristics), but the predictions are similar. It is noted that no Scenario 0 mapping is included in the latter report, nor are the model’s inherent weaknesses described. No admission of the potential modelling inaccuracies is presented other than the following note in Section 4.1: “Further discussion of the original model parameters, model calibration and potential pitfalls is included in the ORC (2012a) report, which can be accessed on the ORC website”. I believe that all parties were entitled to know unequivocally that the modelling was unreliable and unverified.

The 2016 report also makes reference to the fact that dry-weather ground water levels at the Culling Park recorder are at or below mean sea level. This is attributed by the authors to leakage of ground water into the stormwater and wastewater sewers. If that is correct (I would reserve judgement as to whether there may be other factors), then we are witnessing just one example of how an engineered solution could be utilised to dissipate increasing depth of groundwater. Such solutions are canvassed in the BECA report commissioned by DCC several years back.

To summarise, South Dunedin’s exposure to flood (current or future) is poorly described by ORC hazard analysts. The 2GP process seems to have seen these analysts “adopted” by DCC planners as their experts. I consider that to be an inappropriate approach to the detriment of our citizens.

The proposal to require relocatable housing in South Dunedin seems premature, and based on highly questionable information. The proposal for relocatable housing in South Dunedin also rather pre-empts the currently-planned DCC study of overseas approaches to sea level rise solutions.

Requiring relocatable houses will likely simply mean that aged houses that should in time be replaced will be repaired instead. Who is going to build a new relocatable house if they have nowhere to relocate to and probably insufficient money to acquire the requisite land? The proposal to require relocatable housing is ill-considered and premature in my opinion.

With respect to ground water issues across South Dunedin, the 2016 Hazard Report presents –

The reason for my pointing out these facts is to encourage Commissioners to take a step back from the current hysteria surrounding South Dunedin. Had the 2015 flooding extent been restricted (as it should have been) to that which occurred in a slightly larger rainfall event in March 1968, the event would have already been forgotten. Seemingly, at least partly as a result of that hysteria, the proposal to require relocatable housing in South Dunedin seems premature, and based on highly questionable information. Just as ORC floodplain mapping contradicts its in-place flood protection philosophy, so does the proposal for relocatable housing in South Dunedin also rather pre-empt the currently planned DCC study of overseas approaches to sea level rise.

Requiring relocatable houses will simply mean that aged houses that should in time be replaced will be repaired instead. Who is going to build a new relocatable house if they have nowhere to relocate to and probably no money to acquire the requisite land? The proposal for relocatable housing is ill-considered and premature in my opinion.

****

2GP PRESENTATION: URBAN STREAM HAZARDS
Neil Johnstone

Urban Stream Comment re Leith and Lindsay Streams:

ORC’s mapping is said to be of residual flooding (post-flood protection works of the past 80-plus years), but actually represents what might have been envisaged many decades back in something considerably greater than the record 1929 flood with none of the very significant channel works of the 1930s, 1940s and 1960s; or even those lesser improvement of the 2010s in place. The ORC 2GP mapping includes areas that didn’t get flooded in 1923 or 1929. I agree with some potential dangers of stream blockage (especially in Lindsay Creek, and to a lesser extent at Clyde Street and Rockside Road), but one can only consider locations of feasible blockage in today’s conditions. Furthermore, accepted professional practice for flood plain mapping requires detailed hydrology, probability analyses, climate change allowance, hydrograph routing, in-channel modelling (allowing for stream capacity variability), and overland flow modelling. ORC’s flood mapping incorporates none of these fundamentals; instead, it reads as little more than a colouring-in exercise, when a professionally researched technical document is required. In short, ORC’s hazard analysts have carried out no fit-for-purpose analysis for a District Plan process.

Interestingly, the concerns expressed by ORC hazard analysts re channel blockage are entirely inconsistent with ORC’s own design philosophy and consent application evidence for the recent Flood protection scheme (so called). Design Philosophy minimises the issue.

Very briefly, the mapping is challenged for the following reasons (inter alia):

No descriptions of the effective flood protection initiatives (OHB -1920s and 1930s, DCC -1940s, OCB -1960s) are included. These works have ensured that overtopping is practically impossible in the George Street to Cumberland Street reach, the Clock Tower reach and Forth Street to Harbour reaches. Flood protection in these areas are all built to a much higher hydraulic standard than the so-called ORC scheme of the past decade, and to a far, far higher standard than existed pre-1929.

It is further noted that ORC’s own Design Philosophy Report (OPUS for ORC, 2005) for the proposed Leith/Lindsay flood protection scheme is adamant that debris traps recently (then) constructed at Malvern Street and Bethunes Gully would further mitigate any debris problems. Refer paras 7.7 and 10.6 of that document.

Ponding is mapped where water couldn’t even reach in 1929 (peak flood currently estimated at 220 cumecs, and predating flood protection measures) in the wider CBD area. Flows along George Street in the 1920s only occurred south as far as about Howe Street, then re-entered the river. Nowadays, the accelerating weir above George Street and the structural high velocity channel immediately downstream provide much more clearance than existed in 1929. [Most outflow then from the river occurred much further downstream.] In those downstream reaches, many of the bridges have been replaced or upgraded. Possible remaining points of interest are the hydraulically insignificant extension (circa 2015) of the St David Street footbridge, the historic Union Street arch footbridge, and the widened (circa 2012) Clyde Street road bridge. The flimsy St David Street bridge would not survive any hydraulic heading up so there would likely be of little flood consequence, and backing up upstream of Union St would be largely inconsequential because of the height of the Clock Tower reach banks immediately upstream. The Clyde Street bridge is acknowledged as being lower than optimum, but it has not created any issues in its half century existence. Any overtopping there could only impact on a limited area between the bridge and the railway line.

Overland lows beyond (east of) the rail line remain highly improbable because of the ongoing blocking effect of road and rail embankments. Flows as far as the railway station to the west of the rail line are also highly improbable nowadays as only the Clyde Street area could conceivably contribute.

The 1923 photograph showing ponding along Harrow Street is presented by ORC with an unfortunate caption stating that the water is sourced from the Leith. Some undoubtedly was, but the whole of the city was subject to “internal” stormwater flooding from Caversham tunnel, across South Dunedin to the CBD and beyond. To illustrate further, a NIWA April 1923 flood summary (accessible online) provides a summary of some of the information more fully described in technical reports and newspaper accounts, including:

• Portions of Caversham, South Dunedin, St Kilda, the lower portions of central and northern areas of the City and North East Valley were completely inundated.
• Water in South Dunedin was waist deep.
• The Water of Leith rose considerably and burst its banks in many places, causing extensive damage along its banks and flooding low-lying areas.

Today’s stormwater infrastructure is rather more extensive and effective (when maintained), and DCC has a continuing legal obligation to provide to maintain that service.

The levels plotted across Lindsay Creek seem highly pessimistic. Levels are shown to be of the order of 2 metres above North Road in some locations at least. I have [no] knowledge of any such levels ever having been approached. Care must be taken not to include unfloodable areas in the mapping. I don’t however discount localised channel blockage, and the channel capacity is substandard in many areas. The valley slope ensures that overland flow will achieve damaging velocities. Such velocities are noted in the NIWA summary.

Of greater concern to me, however, is that ORC’s mapping appears to have seriously underestimated the significance of potential Woodhaugh flood issues:-

The river channel through here is both steep and confined. The influences of Pine Hill Creek (immediately upstream) and Ross Creek (immediately downstream) add to turbulence and bank attack. The area was ravaged in 1923 and 1929, and there have been evacuations in some much lesser events in later decades. These areas are at considerable risk in a 50- to 100-year plus event. Hardin Street, Malvern Street had houses evacuated in the 1960s flood. High velocity, rock laden flows and mudslides can all be anticipated, and difficult to counter. Area below camping ground / Woodhaugh was overwhelmed in floods of the 1920s – a focus for flooding depth and velocity.

If the 2GP process is to include urban flood maps, these should be diligently derived, based on historical record and appropriate modelling. The mapping should reflect the real flood risks (including likelihood, velocity and depth). The decreasing flood risk from Woodhaugh (potentially high impact) through North East Valley (moderate impact) through to the main urban area south of the Leith waterway (localised and of little-to-zero impact) should be reflected in the mapping.

[ends]

—

█ 2GP Hearing Topic: Natural Hazards
https://2gp.dunedin.govt.nz/2gp/hearings-schedule/natural-hazards.html

█ For more, enter the terms *johnstone*, *flood* and *south dunedin* in the search box at right.

Related Posts and Comments
6.6.16 Listener June 11-17 2016 : Revisiting distress and mismanagement #SouthDunedinFlood
10.6.16 “Civic administration” reacts to hard hitting Listener article

—

[DCC Map differs from what was notified]

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

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.

WE have the information, unreasonable delay providing it #LGOIMA

Contrary to DCC Bylaw 23 no camping restriction applied over summer

DCC’s delay in providing official information on freedom camping numbers (Which Is Available) appears to equate with what happened over LGOIMA requests lodged after the South Dunedin Flood of June 2015. Delay, derferment, and obfuscation occurred then as now. There is no reason to believe anything has changed internally, magnified by today’s ‘official response’.

[redacted screenshot – click to enlarge]

****

DCC now has a laborious text response as first acknowledgement of the LGOIMA requests it receives. An associate has been working on improvements to the below on suggestion back to the system. The short information request is highlighted by whatifdunedin:

From: officialinformation @dcc.govt.nz
Sent: Monday, 13 March 2017 7:55 a.m.
To: Elizabeth Kerr
Subject: Confirmation of receipt of LGOIMA request – 577864

Dear Elizabeth

I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your official information request dated 13 Mar 2017 7:55am

We support public access to official information. Our obligation under the Local Government Official Information Act 1987 (the Act) is to provide you the information requested as soon as reasonably practicable unless there is a good reason for withholding it.

We will process information requests as below:

1. We will let you know as soon as we can (and in any case within 20 working days) whether your request will be granted or declined, and if the request is declined why we have declined it.

1. In some cases it may be necessary for our decision to be made after 20 working days. When this occurs we will advise you the anticipated delivery date together with the reason why it is necessary to extend that time within the 20 working days.

1. If your request is complex or requires a large amount of collation and research, we may contact you with a view to either refining your request or discussing the possibility of charging for aspects of your request in line with the DCC charging policy.

1. If we decide to release the information, we aim to provide it at the same time as we give our decision. If this is not possible we will provide the information as soon as reasonably practicable.

If you need to contact us about your request, please email officialinformation@dcc.govt.nz or call 03 477 4000. Please quote reference number: 577864

The timeliness of our decisions and the reasons for them are reviewable by the Office of the Ombudsman. You can view the Ombudsman’s guidelines for the processing of information requests at http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz or by calling freephone: 0800 802 602.

Yours sincerely,

Official Information Request Service

Below are the details of the request

Your request:

New information request – Warrington Domain

I have been informed that DCC recently ran a survey of the freedom campers at Warrington Domain, asking (in no particular order here):

1. where they were from
2. their age
3. how much they were spending
4. what activities they were doing in Dunedin, and
5. what type of vehicle they were in.

I’m told the survey ran for two weeks; and that it was conducted by Ashley Reid.

I request a full copy of the survey results (with names of campers redacted for privacy), to be received by email at earliest convenience.

I note hearings for the Proposed Reserves and Beaches Bylaw will be held this week. Prompt receipt of the survey information would be enabling. Thanks.

File attachment
No file uploaded

[ends]

*****

Points:

1. The Reserves and Beaches Bylaw review that had hearings this week did not include a review of freedom camping; freedom camping is specifically excluded from this bylaw review. The freedom camping bylaw review is heralded to take place in about a month’s time.

2. The point numbering error in the response of 13 March above is the DCC’s.

3. The running foot, or footer, italicised in red (“Dance like no one is watching; Email like it may one day be read aloud in a deposition.”) in the redacted screenshot above, has been raised with senior staff this afternoon and has since been sorted.

4. The LGOIMA response received today must be seen in light of a response to another request I made for information about Warrington Domain lodged on 22.1.17 [ref no. 570874]:

[excerpt; my underlining]

14. How many freedom campers have been staying at Warrington Domain nightly from 1 July 2016 to 15 January 2017? (please state number of vehicles; and number of individuals if known)

15. What is the average length of stay per vehicle at the Domain?

DCC response (28.2.17):

14) We do not perform a count of freedom campers at each site daily. An estimate may be available as a result of a recent survey that was conducted across camping sites within the city. Please advise if you wish to refine your request to include an estimate of numbers.

15) See the answer to question (14) above.

****

whatifdunedin’s ‘amateur’ response and translation:

WE have the information —WE are going to control it. Let’s play cat and mouse, if it turns out the information is ‘maybe’ awkward or not in OUR political favour [before a Bylaw review]. Besides, WE need processing time to [‘line up ducks’] before the information, analysed…… hits the iPads of elected representatives. Micromanaging is GOOD. Vive la DCC Operatives !!

—

Related Posts and Comments:
● 15.2.17 Warrington : DCC dictates loss of community’s grassed recreation reserve to freeloaders
8.2.17 Hands Off Enjoyment of OUR Beaches #DCC
● 6.2.17 Uncontrolled freedom camping at Warrington Domain this weekend —DCC ‘hell model’ [no enforcement]
● 1.2.17 “Fake news” from DCC boffins & Community Board re freedom camping at Warrington Domain #TheBlight
10.2.16 Dunedin freedom camping #DCC #enforcement
16.12.14 DCC: Freedom Camping issues
7.12.09 Coastal protection zones

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

*Image: warrington domain, cropped detail of supplied colour photograph taken 14.2.17

Hands Off Enjoyment of OUR Beaches #DCC

OUR CULTURAL HERITAGE TRADITION IS HORSES ON THE BEACH
—P*** OFF DCC

[tikitouringnz.blogspot.co.nz]

NO Sand Dunes are at risk if DCC gets off its dung-darkened tail to clearly mark Community-agreed entry and exit points to relevant/historical beaches for horses, light vehicles with training rigs, and sulkies.

WE OWN THE FRIGGING BEACHES

No one we know doesn’t love the sight of powerfully fit horses exercising on rural and urban beaches as they’ve done for generations, according to tides typically discreet and in harmony with other beach users and the coastal environment generally.

If there’s a problem it means DCC hasn’t bothered to consult properly on practical measures and agreed outcomes that enable All beach users to ENJOY OUR COASTAL RESOURCE.

Instead: RED-TAPE COUNCIL BUREAUCRATS WITH GREENIE AGENDAS
dccmakeworkschemesdccmakeworkschemesdccmakeworkschemes

No doubt influenced by ‘academics’ from the University of Otago dune study.

WHO ARE the environmental lobbyists within DCC moving to SHUT DOWN our freedom to move ?

Cast the morons out of this church.

****

█ DCC is currently consulting on the Proposed Reserves and Beaches Bylaw 2017 and seeks public submissions by Friday, 10 February 2017.

DCC would like to know what you think about the proposed bylaw. Your views will shape the final document. The focus of this bylaw review is to direct recreational users and our community to the best reserve and beach spaces for their activities. Your feedback is an important part of the review and we appreciate the time you take to make a submission.

An information pack is available from the DCC Customer Services Centre, by phoning 477 4000 or online.

****

At Facebook:

Council staff would not be interviewed yesterday, but in written responses to questions stressed the need to protect dune systems.

### ODT Online Wed, 8 Feb 2017
Plan for horses on beaches ‘overkill’
By Chris Morris
Nostrils are flaring as the Dunedin City Council faces a backlash over tougher new rules for horses on the city’s beaches. The proposal would restrict horses to thin strips of sand between dunes and high-water marks at four beaches where the animals were permitted to run. The idea has triggered an outcry from riders, as trainers warned of injuries to their animals while one horse trek business owner feared it could spell the end of his venture. The changes were included in the council’s reserves and beaches bylaw, which would remain the subject of public consultation until Friday.
Read more

—

Related Posts and Comments:
6.2.17 Uncontrolled freedom camping at Warrington Domain this weekend —DCC ‘hell model’ [no enforcement]
1.2.17 “Fake news” from DCC boffins & Community Board re freedom camping at Warrington Domain #TheBlight

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

DCC electoral ‘donations and expenses’

Dave Cull: It was his third term as mayor, he had strong opposition, a campaign was developed with Firebrand in Dunedin and “that’s what it cost”.

[correction to Green Party assistance]
### ODT Online Sat, 10 Dec 2016
$0 to $50,000 to be elected
By David Loughrey
Big spending did not necessarily pay off in Dunedin’s October local government elections. While the two biggest spenders, Mayor Dave Cull and deputy mayor Cr Chris Staynes, made it back to the council table with spending of more than $50,321 and $42,677 respectively, Ronald Fung spent $25,234 on an unsuccessful bid, as did Barry Timmings with spending of $20,923. Election donations also made an appearance this year from beyond Dunedin. […] Green candidates Crs Aaron Hawkins and Marie Laufiso, both of who gained council seats, received $4468 each from the Green Party. At the other end of the spending scale successful candidate Cr Jim O’Malley spent nothing.
Read more

DCC Website:
Return of Electoral Donations and Expenses Form – 2016 DCC [template]
Dunedin City Council Final Results
Elected Members’ Register of Interests

█ Awaiting official publication of ‘2016 Electoral Donations and Expenses’.

—

Marketing agency Firebrand has previously provided pro bono services to Greater Dunedin. The company also does work for various council departments and CCOs. Owing to certain conditions not all of this work has been competitively tendered. Firebrand is owned by Rebecca and Paul Twemlow.

DCC Official Information:

Firebrand LGOIMA 268652 Attachment 1 (PDF, 3.8 MB)
Request from Hilary Calvert 23/09/2016
Firebrand LFOIMA 268652 Attachment 2 (PDF, 998.0 KB)
Request from Hilary Calvert 23/09/2016

Firebrand Job Details LGOIMA 259441 (PDF, 141.8 KB)
Request from Hilary Calvert 4/08/2016
Firebrand Job Details LGOIMA 259441 Attachment 1 (PDF, 35.6 KB)
Request from Hilary Calvert 4/08/2016
Firebrand Job Details LGOIMA 259441 Attachment 2 (PDF, 845.5 KB)
Request from Hilary Calvert 4/08/2016
Firebrand Job Details LGOIMA 259441 Attachment 3 (PDF, 65.8 KB)
Request from Hilary Calvert 4/08/2016
Firebrand Job Details LGOIMA 259441 Attachment 4 (PDF, 73.0 KB)
Request from Hilary Calvert 4/08/2016
Firebrand Job Details LGOIMA 259441 Attachment 5 (PDF, 673.0 KB)
Request from Hilary Calvert 4/08/2016

—

Related Posts and Comments:
23.9.16 DCC responses to LGOIMA requests
20.9.16 Site Notice : Post removal
28.8.16 Cull’s city council is Not democracy : VOTE CULL OUT

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

DCC & ORC Electoral Officer on Voting

### channel39.co.nz Wed, 22 Aug 2016
Nightly Interview: Pam Jordan
Most residents should have received their local body elections voting packs in the mail by now. Tonight we’re joined by Dunedin City Council and Otago Regional Council electoral officer Pam Jordan, who’s going to explain the ins and outs of voting.

Channel 39 Published on Sep 21, 2016

—

█ Check out election candidates’ names and profiles here:

DCC & Community Boards
http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/your-council/electoral-information/elections-to-be-held-and-nominations-dunedin-city-council

ORC
http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/your-council/electoral-information/elections-to-be-held-and-nominations-orc

On the STV voting system
Go to this post and comments to read more about STV – note comments by STV advocate Steve [Stephen Todd of Wellington]:

26.8.10 In defence of STV

█ For more, enter the term *candidate* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

Kaipara rates row : High Court finds “serious and substantial” errors

“If the council had just accepted the money, admitted that the people withholding their rates were wronged, that their case had merit, we could have all moved forward together” – Mangawhai ratepayer Bruce Rogan
(via Checkpoint) Audio | Download: MP3 (3′04″)

### radionz.co.nz 6:01 pm on 16 Sep 2016
New Zealand: Northland
Northland rates rebels win partial victory
By Lois Williams – Northland reporter
The rebel ratepayers of Mangawhai in Northland have won a partial victory in the High Court. The court has found that rates levied from 2011 to 2014 by the Northland Regional Council, via Kaipara District Council rate demands, were unlawful. In an interim decision, Justice Duffy found the Northland Regional Council (NRC) has no power to delegate the assessment of rates or the recovery of arrears to other councils. “The errors I have identified are serious and substantial,” the judge said. “In short, the NRC has failed to exercise its statutory powers properly when determining rates resolutions and it has unlawfully sought to delegate the performance of a number of its functions in relation to rates to the Kaipara District Council.” […] The Mangawhai ratepayers’ chair, Bruce Rogan, said the ruling was very welcome, although the court did not uphold the group’s challenge to penalties and GST imposed by the Kaipara District Council. The council should now agree to negotiate a deal to end the six-year-old Kaipara rates row, Mr Rogan said.
Read more

—

From Kaipara Concerns (community website):

INTERIM HIGH COURT JUDGMENT RELEASED 16.09.2016
Duffy J has made an interim judgment in respect of the judicial review brought by the MRRA and Bruce and Heather Rogan challenging the lawfulness of rates set by the NRC and the KDC.

She has made the following decisions:

NRC
1. The NRC rates were not set lawfully for the 2011/2012, 2012/2013 and 2013/2014 rating years. [27]
2. The NRC’s delegation to the KDC of the assessment of rates and recovery of rates for the rating years between 2011/2012 and 2015/2016 inclusive was unlawful. Accordingly those rates were not lawfully assessed. [58]
3. The NRC’s delegation to the KDC to add penalties to NRC rates was unlawful. Therefore the penalties imposed on rates in respect of NRC rates was unlawful. [74]
4. The Validation Act only validated the unlawful rates of the KDC. It did not validate the unlawful rates of the NRC. [111]

Result
[129] I make the following declaration: The NRC’s rates for the KDC region have not been lawfully set or assessed for the rating years from 2011/2012 to 2015/2016 inclusive.

Duffy J has not yet decided what order to make in respect of ordering the NRC to refund the unlawful rates charged. She has invited the NRC to make further submissions and especially to examine how this ruling might affect the legality of the rates that it has set for its other constituent areas – Whangarei and the Far North. Those rates might also be unlawful.

She will make her final decision once both parties have made further submissions.
Read more

—

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters has issued a press release in respect of the Duffy J’s High Court decision:

—

Related Posts and Comments:
31.3.16 Ratepayers achieve for Kaipara District —what Dunedin counterparts…
3.10.15 Kaipara Concerns —ADOTROL* disease [Dunedin mention, again!]
13.2.15 Associate Minister of Local Government: Return democracy to Kaipara
2.2.15 LGNZ run by Mad Rooster Yule, end of story
27.11.14 Auditor-general Lyn Provost #Resign
31.10.14 Whaleoil on “dodgy ratbag local body politicians” —just like ours at DCC
9.9.14 Mangawhai, Kaipara: Latest news + Winston Peter’s speech
19.7.14 Whaleoil / Cameron Slater on ratepayers’ lament
29.5.14 Mangawhai Ratepayers and Residents Assn wins at High Court
31.3.14 Audit services to (paying) local bodies #FAIL ● AuditNZ ● OAG…
29.1.14 Mangawhai, Kaipara —we hear ya!
3.12.13 LGNZ: OAG report on Kaipara
12.11.13 Northland council amalgamation
29.6.13 Audit NZ and OAG clean bill of health —Suspicious!
21.4.13 Councils “in stchook” —finance & policy analyst Larry.N.Mitchell
19.3.12 Local government reform
21.2.12 Kaipara this time

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

Cracking the truth : June 2015 South Dunedin flood

OPINION received from Neil Johnstone
Sat, 10 Sep 2016 at 12:42 a.m.

Richard Stedman produces (below) a succinct review of the causes of, and failures after, the South Dunedin flood of June 2015. His frustrations appear to match those of Hilary Calvert that were published a few hours earlier. My reviews previously published on What if? Dunedin commencing back around February give more detail.

For your readers’ further consideration, Richard has highlighted the ‘200mm increase’ in flood level as a result of Portobello Road pumping station failures. The figure was derived by me, and appears in my review of the first DCC flood report. To my knowledge the only clear comparable DCC concessions have come from chief executive Sue Bidrose who admitted the figure publicly at the 20 June 2016 (yes, 2016) South Dunedin Action Group-organised public meeting, and subsequently.

The first DCC flood report (30 Nov 2015) is adamant that high groundwater was the cause of the flooding, and enough Councillors bought right into that excuse at the following Infrastructure Services Committee meeting. Just go back and view the video, if you’ve forgotten.

Dunedin City Council Published on Dec 7, 2015
Dunedin City Council – Council Meeting – November 30 2015
Discussion of the report starts at 1:09:52

The second (mudtank) DCC report of 26 April this year states: “Although Portobello Road’s performance did explain some of the length of time flooding was evident, much of the flooded area was below road level…” (para 31). No mention of increased depth of flooding there either, you will note.
[View report at Infrastructure Services Committee: Agenda & Reports 26 April (Part A, Item 5) pp 6-27.]

Neither DCC report mentions the additional depth of flooding caused by inaction at the Musselburgh pumping station.

History and ongoing design may rely on written commentaries. For the wellbeing of South Dunedin people, we must therefore continue to counter the misinformation contained in DCC reports, and in the more recent ORC (DCC-backed) South Dunedin “hazards” report. Even if ODT has switched off.

—

Related Posts at What if? Dunedin
8.3.16 [Review 1] Johnstone independent review of DCC report
19.5.16 [Review 2] Johnstone review of 2nd DCC report

Correspondence supplied
7.3.16 Letter, Chief Executive Sue Bidrose to Neil Johnstone
10.3.16 Response from Neil Johnstone to CE Bidrose

Sue Bidrose at ORC/DCC hazards presentation [radionz.co.nz]

****

OPINION received from Richard Stedman
Fri, 9 Sept 2016 at 8:24 p.m.

The ODT editorial department is peopled by closed minds, a number of whom subscribe to the climate change/rising sea level mantra and therefore manipulate their content to support their distorted view of the world. Mr Morris is captured by the former/present regime at city hall, a fate which befalls every reporter assigned to that round once they get their feet under the table.

Two weeks ago I prepared an opinion piece re the election and South Dunedin, outlining some of the issues as I see them in the hope that it might be published. I thought it was honestly held opinion, but it was rejected because it added “nothing new” to the debate, yet they run to Cull at every turn and run column after column of repetitive nonsense.

The following is my submission submitted on 24/8 and rejected the same day in this message: “Thanks for this submission, but we have had a “deluge” of flood letters and op eds from all sides so I don’t feel the need to highlight the issue again at the moment – certainly if there’s not anything new in it, as such”.

I have seen little evidence of the cited “deluge”.

The South Dunedin flood of June 2015 may be a tipping point during next month’s local body election. Many voters will look at the burgeoning candidates list for the Dunedin City Council and ask “who will provide the cornerstone elements of responsibility, accountability and integrity?”

Residents and business owners in South Dunedin have been sorely tested in recent times through the failure of the DCC to maintain its infrastructure. Among those adversely affected were elderly residents at Radius Fulton Home, including a number of dementia patients, the most vulnerable in our community, who were subjected to floodwaters containing sewage and transferred from the safety of their home in a crisis beyond acceptance. Some were accommodated as far away as Balclutha and Oamaru and three months passed before the facility was re-opened.

Following the flood, obfuscation clouded the failures that led to the inundation of homes and businesses and the investigation and report into the affair was 12 months in gestation. Officials and councillors, captured by the twin mantras of climate change and rising sea level, avoided any suggestion of culpability to limit the likelihood of litigation, and offered no solace that might have been construed as admission of liability.

The mayor and others were quick to blame rising sea level causing increased groundwater, combined with an “extreme weather event”, the result of climate change, and went so far as suggesting that a planned retreat from South Dunedin may be necessary in the future. The rainfall was described as a one-in-100-year event then gradually downgraded, but none of these pretexts are realistic. Questions arise over who is responsible for what, and how serious are the threats of rising sea level, more frequent adverse weather caused by climate change, and the “sinking of South Dunedin”, not to mention “retreat”.

Dunedin and environs have been subjected to much larger weather events in the past. Flooding of the entire city is well recorded and in particular photographs of the 1923 flood depict rowing in floodwaters in the city as well as inundation in South Dunedin. During a storm in 1898 large tracts of St Clair Esplanade were destroyed by the sea which damaged many houses, leaving some partly suspended. More recently, the storms of 1968 were greater than last year’s, delivering 10% more rainfall. In 1968 there were 90 properties invaded by floodwater, whereas last year some 1200 properties were flooded and many contaminated with effluent. Clearly last year’s event was exceptional only for the damage created and lives disrupted.

At a public meeting in South Dunedin on June 20, more than 12 months after the event, those affected had an opportunity to hear an explanation in the hope that someone might take responsibility for the extent of the damage. Despite a good representation of councillors there was no empathy and no likelihood of accountability. What the meeting heard was a long explanation of how the three-waters system works, or doesn’t work, as the case may be, and of failure at the pumping station from chief executive, Dr Sue Bidrose and other staff. The question is “when did the city’s councillors abdicate?”

South Dunedin June 2015 [radionz.co.nz]

It can be argued that the damage and distress was the result of neglect, but the DCC says problems at the pumping station added only 200mm to the flooding which would have occurred anyway. Which 200mm was it? Maybe the first 200mm flowed across the ground, reached blocked drains then deepened throughout the area, or perhaps the last 200mm increased the depth and entered homes and business premises carrying undesirable flotsam. Without the extra 200mm would the water have stopped at the thresholds rather than flowing inside?

What of the rising sea level threat? Is it as urgent and as devastating as the commissioner for the environment, some DCC councillors and the Green Party say? The Greens proffer that the Government should help to pay for the reconfiguration of South Dunedin. Why? There has been no disaster on the scale of the Canterbury earthquakes and there is no immediate danger condemning South Dunedin, for if sea level were to rise according to some projections, north Dunedin and other areas are also in jeopardy meaning protection on the coast is futile because the flat land would be inundated from the harbour.

Could it be that models of sea level rise around New Zealand are exaggerated and distorted by the multiplier effect have been grossly over stated? And do the $7 million apartment complex at the Esplanade to be completed next year and the DCC’s belated discussion on a South Dunedin hub indicate mixed messages on the subject?

There is no doubt that the infrastructure must be maintained to the highest level and upgrading implemented with haste. The seafront calls for a level-headed approach to protect the sandhills which shelter the city from the ocean. In the past a network of groynes captured the sand, maintaining a broad beach to dissipate the energy of the waves. The network succeeded for nearly 100 years, but without maintenance fell victim to the ocean, so is it time to reinstate a similar system and then plan carefully for the next 100 to 200 years?

Council says that infrastructure will require “tens of millions of dollars” we cannot afford, but plans to spend some $37 million on George Street and the Octagon, followed by development of the harbourside. These “tens of millions” surely must be re-allocated to South Dunedin for infrastructure, to build a second pumping station, and provide realistic coastal protection.

Dunedin needs new councillors who will make hard decisions, reduce spending on fripperies and attend to basics; people who are prepared to drill deep into reports and costings and who are not afraid to make unpalatable decisions when needed rather than govern with slogans and platitudes.

Declaration: Conrad Stedman is my nephew.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

Calvert on DCC, ‘We could have a much more democratic and transparent operation of council’

Leunig Cartoons ‏@leunigcartoons · Aug 21

—

### ODT Online Thu, 8 Sep 2016
Scope for more democracy with checks and balances
By Hilary Calvert
OPINION In the past three years Dunedin City Council has functioned just as central government does, with a government and an opposition. But the problem is that in Dunedin it means central government-style politics without the checks and balances. Because the mayor of the day is allowed to choose the chairs of the council committees, if the mayor anoints those who are similar in their views to him or her, effectively a “government” is formed. Those on the “government” side support each other, forming a version of the “cabinet”, with meetings between themselves alongside senior council staff to discuss the issues of the day. Those who are not part of this grouping are obliged to form a loose “opposition”, because this is the only place where any public challenges and questions are likely to come from.
In Dunedin […] the chairs of committees forming the “cabinet” meet secretly and without any minutes which can be accessed. They may be part of working parties with other groups, which never report back to the council, for example groups meeting with NZTA about cycleways. They may have information either before the rest of the council or outside the rest of council papers, never to be seen by council. […] In Dunedin, the ODT describes what happens in council meetings, talks to the chairs of the meetings, and prints press releases, having clarified the situation with a relevant staff member. There is little chance for any challenge of prevailing views unless a major debate happens during meetings, or unless the issues raised are ones which the ODT chooses to follow up in an in-depth way.
Read more

● Hilary Calvert is a Dunedin City councillor, who is not standing for re-election.

Leunig Cartoons ‏@leunigcartoons · Sep 8

****

B L O W N ● O U T ● O F ● P R O P O R T I O N ● B Y ● C U L L

If, for example, the solutions involved “massive urban renewal or massive pumps” then Government help could be sought.

### ODT Online Fri, 9 Sep 2016
Work on South D issues
By Vaughan Elder
Dunedin Mayor Dave Cull says it is too early to make a formal approach to the Government for help with the problems facing South Dunedin. Mr Cull made the comments while outlining the council’s response to its vote last month to “immediately engage” the Government over the threat groundwater and sea-level changes pose to the low-lying area. Mr Cull said that in recent weeks he and chief executive Sue Bidrose briefed local MPs on the situation in South Dunedin and in the past he had spoken to ministers Bill English and Paula Bennett about the possibility of “collaboration” between local and central government in addressing South Dunedin’s issues.
Read more

The demise of the stacked cup towers. pic.twitter.com/ptti2qo3yz

— Animal Cognition (@animalcog) March 27, 2016

Animal Cognition @animalcog · Mar 27 [Birdie Cull, the wrecker]

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

Ratbags for your avoidance #elections

█ Placement! Who is paying for online ads at Whaleoil, none other than the plodding lesser Stains of Dunedin.

There’s ultra-supreme love for the whole wordy splash:

### whaleoil.co.nz September 3, 2016 at 7:30am
New Zealand’s Dodgiest Local Government Politician Awards
By Cameron Slater
With two weeks until the local government voting papers are mailed out it is time to kick off our dodgiest local government politician competition again.
Who are the rooters, boozers, money wasters, drink drivers and assorted criminals who think they should stick their nose in the public trough?
Who are the incumbent candidates who are so useless that they couldn’t get a job in the real world and only stay standing because they need the money?
Who are the people with appalling records in business or with public money who want to get their hands on more public money?
If you want to nominate a ratbag for the competition please email the tipline.
We already have some nominees, and we are working on a boozy mayoral candidate who made an arse of himself in Japan, and a boozer and a rooter who played away in Hong Kong.
Whaleoil Link

—

Mayoral redundancy – His Delta Noble-ness of Yelledhearse

Exhibit A | The Star 1.9.16 (page 4)

Exhibits B and C | ODT 3.9.16 (page 2)

Exhibit D | Did someone mention flood, honestly ?

First line/pledge "no more flooded homes"

One of the greatest acts of political vandalism i've ever seen #Dunedin pic.twitter.com/cOuwjp6Mza

— Paul Le Comte (@five15design) September 3, 2016

█ How are we feeling now ? edified ? gutted by lack of real choice ?
Then, in came someone new called …….

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

Johnstone on ORC report : ‘The Natural Hazards of South Dunedin’ (July 2016)

█ The Natural Hazards of South Dunedin – July 2016 [read online]
Otago Regional Council
ISBN: 978-0-908324-35-4
Report writers:
Michael Goldsmith, ORC Natural Hazards Manager
Sharon Hornblow, ORC Natural Hazards Analyst
Reviewed by: Gavin Palmer, ORC Director Engineering, Hazards and Science
External review by: David Barrell, Simon Cox, GNS Science, Dunedin

—

Received from Neil Johnstone
Sun, 29 Aug 2016 at 8:17 p.m.

Message: Misinformation on the causes of the June 2015 South Dunedin flood have abounded since the event. As if the victimised residents haven’t suffered enough from others’ inactions (before and during the event), they are now being subjected to a hazards discovery process whose vigour appears to be exceeded only by its own recklessness. Following are a commentary of the hazards approach adopted by the Otago Regional Council (ORC), and a summary of my investigations into the flood event that I commenced after the publication of Dunedin City Council’s first flood report back in November 2015.

You can download Neil Johnstone’s report or read it below (formatted slightly differently to suit the WordPress template).

█ Download: A REVIEW OF ORC REPORT THE NATURAL HAZARDS OF SOUTH DUNEDIN (1) (PDF, 587 KB)

—

AN APPRAISAL OF RECENT REPORTING OF SOUTH DUNEDIN HAZARDS

N.P JOHNSTONE, BEng (Civil), MIPENZ

1. Introduction

There is some irony that DCC and ORC should be planning “drop in” sessions for residents in respect of South Dunedin hazard issues during September 2016, some 15 months after the major flood. The prime cause of flooding in June 2015 was DCC’s failure to maintain its infrastructure (not just mudtanks), and its failure to operate its pump stations to their intended capacities. The subsequent spread of misconceptions (i.e. groundwater levels, rainfall significance etc) surrounding the flood causes was at least partly due to inaccurate ORC analyses and reporting.

Repetitive and new doubtful information emanating from ORC via its latest report has been noted. Presentations and an over-simplistic video production have been observed. A footnote covering these observations is included at the end of this appraisal.

Long-delayed DCC reports on causes of the South Dunedin flooding have already been strongly criticised by the author. Specifically discredited are misrepresentations of sea level, groundwater and rainfall ranking. Accepted now by DCC as factors (somewhat grudgingly, and depending on the audience) are mudtank blockage and Portobello Road pump station failures (plural); still to be fully acknowledged are the failures at Musselburgh Pumping Station.

Attention is now turned to significant parts of hazard reports produced by the Otago Regional Council and utilised by DCC.

2. Coastal Otago Flood Event 3 June 2015 (ORC, published October 2015)

This report deals with a wider area than South Dunedin. It is apparent that ORC staff never visited the flooding areas of South Dunedin on 3 June, but took advantage of fine weather to take some water level readings the following day. The opportunity for useful progressive surface water level recording was thus lost. Levels were collected at some 150 points on 4 June. ORC’s main conclusion was that “localised variations in topography were probably the main driver of flood depth”. Or, put another way, water depth was deepest where the ground was lowest. This seems hardly surprising, and even trivial. No attempt was made to explain the photographic images presented of extensive ponding remaining well after the rains had ceased. The phenomena of blocked mudtanks and unutilised pumping capacity went seemingly unnoticed.

The report does usefully reference ORC’s four borehole recorders of groundwater, but makes the somewhat misleading assessment that groundwater levels were “elevated” prior to the rainstorm. This misinformation was seized upon by agencies such as DCC and the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment to highlight climate change impacts.

Having obtained the actual groundwater level data from ORC via the LGOIMA process, the author was able to reveal this “groundwater fallacy” in reviews from February 2016, but it was not until the publication of NZ Listener’s article (June 11-17, 2016) entitled ‘FLOOD FIASCO’ that ORC admitted that pre-flood groundwater levels were in fact “just a little bit above average”. ORC now seems intent on resurrecting this fallacy.

The ORC report fails to address the real and key issues of pumping station failures (Portobello Road and Musselburgh), or comparisons with much lesser flood impacts in the larger rainfall event of March 8/9 1968.

The report states that the 2015 24-hour rainfall was the largest since 1923. This was patently incorrect, but again was utilised by DCC to divert blame from their role in the disaster.

3. The Natural Hazards of South Dunedin (ORC, published July 2016)

The report states unambiguously in its Opening Summary that the major flooding of June 2015 was “a result of heavy rainfall, surface runoff, and a corresponding rise in groundwater”. By now, most people are aware that the causes of the flooding’s disastrous impact were failure to optimally operate pumping stations, failure to clear mudtanks, and failure to deploy staff to key areas during the event. Again, none of these factors is addressed in ORC’s report.

The report presents a table on its second page entitled “Factors Which Can Influence Flood Hazard”. Examples of exaggerated negativity include:

1. Heavy Rainfall:
– Many recorded instances of rainfall leading to surface flooding.
– Heavy rainfall events have occurred frequently over the last decade.

Comment: These conclusions do not appear to be supported by the report’s text, and are vague, factually challengeable and alarmist. Prior to 2015, no major flooding had occurred in South Dunedin since 1968, and even that was minor by comparison.

2. Sea Level:
– Groundwater level fluctuates (by up to 0.5m near the coast) on a twice-daily cycle in response to normal ocean tides.

Comment: All of South Dunedin is near the coast; most of the area does not experience such large fluctuations. This should have been made clear by the inclusion of groundwater data from all 4 ORC sites across the plain, not just from Kennedy Street.

3. Seismic:
– Large earthquakes could result in increased flood hazard on the South Dunedin plain, due to liquefaction-related land subsidence or direct, sudden, changes in land elevation relative to sea level.

Comment: All areas of NZ have some susceptibility to earthquake damage. Dunedin is amongst the areas at lowest risk; no incidences of even minor liquefaction have ever been reported in South Dunedin, and little or no clearly liquefiable materials have been identified (Refer GNS, 2014*).

Cull’s city council is Not democracy : VOTE CULL OUT

PAINT BOMBERS WANTED. Apply here.
Dave Cull’s marketer, Ms Firebrand, is using LOL “brand” recognition to attempt to Fire up and Win over the Good Voters of South Dunedin. Was it a $7,000 billing on the railway viaduct entry to King Edward Street. Rhetorical. Cull has already LOST South Dunedin. Better spent on Lobotomy. Any mayor who Floods You or lowers Your Private Property Values is Not To Be Trusted EVER. Parade Cull at dawn to the public stocks. YOU OWE Dave Cull NOTHING except Projectile rotten eggs and rancid tomatoes.

—

Meanwhile….
A new mayoral candidate, in 2016, with No Previous Experience on the city council thinks he should run the city council like a Rugby Team.

What ‘BUSINESS'(!) does he have representing Ratepayers and Residents for the next trimester —given how Professional Rugby has Rorted Dunedin down to the Last Dollar, multiple times over. We all know how a stadium draws ‘tourism’.

WHO IS HE ?
Solve the mystery.

****

F O R C E D ● L O C A L ● G O V E R N M E N T ● R E F O R M S

Such companies, like Delta or City Forests in Dunedin, would operate along more corporate lines and at arm’s length from the councils that owned them.

so what’s new $$$$$$$$………….. ?

Sat, 27 Aug 2016 – Chris Morris
ODT: Fight for local democracy
At their heart, the [National government-led local government] reforms sought to promote greater efficiency through the use of council-controlled organisations (CCOs). […] But, worryingly for some councils, the Local Government Commission would have the power to create and impose “multi-council” regional CCOs that operated across traditional council boundaries. That could include “pre-approved” regional water and transport CCOs, responsible for everything from local roads and public transport to water delivery, such as Auckland’s Watercare. The commission would also have the power to transfer existing council assets — in some cases built up over generations — to the ownership and control of the new entities.

█ ODT: Criticism ‘just electioneering’

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

*Image: scarfyblog.co.nz + mylifemysite.com – Cull paint bombed
[tweaked by whatifdunedin]

DUNEDIN : So over Cull #SmartVoters #WannaNewMayor

ODT 23.8.16 (page 8)

●
●
●

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

*Image: Hex, whatifdunedin gives clarity to Cull’s tired campaign

Cr Whiley clarifies at ODT #letters

ODT LOCAL BODY ELECTIONS SOAPBOX

[click to enlarge]

ODT 18.8.16 (page 10)

—

ODT 27.7.16 (page 12)

Related Post and Comments:
28.7.16 Truthful Letters : Stadium + DCC #toobadaboutmayoralreply

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

*Images: whatifdunedin

Govt Debacle : Lost-luggage bill #universities #conscience

[whatifdunedin]

—

The sole purpose of National MP Nuk Korako’s bill is to require airports to advertise lost property more widely than in the newspaper.

### NZ Herald Online 9:15 AM Wednesday Aug 17, 2016
Lost-luggage bill has MPs in stitches
By Isaac Davison – political reporter
The National Party backbencher thrust into the spotlight by his bid to help recover lost property at airports has mounted a spirited defence of his widely mocked proposal. […] When it was pulled from the member’s bill ballot last week, Labour said it showed National had “lost the plot”. Today, Labour MPs set about picking it apart in Parliament, tabling a series of questions for the National MP. Korako, in his most high-profile moment since entering Parliament, thanked them for the opportunity to “profile his bill”.
Read more

****

Tweets:

Brownlee slams ‘arrogant’ academic for criticising lost luggage bill ($) https://t.co/XzEKMcmKK8 pic.twitter.com/x53KQ5xOkH

— NBR (@TheNBR) August 15, 2016

More from Brownlee: "It’s an attack on democracy. For him to pontificate this is a bill unworthy of Parliament is completely inappropriate."

— NBR (@TheNBR) August 15, 2016

"I have seen the error of my ways." Professor Geddis responds to Brownlee: https://t.co/ES3Rz86FVN pic.twitter.com/Qqi53FY2v9

— NBR (@TheNBR) August 16, 2016

Geddis will be on NBR Radio shortly, responding to Brownlee's claim that his comments are "quite sad" and "arrogant" https://t.co/gYJfyyHsy3

— NBR (@TheNBR) August 16, 2016

“Played the man, not the ball." Prof Geddis says Brownlee has a chip on his shoulder ($) https://t.co/4sjAhBzCPM pic.twitter.com/bDtEvDmKCF

— NBR (@TheNBR) August 16, 2016

More from Andrew Geddis on NBR Radio: It's worrying Brownlee regards academic criticism "as an attack on democracy" https://t.co/Mj1BFE91jY

— NBR (@TheNBR) August 16, 2016

Frivolous and expensive: the government's lost luggage bill. @robhosking's take: https://t.co/GKm1nfzSGP ($) pic.twitter.com/zNcBPppgxk

— NBR (@TheNBR) August 16, 2016

****

Students’ changing preferences have forced a difficult task on the University of Otago.

ODT Online Wed, 17 Aug 2016
Jobs must be cut now to secure division’s future
By Prof Tony Ballantyne
OPINION The proposed changes in staffing in the Humanities Division at the University of Otago have been subject to sustained media comment and critical commentary. […] The reason for the proposed changes is quite simple: there has unfortunately been a sustained decline in student numbers over the past seven years. Because of this, there is a growing gap between the division’s cost and income and it now depends on subsidies of many millions of dollars each year from other parts of the university.
Read more

—

The place of humanities in a university raises issues that extend far beyond one department.

ODT Online Wed, 17 Aug 2016
Universities succeed when they produce thoughtful leaders, not technocrats
By Emeritus Prof Gareth Jones
OPINION […] We need lawyers who understand biomedical science or elements of commerce; we need doctors who have an appreciation of the medical humanities, let alone of English literature or Maori worldviews. The examples are endless but each one in its own way points away from any silo mentality and towards the notion that universities should be producing well-rounded, thoughtful and well-educated graduates.
Read more

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

ORC : Official complaints show integrity

### ODT Online Mon, 15 Aug 2016
Two complaints laid against ORC
By Simon Hartley
Complaints against the Otago Regional Council have been laid by Cr Gerry Eckhoff with the Ombudsman and also the Office of the Auditor-general over exclusion of the public from a recent meeting. A decision was publicly released by the regional council late on Friday, from an in-committee, meaning non-public, non-media meeting on Wednesday, which the ORC yesterday defended on the basis the decision could be appealed.

The regional councillors voted in favour of accepting commissioners’ recommendation that a minimum water flow be set for the Lindis River catchment in Central Otago.

Mr Eckhoff released a statement yesterday outlining his complaints, and in an interview said not having the issue aired in public revealed a “grossly inappropriate process”. […] Council staff made the recommendation to hear the Lindis matter in public exclusion after seeking legal advice on matters where a decision by the council is open to an appeal in a court or tribunal, [ORC chief executive Peter Bodeker] said.
Read more

—

█ ORC : Combined Council Agenda 10 August – Public.pdf

Go to PART D – EXCLUSION OF PUBLIC
See Item 14 Recommendations of the Hearing Committee on the Proposed Plan Change 5A (Lindis: Integrated water management) to the Regional Plan: Water for Otago.
In relation to item 14, this resolution is made in reliance of section 48(1)(d) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.

█ Otago Regional Council http://www.orc.govt.nz/

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

ODT on DCC : LGOIMA takes an age….

Journalism is…Waiting 11 months for an official info response from @DnCityCouncil, then being told to wait until after October's election.

— Chris Morris (@JournoMan) August 4, 2016

—

[onscreen toons]

A Common Problem.
If all else fails, take up star gazing as Ian Griffin would say.

—

Posted Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

*Image: DCC home page tweaked by whatifdunedin

Labour messing with South Dunedin, like Cull, unbidden

Not Listening [octavehighereast.com]

—

There is little or no RISING GROUNDWATER at South Dunedin – this is an attack on the local community by Anthropogenic Global Warming (manmade climate change) believers like Curran, Clark, and Cull.

So-called ‘authorities’ are running their Politics over the top of the local Community, Failing to canvass the views of the local residents, property owners, service providers and businesses through agreed consultation methods Before pronouncing upon the area. This is disrespectful, dangerous behaviour. Unwarranted.

A lot of us will remember Labour MP David Clark’s importune speech on climate change at the public meeting held at South Dunedin on 20 June. He completely didn’t register the mood and understandings of the local audience.

Greenie Cull and the Labour Party are deliberately or inadvertently using South Dunedin as a Political Football. There are few votes to be earned from bullying and interference, thank god.

Listening —what is that.

—

Speaking after the tour, Mr Little said the area was a “prime candidate” for urban renewal under the party’s proposed Affordable Housing Authority.

### ODT Online Tue, 26 Jul 2016
Labour timeline for South renewal
By Timothy Brown
South Dunedin’s renewal will be showing “good progress” within six years of electing a Labour government, party leader Andrew Little says. Mr Little toured South Dunedin with Dunedin Mayor Dave Cull, Dunedin South MP Clare Curran, Dunedin North MP Dr David Clark and list MP David Parker after the area was earmarked by the Opposition as one urgently needing urban renewal. The group walked from Bathgate Park School, in Macandrew Rd, down Loyalty St into Nicholson St and on to Nelson St before returning to the school. They were accompanied by members of various social groups from South Dunedin.
Read more

****

### Dunedintv.co.nz Mon, 25 July 2016
Labour leader tours South Dunedin
Labour Leader Andrew Little has visited South Dunedin today, alongside a contingent of MPs and social service agency stakeholders. The group wandered around the areas hardest hit by last year’s floods, looking at the handful of houses still empty more than a year on. And Little took the opportunity to offer up his party’s plan to fix some of the issues.
Ch39 Link

Channel 39 Published on Jul 24, 2016
Labour leader tours South Dunedin

—

DUNEDIN – JUNKET CITY FOR LGNZ
“How do we Efficiently capture NZ Ratepayers’ Money for our Comfy Salaries”

### Dunedintv.co.nz Mon, 25 July 2016
Local government conference kicks off
The country’s annual Local Government conference is back in Dunedin for the first time in almost a decade. More than 560 delegates have piled into the Town Hall to discuss how to make New Zealand a better place to live and work. But it’s also serving as a way to address the tension between local and central governments.
Ch39 Video

LAWRENCE YULE GO HOME

█ For more, enter the terms *flood*, *sea level rise*, *stormwater*, *hazard*, *johnstone*, *hendry*, *south dunedin action group*, *debriefing notes*, *listener* or *lgnz* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

*Images: mrhudyma.com – Listening | linkedin.com – Larry King, Listen

Johnstone disputes Opus review #SouthDunedinFlood

### ODT Online Thu, 7 Jul 2016
Flood review clears DCC staff findings
Dunedin City Council staff have been vindicated by peer reviews which backed their findings over the cause of last June’s devastating floods. The reviews, carried out by infrastructure consultancy firm Opus, backed the council’s findings South Dunedin and other parts of the city would have been flooded even if the city’s stormwater system was running at full capacity.
Read more

Opus peer reviews of DCC flood reports received (same day) following a LGOIMA request made on 7 July 2016:

DCC Nov2015 rpt review-final (PDF, 395 KB)

DCC Apr2016 rpt review-final (PDF, 329 KB)

****

A truly independent inquiry into the council’s performance around last year’s South Dunedin floods remains long overdue, writes Dunedin engineer Neil Johnstone.

### ODT Online Thu, 14 Jul 2016
Opinion: Report skims surface of South Dunedin flood saga
By Neil Johnstone
OPINION Readers of the Dunedin City Council-funded independent peer review of its post-flood reporting (ODT, 7.7.16) should be wary. The council’s delight with the review may prove short-lived. In brief, the Opus review:

● Recognises the 1968 rainfall event was bigger than that of June 2015 (contrary to repeated council claims).
● Fails to explore the reasons why the 2015 flood was a disaster, and the 1968 event was not.
● Makes assumptions about groundwater levels without referencing the actual data.
● Appears to consider the council’s assumption of zero ground infiltration has merit (note: the data disproves this).
● Believes mud-tank blockage impacts of the flood were “localised” (too bad if you were a local), but fails to consider the likely widespread impacts on South Dunedin of blocked mud-tanks in the St Clair catchment.
● States council reviews “suggest” its failures at the Portobello Rd pumping station caused an increase in flood levels of about 200mm.
● In fact, the first council review leaves the reader with no more than an opportunity to infer this, while the second council review only states that the failures may have influenced “the length of time flooding was evident”.
● I do not recall the council actually publicly admitting the 200mm figure before the South Dunedin Action Group meeting of June 21.
● Fails to address the flood impacts of the council’s total failure to operate its Musselburgh pumps for stormwater relief.
● Makes general statements to the effect that “primary” flooding would have occurred under any circumstance. South Dunedin residents know that “overwhelming” of stormwater infrastructure was not the concern; the avoidable flooding of our people’s houses and businesses was.

For all of the above reasons, and more, the Opus finding the council report’s conclusions were “robust” is concerning. A truly independent inquiry into the council’s performance pre, during and post-flood, at staff and political levels, is long overdue. ODT Link

—

Related Posts and Comments:
● 7.7.16 Where is the unreserved DCC apology to … South Dunedin ?
● 4.7.16 Presentations available —a) 4 July USA —b) 20 June SDAG
● 28.6.16 The Star and RNZ on raised flood levels #SouthDunedin
● 27.6.16 CULL commingled #AGWbullsfeatherartists
● 21.6.16 Mayoral Statement to South Dunedin
● 20.6.16 Public Meeting: South Dunedin Action Group #tonight
18.6.16 South Dunedin stormwater pipes —getting past the desktop ICMP
● 17.6.16 So we’re going to play it this way #SouthDunedinFlood
● 16.6.16 Public Meeting: South Dunedin Action Group #AllWelcome
● 6.6.16 Listener June 11-17 2016 : Revisiting distress and mismanagement
6.5.16 South Dunedin Action Group: Notes of meeting with DCC (3 May 2016)
14.4.16 South Dunedin flood risk boosters #ClimateChangeCrap #PissOffPCE
26.2.16 Mudtanks and drains + Notice of Public Meeting #SouthDunedinFlood
● 31.12.15 2016, have mercy !@$#%^&*
10.4.15 DCC: Natural Hazards

*Bullet points indicate comments entered after the public meeting 20 June.

█ For more, enter the terms *flood*, *sea level rise*, *stormwater*, *hazard*, *johnstone*, *opus*, *hendry*, *south dunedin action group*, *debriefing notes* or *listener* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

Where is the unreserved DCC apology to the Community of South Dunedin ?

Updated post
Thu, 7 Jul 2016 at 5:45 p.m. [link to peer reviews via LGOIMA]

—

And where are the Opus International ‘peer reviews’ for public scrutiny.

All we have is the self-congratulatory propaganda from DCC and the motley crew, propagated by friends at ODT.

Flood review clears DCC staff findings

SHAME

We hear from inside DCC that the peer reviews are not up to much.

Opus, you say?

Hmm.

News. Farce. Like an incessant rash.

Reasons for political Removal.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

DCC encourages Election Candidates

█ FYI Dunedin Issue 41 July 2016 (PDF, 251.1 KB)

Read online or source back copies at:
http://www.dunedin.govt.nz/your-council/fyi-dunedin

█ HOT PRESS.— Fees and Charges
Most DCC fees and charges will rise by an average of 3% from 1 July.

IMPORTANT DATES
Nominations for candidates open Friday, 15 July and close 12 noon on Friday, 12 August.

ENROLMENT TO VOTE
Check your enrolment details online at www.elections.org.nz or at any NZ Post Shop.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

*Images: screenshots by whatifdunedin

Presentations available —a) 4 July USA —b) 20 June SDAG

Link received.
Mon, 4 Jul 2016 at 12:29 p.m.

Sam Eagle Uploaded on Jun 27, 2008
Stars & Stripes FOREVER!
I, Sam the Eagle, present a musical salute to America.
(c) 2009 The Muppets Studio, LLC

—

From: [Dunedin City Council]
Sent: Monday, 4 July 2016 11:55 a.m.
To: Elizabeth Kerr
Subject: Response to Information Request

Dear Ms Kerr,

Official information request for CEO SPEECH SOUTH DUNEDIN

I refer to your official information request dated 27-June-2016 for “a full copy of DCC Chief Executive Sue Bidrose’s speech and overhead slides presented to the public meeting hosted by the South Dunedin Action Group on 20 June at Nations Church, King Edward St.”

The information you have requested is available on our website at:

Click to access SC2200115516062812500.pdf

If you wish to discuss this further with us, please feel free to contact the chief executive and request an appointment.

Yours sincerely

[Dunedin City Council]

Download: Sue Bidrose – South Dunedin and stormwater June 20 2016
(PDF, 1 MB)

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

Ray Macleod, letter to editor

ODT 2.7.16 (page 30)

****

Received from Lyndon Weggery
Tue, 21 June 2016 at 7:29 p.m.

Message: In the light of concerns last night [South Dunedin public meeting] about the effects of the Proposed 2GP on South Dunedin, suggest you extract the Hazard Zone portion and post it on What if?

South Dunedin Hazard Zone (PDF, 2 MB)

The following report by Anna Johnson shows that very little was done [public consultation] in 2014. In fact only 17 people turned up to the DCC workshop in South Dunedin and their Appendices show that less than 10 people commented on their draft natural hazard policy.

Preferred Options Report (1) (PDF, 2 MB)

—

Related Posts and Comments:
● 28.6.16 The Star and RNZ on raised flood levels #SouthDunedin
● 27.6.16 CULL commingled #AGWbullsfeatherartists
● 23.6.16 Sa pièce de résistance @ #DUD
● 21.6.16 Mayoral Statement to South Dunedin
● 20.6.16 Public Meeting: South Dunedin Action Group #tonight
18.6.16 South Dunedin stormwater pipes —getting past the desktop ICMP
● 17.6.16 So we’re going to play it this way #SouthDunedinFlood
● 16.6.16 Public Meeting: South Dunedin Action Group #AllWelcome
● 6.6.16 Listener June 11-17 2016 : Revisiting distress and mismanagement
6.5.16 South Dunedin Action Group: Notes of meeting with DCC (3 May 2016)
14.4.16 South Dunedin flood risk boosters #ClimateChangeCrap #PissOffPCE
26.2.16 Mudtanks and drains + Notice of Public Meeting #SouthDunedinFlood
● 31.12.15 2016, have mercy !@$#%^&*
10.4.15 DCC: Natural Hazards

*Bullet points indicate comments entered after the public meeting 20 June.

█ For more, enter the terms *flood*, *sea level rise*, *climate change*, *pce*, *stormwater*, *hazard*, *johnstone*, *hendry*, *south dunedin action group*, *debriefing notes* or *listener* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered on the public interest.

The Star and RNZ on raised flood levels #SouthDunedin

The Star 23.6.16 (page 9)

[click to enlarge]

### radionz.co.nz 8:45 am on 21 June 2016
RNZ News
Dunedin council concedes flood worsened by faulty pumping station
By Ian Telfer in South Dunedin
Dunedin City Council has admitted a faulty pumping station made last year’s South Dunedin flood 20cm deeper than it would have otherwise been. The Council made the admission at a rowdy public meeting at the Nations Church last night about the flooding a year ago which damaged 1200 homes and businesses. Chief executive Sue Bidrose […] made a major concession, saying the council now accepted a key pumping station was blocked, adding an extra 20cm of water to the area. […] Shortly after the flooding, Mr Cull linked the event to climate change and warned South Dunedin may have to beat a managed retreat. Local woman Kathinka Nordal Stene said she was shocked Mr Cull undermined the community at the time when it most needed his support. She said the future of South Dunedin had become a major election issue, on which Mr Cull would be judged. Mr Cull was not at the meeting because he was visiting China. […] Leaders of the newly formed South Dunedin Action Group accused the council and its leaders of having a secret plan to abandon the suburb and blame it on climate change.
RNZ Link

23.6.16 Ch39: Candidates using flooding for political gain (+ Video)
21.6.15 ODT: Anger about South Dunedin’s future

—

Related Posts and Comments:
● 23.6.16 Sa pièce de résistance @ #DUD
● 21.6.16 Mayoral Statement to South Dunedin
● 20.6.16 Public Meeting: South Dunedin Action Group #tonight
18.6.16 South Dunedin stormwater pipes —getting past the desktop ICMP
● 17.6.16 So we’re going to play it this way #SouthDunedinFlood
● 16.6.16 Public Meeting: South Dunedin Action Group #AllWelcome
● 6.6.16 Listener June 11-17 2016 : Revisiting distress and mismanagement
6.5.16 South Dunedin Action Group: Notes of meeting with DCC (3 May 2016)
14.4.16 South Dunedin flood risk boosters #ClimateChangeCrap #PissOffPCE
26.2.16 Mudtanks and drains + Notice of Public Meeting #SouthDunedinFlood
● 31.12.15 2016, have mercy !@$#%^&*
10.4.15 DCC: Natural Hazards

*Bullet points indicate comments entered after the public meeting 20 June.

█ For more, enter the terms *flood*, *sea level rise*, *stormwater*, *hazard*, *johnstone*, *hendry*, *south dunedin action group*, *debriefing notes* or *listener* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

Sa pièce de résistance @ #DUD

Monday, 20 June 2016
South Dunedin’s Future : It’s in your hands
Public meeting called by South Dunedin Action Group

au Sud Dunedin

Mock turtles on a Monday, and [a moment of meeting remembrance]
mon Dieu! Voix, la sienne! (my God! Voices, hers!) pronouncing la séparation des “poos” et “wees” —wastewater (grey water) from drinking water and stormwater as la raison d’être pour la stratégie de “Three Waters”……..
méfiez-vous ce qui sort du robinet (beware what comes out of the tap!) ou, était que la bouche (or, was that the mouth)

Flood, The People —inondation, inonderait le peuple
but, DON’T use politics against those “responsable” fr.

Channel 39 Published on Jun 22, 2016

### dunedintv.co.nz Thu, 23 June 2016
Candidates using flooding for political gain
A heated public meeting earlier this week brought last year’s South Dunedin floods back to the fore. The discussion around what to do for those still affected is one that members of the Dunedin City Council’s executive say they’re taking seriously. But there’s concern some involved parties are using the situation for political gain.

Malhereusement! Ceci est du jeu de puissance ineptes, d’elle-même
(Sadly! This is inane power play, of itself)

—

POST FLOODS

WHY WOULDN’T CANDIDATES CAMPAIGN FOR A BETTER COUNCIL TO SERVE AND REPRESENT THE PEOPLE OF SOUTH DUNEDIN AND ALL CITY RESIDENTS AND RATEPAYERS

CANDIDATES THAT IF ELECTED CAN KNUCKLE CIVIC CENTRE OPERATIONALS TO RESTORE POSITIVE TEAMWORK AND ENGINEERING EXPERTISE

Huh ?

This is THE time for Dunedin Politics and Examination of Dunedin City Council down to the last foul or stormwater, sewer.

Hourra !

—

Related Posts and Comments:
● 21.6.16 Mayoral Statement to South Dunedin
● 20.6.16 Public Meeting: South Dunedin Action Group #tonight
18.6.16 South Dunedin stormwater pipes —getting past the desktop ICMP
● 17.6.16 So we’re going to play it this way #SouthDunedinFlood
● 16.6.16 Public Meeting: South Dunedin Action Group #AllWelcome
● 6.6.16 Listener June 11-17 2016 : Revisiting distress and mismanagement
6.5.16 South Dunedin Action Group: Notes of meeting with DCC (3 May 2016)
14.4.16 South Dunedin flood risk boosters #ClimateChangeCrap #PissOffPCE
26.2.16 Mudtanks and drains + Notice of Public Meeting #SouthDunedinFlood
● 31.12.15 2016, have mercy !@$#%^&*
10.4.15 DCC: Natural Hazards

*Bullet points indicate comments entered after the public meeting 20 June.

█ For more, enter the terms *flood*, *sea level rise*, *stormwater*, *hazard*, *johnstone*, *hendry*, *south dunedin action group*, *debriefing notes* or *listener* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Election Year. This post is offered in the public interest.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr