Tag Archives: South Dunedin flood

Basic questions arising for the City, unpublished by the newspaper

Received from John Evans
Tue, 17 Jan 2017 at 7:47 p.m.

From: John Evans
Date: Monday, January 16, 2017
Subject: KPI
To: ODT editor

The Editor, ODT

Sir,

We are often regaled by company directors, CEOs and bureaucrats with discourses on the importance of KPIs. KPIs?

Key Performance Indicators – one of many PR corporate speak Buzzwords.

Wikipedia’s definition is pretty broad but basically it means that certain measures designed by the company or board are measured against actual performances.

Recently, the term gained another meaning when KEY performance [was] reassessed in the light of John KEY’s resignation. Unfortunately his stellar career as Prime Minister seemed to be judged poorly by those political pundits doing the assessment.

The key word is Performance, the measure of which is judged in order to provide an increase in salary or measures which might lose the judged their position if they failed to meet the KPIs included as part of the employment contract.

The test is what performance is paramount and who is it paramount to.
These tests are important in worldwide businesses but is there a different reality in New Zealand? It seems to me that either the KPIs are set incorrectly or there is a disconnect because no one seems to fail, to not meet their predetermined KPIs.

[infront.com]

One example is the role of council lawyers. Why would council lawyers write in an employment contract a clause which gave the employee a golden parachute even if they failed to meet their KPIs? Or was it the employees themselves who wrote the KPIs for their own future benefit? Surely if this was so, the lawyers acting for the company or body they represent would refuse to condone the parachute for employees and directors after proven incompetence.

The Dunedin City Council and its management, and the council owned companies, are surely charged with KPIs and, one surmises, about the results of such indicators and the resultant effects on the council and its employees. Can we analyse a few actions of the council and what the KPIs may have been and whether they would meet them and perhaps the consequences of meeting them or not.

The first and most obvious one is the theft of 152+ cars.
What was the measure of acceptable theft? Was it 20 cars, 100 cars or was 150 cars sufficient to tip them over the edge. And as another example, what was the Police’s key indicator on this matter? Do they prosecute for the theft or conversion of 1 car or does it take 160 cars to prosecute somebody for being involved either in the theft or knowing receipt of a car or cars?

The next is the investment in land and development projects by Delta.
Was failure in one, two or three such projects acceptable or is the magic number 5 (Delta will do it again and we have not quite got there yet).

The Dunedin stadium KPIs. Is a running cost of some $20million acceptable as an annual loss to the ratepayers or should the losses be only $15million or shock horror only $5million. Or should the ratepayers be released from the financial burden which was never the choice of the majority?

Sewage Treatment KPI – Is it acceptable to process sewage to a point that it pollutes the ocean two kilometres out or are we entitled to potable water ex site at Tahuna?

Mudtank cleaning KPI – How many mudtanks cleaned would be an acceptable result, would a flood in South Dunedin suggest that measure was incorrect? Contractual performance and payment for same. Would a KPI for the DCC CEO include overall managing payments to contractors? If a contractor did not perform to those KPIs set within the mudtank cleaning contract, should the contractor be still paid?

Wastewater treatment – Is it an acceptable KPI for wastewater treatment that in high rainfall such overflows are discharged into the pristine Otago Harbour?

Delta KPI on pole replacement. Is 100 unreplaced tagged poles acceptable? Is 1000 acceptable? On suspect poles, is a KPI that the company changes so that they did not breach a previous KPI acceptable or should every company and council just change their KPIs to avoid failure, blame or the legal consequences?

Richard Healey, the “whistleblower” on Delta’s failures seems to have personal ‘built-in’ KPIs —including integrity, high quality job performance, peer safety and corporate responsibility. Just why do the CEO and directors’ KPIs apparently differ from these such that Healey has to resign for them to take note?

On Directors of the council owned companies, do their KPIs reflect their responsibility under the law or are they designed to protect the directors from prosecution under the law despite failure by other measures?

And where does the buck stop?

Just what are the KPIs upon which we judge the mayor, based? Is the only measurement his electability?

Are we the ratepayers not entitled to expect a KPI that includes retribution against failings in any DCC departments or DCHL companies? If we do not reward success and prosecute failure in some way are we not missing the whole point of Pavlov and his dogs? Should we not then close our prisons and let the perpetrators of violence, antisocial acts and any injustice roam free, surely this is the logical nett result of such an attitude of no judgement.

The analysis of John Key’s contribution would suggest that electability and performance may well be poles apart. Perhaps that is the greatest lesson we can learn from the errors of judgement of recent times in our city.

John P. Evans
Otakou

[ends]

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

This post is offered in the public interest.

2 Comments

Filed under Business, Central Otago, Citifleet, DCC, DCHL, DCTL, Delta, Democracy, Dunedin, Economics, Electricity, Finance, Health, Infrastructure, Media, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Pet projects, Police, Politics, Project management, Property, Public interest, Queenstown Lakes, South Dunedin, Stadiums, Travesty

COMPLETE Dis-satisfaction with DCC, DCHL, DVML, DVL, Delta….

marigold-tweaked-by-whatifdunedin-cdn-guardian-ng

Fake it til you make it, and hey, don’t lift the marigolds.

Sorry Daaave, looks like a D for your council’s governance. —Actually, for the avoidance of euphemism, make that D- and lower for DIRE Performance, accompanying Drivel, and Diabolical treatment of Residents and Ratepayers in the aftermath of emergency situations.

Listening to Yes People and your dwindling voter base isn’t your best hope to resolve ongoing multimillion-dollar losses being sustained by a couple of the council-owned companies, to the point where the holding company led by chairman Crombie, fronts with a “qualified audit” only on presentation of its annual report(?) to Council.

[In July 2015 Graham Crombie was appointed to the Commerce Commission as an Associate Commissioner for a five year term.]

Damages to employment, liveability and opportunity in a No-growth city keep stacking.

“It is also yet another example of good public service jobs being lost from our smaller towns and cities.” –PSA spokeswoman

### ODT Online Thu, 13 Oct 2016
ACC jobs to go in Dunedin
By Vaughan Elder
After consulting with staff since June, the decision had been made to relocate all the roles over the next 12 to 18 months to the larger Christchurch office and have “one centre for consistent customer and rehabilitation services across the Southern region”.
Read more

****

Asked about people who continued to be negative about the city, he said: “Negativity is an attitude, it’s not a fact.”

### ODT Online Thu, 13 Oct 2016
Survey ‘shows Dunedin on right track’
By Vaughan Elder
A survey showing Dunedin residents feel increasingly positive about their city shows the city is on the “right track”, Mayor Dave Cull says. […] the annual survey was not all good news. Last year’s June flood was picked as a reason for increasing dissatisfaction with the city’s stormwater system [down 13 points to 43%]. Satisfaction rates also fell when it came to public toilets, the suitability of the city’s roads for cycling and the availability of parks in the central city.
Read more

[Chief executive Sue Bidrose] said some of the areas where there had been negative results this year and in past surveys correlated to negative media coverage in the Otago Daily Times.

*1577 survey responses from 5400 residents randomly selected from the electoral roll,

The Talking Head (without helmet, unprepared)

█ Dunedin City Council (media release)
Residents’ Opinion Survey released 12 Oct 2016. Link

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Image: cdn.guardian.ng – marigold, tweaked by whatifdunedin

6 Comments

Filed under Business, Carisbrook, Citifleet, Climate change, CST, Cycle network, DCC, DCHL, DCTL, Delta, Democracy, District Plan, Dunedin, DVL, DVML, Economics, Enterprise Dunedin, Finance, Geography, Health, Hotel, Housing, Infrastructure, Media, NZRU, OAG, Ombudsman, ORFU, People, Politics, Pools, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, SFO, South Dunedin, Stadiums, Tourism, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, Urban design, What stadium

Meanwhile . . . . #SouthDunedin

Received from Douglas Field
Tue, 20 Sep 2016 at 1:06 p.m.

cull-barks

Press Release: Greater South Dunedin Community Group

MEDIA RELEASE
18 September 2016

South Dunedin to grill election candidates this week

South Dunedin has emerged as a significant issue in the upcoming local body elections and as a result two candidate forums for councillors and mayoral candidates have been organised this week by the Greater South Dunedin Community Group, acting chair of the Greater South Dunedin Community Group Philip Gilchrist said today.

The forum meetings will hosted in the Mayfair Theatre on Tuesday 20th and Wednesday 21 September from 6.30pm – 9pm in order to provide all candidates with an opportunity to provide their views on the challenges and opportunities for this important part of the city.

An electronic survey sent out to the candidates before the forums has drawn responses from 34 of the 44 candidates standing for the Dunedin City Council. We believe the large number of responses is a recognition that issues concerning the future of South Dunedin are high on their list of priorities.

At the forums, candidates will be asked a question and then given two minutes to respond, and there will also be about 90 minutes when questions can be asked of the candidates from the floor. Previous meetings that our group has hosted have prompted vigorous and relevant questioning from the public and it is expected that this meeting will provide the similar level of interaction as the people of South Dunedin are now, at last, having their voices heard. The June 2015 flood has certainly brought South Dunedin to New Zealand’s attention.

We are pleased to be hosting the event in the magnificent Mayfair Theatre, which is the significant Heritage Building in South Dunedin, Mr Gilchrist said.

█ We attach a link to the survey responses:
The results are un-edited and can be downloaded or read online.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/5xylrw1b16ciaet/AACcsRBhqCw1XpJRqVecerGHa?dl=0

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

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

1 Comment

Filed under Business, Democracy, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Finance, Geography, Health, Heritage, Hot air, Housing, Infrastructure, Name, New Zealand, OAG, Ombudsman, People, Pet projects, Politics, Project management, Property, Proposed 2GP, Public interest, Resource management, Site, South Dunedin, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, Urban design, What stadium

LGOIMA trials and tribulations with peer reviews #SouthDunedinflood

The following letter has had names removed, except those previously cited by broadcast and print media (public domain). -Eds.

Received from Neil Johnstone
Fri, 5 Aug 2016 at 11:41 p.m.

Subject: DCC and the LGOIMA

Message: I have read concerning comments on your site regarding DCC’s apparent failure to comply with its LGOIMA obligations. You may wish to post my account of my recent experience.

[begins]

Dunedin City Council took ten months to produce its second Infrastructure Report, entitled ‘South Dunedin Public Infrastructure During June 2015 Flood Event Follow-Up’ (Author: R. Stokes). On 28 January 2016 (still three months before the report surfaced), then DCC Group Manager Transport Ian McCabe told the Otago Daily Times “the lengthy timeline was needed to ensure the report was robust, including an external peer review of its findings”. Mr McCabe went on to emphasise that “the report had been widened from an initial focus only on mudtank maintenance, and now also included a fresh look at the network’s design capacity”. That all seemed fair enough.

When the report was ultimately released in late April 2016, it contained no reference to any external (or other) peer review. However, when interviewed by John Campbell on Radio NZ’s Checkpoint programme on April 22, shortly after the Report’s release, Mayor Cull repeatedly referenced “independent” peer review(s) as supporting (“parts of”) the Report’s content. Mr Cull stated that he didn’t know which parts of the report had been reviewed independently. “You would have to talk to her (Ms Stokes) about that,” he said. Presumably, therefore, he hadn’t seen the review(s) either.

On 17 May I sent a LGOIMA request to DCC Chief Executive Sue Bidrose, asking for a copy of the review(s). On 20 May I received an acknowledgement from DCC which rather defeated the purpose of my request but, more importantly, indicated that I would receive a response asap, but within 20 working days. I immediately queried why it should take such a long time to simply send a copy of a recent review, and asked simply for confirmation whether the review actually existed.

This time I received an email from the Group Manager Corporate Services suggesting a “discussion” before they left for overseas. There was no mention of my straightforward query as to whether the review actually existed. I replied immediately, and asked again for a simple yes/no to that question. Again, the question was not answered.

A full month (the maximum allowable period of 20 working days having elapsed since my simple request) later, I received an email from DCC. They were able to report that they had received information from the General Manager Infrastructure and Networks thus: “The response to Mr Johnstone is that we have had a peer review done, however this is still in draft and yet to be finalised (as staff have been focusing on forward work demands, and we have staff away). Once the review is finalised it will be publicly released.” “Therefore we have decided to refuse your request under section 17(d) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act, as the information requested will soon be publically (sic) available.”

I considered that response was unsatisfactory. The review, apparently under belated construction, was clearly not what I had repeatedly requested. I should by then have received the review referenced by Messrs McCabe (“external”) and Cull (“independent”), or received an acknowledgement that it did not exist.

Then on the evening of 6 July I was emailed by the General Manager Infrastructure and Networks, a copy of a new review, seemingly hot off the press, and authored by Opus in Auckland. This obviously was not the review that I had requested back on 17 May, as all DCC personnel involved should have known.

On 9 July I wrote to Chief Executive Sue Bidrose, expressing my concerns. I asked the following key questions:

Why, almost two months after my original LGOIMA request, I had still not received an admission that the peer review sought did not in fact exist?
Or, alternatively, if it did exist, why had it not been provided?
Why it took a month after my initial request for me to be merely told (irrelevantly) that a (different) peer review was being prepared, but with no attempt to satisfy my simple, legitimate request?

Almost a week later, a DCC officer returned to the list of respondents. They advised that my (follow-up) enquiry was being treated as a new request, and (you all know the drill) would be dealt with as soon as possible, but within 20 working days of receipt at the latest.

Nineteen working days later I received an emailed response from a Manager Civic and Legal. None of the three questions (above) were answered. They stated that my enquiries had been answered as soon as possible, given the volume of other requests. But the most interesting part of their response reads as follows: “The reported reference in the ODT (Mr McCabe, cited 28 January) to the external peer review was actually a reference to work the Council was undertaking to investigate the performance of the mudtank maintenance contractor…..”

So external means internal in the DCC, and widening means narrowing?

If the manager had been informed correctly, then there was no external review. Why, in that case, was I not told that nearly three months ago? Why did the Mayor apparently believe there was an external (independent, to use his wording) peer review? Furthermore, why did DCC fail to answer my three questions above.

I could, of course, ask these questions of DCC via LGOIMA, but I could then only expect an interim response followed by 20 more working days of inaction and worse.

Instead I have initiated a series of complaints to the Ombudsman, and decided that the public should view yet another example of how our City Hall is operating.

My intent throughout has been to identify the true causes of the June 2015 flood, so that real solutions can be identified and “political” solutions avoided. I have no intention of stopping, despite DCC’s apparent resistance.

[ends]

Neil Johnstone is welcome to publish emails supporting his story; it appears most if not all of the emails he received pertain under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act and therefore reside in public domain. However, the Ombudsmen are best to advise on these matters. In the meantime DCC is welcome to correct any factual errors, in the interests of accuracy and balance. -Eds.

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

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

7 Comments

Filed under Business, DCC, Democracy, Dunedin, Economics, Housing, Infrastructure, Media, Name, New Zealand, Ombudsman, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Public interest, Resource management, Site, South Dunedin, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, What stadium

DCC: Snow White cause of substantial loss + DRAFT Annual Plan

snow-white-and-the-seven-dwarfs [sisterlondon.com] 1Vestiges of Purity for ALL [ethical cleansing HITS town]

‘Some of the unfavourable variance because of divestment losses’

### ODT Online Wed, 30 Mar 2016
City pays cost for divesting
By Timothy Brown
Some of the Dunedin City Council’s divestment decisions have cost the city, it was revealed at yesterday’s council finance committee meeting. […] The council voted last May to scrap any investments the [Waipouri] fund had in the munitions, tobacco, fossil fuel extraction, gambling or pornography industries and to bar future investment in those industries. […] The fund had produced $783,000 in profit during the eight months to February 29. However, this was $1.657million down on the budgeted $2.44million profit.
Read more

Agenda – FIN – 29/03/2016 (PDF, 1.8 MB)
This agenda includes the reports

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Public Forum [page 4]
2 Apologies [4]
3 Confirmation of Agenda [4]
4 Declaration of Interest [5]

PART A REPORTS (Committee has power to decide these matters)

5 Financial Result – Period Ended 29 February 2016 [6]
This report provides a commentary of the financial performance of Council for the period ended 29 February 2016 and the financial position as at that date. The net deficit (including Waipori) for the eight months to February was $5.878 million or $381k worse than budget.

6 Financial Result – Period Ended 31 January 2016 [31]
This report provides the financial results for the period ended 31 January 2016 and the financial position as at that date. The net deficit (including Waipori) for the seven months to January was $6.668 million or $36k worse than budget.

Related Posts and Comments:
26.3.16 Dunedin: Erosion issues at St Clair and Ocean Beach
25.1.16 DCC: South Dunedin Integrated Catchment Management Plan (ICMP)
5.1.16 Hammered from all sides #fixit [dunedinflood Jun2015]
27.12.15 Pop Mashup(s) + Independent UK…on attack to local democracy
21.11.15 Mayor Cull won’t admit lack of maintenance #SouthDunedinFlood
14.7.15 DCC strategies needed like a hole in the head
27.4.15 She’s right: “We are a very poor city.” —Cr Hilary Calvert
6.4.15 Energy, a little picture #wow
25.5.14 Whaleoil: Rodney Hide on Dunedin’s Luddite Council
21.1.14 Jints, this one’s forya
13.1.14 Taking to water like a duck on oil

****

  • Dunedin City Council – Media Release
    Annual Plan consultation begins

    This item was published on 24 Mar 2016

    Should we be spending more on economic development in Dunedin and/or boosting funding for community grants? These are some of the questions the Dunedin City Council is asking residents as part of its 2016/17 Annual Plan and budget consultation, which opens today.

    Mayor of Dunedin Dave Cull says recent changes to the law mean the Council is taking a different approach to how it seeks feedback from residents on what should be included in the 2016/17 Annual Plan: “Just last year we went through a rigorous process developing a 10 year Long Term Plan (LTP), which sets out the city’s financial and strategic path. This year we are asking the community to comment largely on things we are proposing to add or change.” Some of the proposed changes are things that have already been discussed with the community and agreed on, but were either not funded in the LTP or not funded beyond the current 2015/16 year. Examples include the funding proposed for GigCity, UNESCO City of Literature and Dunedin’s Arts and Culture and Environment Strategies.

    Mr Cull says the planned increase in economic development resourcing is effectively a return of funding taken out several years ago because of budget constraints: “The proposed $790,000 increase in funding is largely community driven. One of the consistent messages emerging from residents is that job creation and business encouragement are vital for Dunedin. Our business sector is also telling us we need to market the city better to visitors and businesses.”

    Funding has also been provided for investigations into South Dunedin groundwater/ sea level rise issues [WHAT ISSUES – WHERE IS THE SCIENCE ?], and to investigate coastal erosion in other areas. Other proposed funding includes an extra $120,000 for community grants because there are always more requests than money available.

    These suggested changes can be achieved within the proposed 2.9% rates rise.

    The consultation document is now available at www.dunedin.govt.nz/2016AP. Public consultation on the Annual Plan closes at 5pm on 20 April. People are encouraged to provide their feedback early and, if possible, use the online form.

    A snapshot of what is proposed, presented in a map fold newsletter, will be delivered to every Dunedin household. Information will also be available at DCC service centres and libraries and at the Customer Services Agency in the Civic Centre. There will also be a public meeting and workshop, and six drop-in sessions with the opportunity for face-to-face discussion with Councillors. These will be held around the wider city during the consultation period.

    █ Comments on the DCC Facebook page and tweets to @DnCityCouncil using #DunedinAP will also be considered as feedback. The consultation period will be followed by hearings and deliberations in May and a final Annual Plan will be adopted by the Council in June.

    █ A range of supporting documents and an online submission form are available at www.dunedin.govt.nz/2016AP.

    Contact The Mayor of Dunedin on 03 477 4000.
    DCC Link

    Related Posts and Comments:
    23.2.16 Hold on! DCC Annual Plan 2016/17 #CommunityEngagement
    30.1.16 DCC Rates: LOCAL CONTEXT not Stats —Delta and Hippopotamuses
    26.11.15 DCC report: Mosgiel Pool Future Aquatic Provision
    12.9.15 Cr Kate ‘Cycleways’ Wilson —(disingenuous) fails constituents
    22.8.15 DCC cycleway$ now tied to more ‘urban de$ign’ $pend, after reha$h…
    14.7.15 DCC strategies needed like a hole in the head
    22.7.15 DCC Long Term Plan 2015/16 – 2024/25
    24.6.15 DCC Residents’ Opinion Survey (ROS)
    29.5.15 Design alternatives to (pre-selected) bridge not canvassed by DCC
    5.5.15 DCC financial position | DCC reply: “$20M cash on hand” #LGOIMA
    4.5.15 DCC: Draft LTP matter —‘Unfunded Mosgiel Aquatic Facilities’
    28.9.14 “DCC entitlement” about to ramrod change at CBD #manipulation
    5.8.14 DCC staff-led CBD projects that impact… | consolidated council debt
    27.6.14 Stadium costs $23.4144 million per annum
    25.1.12 Waipori Fund – inane thinkings from a councillor
    17.11.13 Cull, MacTavish: (to borrow a phrase) “Have you fixed the debt crisis?”

    Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

    *Image: sisterlondon.com – SW + dwarves, tweaked by whatifdunedin
    (many thanks to Disney)

    33 Comments

    Filed under Business, DCC, Democracy, Design, Dunedin, Economics, Events, Hot air, Media, Name, New Zealand, People, Politics, Project management

    Mudtanks and drains + Notice of Public Meeting #SouthDunedinFlood

    █ PUBLIC MEETING – SOUTH DUNEDIN FLOOD
    South Dunedin MP Clare Curran is convening a public meeting on Monday 7 March at 6:00 p.m. in the Nations Church Auditorium, 334 King Edward Street, to look at why South Dunedin “flooded” on 3 June last year. All Welcome.

    Notice of Public Meeting 1

    Received from Jeff Dickie
    Thu, 25 Feb 2016 at 8:09 p.m.

    Message: Snapped Fulton Hogan diligently sucking for all they’re worth this afternoon in St David Street. Still. Probably better now than waiting for the anniversary!

    Fulton Hogan in St David Street 25.2.16 [Jeff Dickie] 1Fulton Hogan for Hire, St David Street 25.2.16

    Only recently, there was a comment to ODT from Phil Dowsett complaining of a sucker truck working in a Dunedin residential street at 6:30 a.m. on a Saturday.

    What’s happening out there. Or.
    Everywhere but not South Dunedin ?

    Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

    20 Comments

    Filed under Business, Dunedin, Economics, Events, Infrastructure, People, Politics, Project management, Property, Resource management, Site, South Dunedin, Town planning, Transportation, Travesty, Urban design, What stadium

    DCC extends 2GP further submissions period

    Dunedin City Council has extended the Further Submissions period for the second generation district plan (2GP) to Thursday, 3 March 2016 at 5pm.

    All members of the public are eligible to make submissions on the Summary of Decisions Requested to the proposed 2GP.

    [screenshot – click to enlarge]

    DCC 2GP Update 17.2.16 - Further submissions period extended to 3 March 2016

    ██ DCC 2GP Index Page at https://2gp.dunedin.govt.nz/2gp/index.html

    ██ Have Your Say at https://2gp.dunedin.govt.nz/2gp/submissions.html

    ██ Search for Summaries of Decisions Requested and Submissions at https://2gp.dunedin.govt.nz/submit/PublicSubmissionSearch.aspx

    Related Posts and Comments:
    ● 16.2.16 DCC: 2GP further submissions [consultation software with bug?]
    8.2.16 DCC 2GP further submissions [update]
    4.2.16 2GP commissioner appears to tell Council outcome before hearings…
    3.2.16 DCC 2GP Hearings Panel
    22.12.15 DCC consultation warped | inaccessible Proposed 2GP ‘eplan’
    9.12.15 Otago Regional Council hammers DCC’s proposed 2GP
    19.11.15 DCC Conditions: Extensions for public submissions (2GP)
    19.11.15 DCC Proposed 2GP ridiculousness: formatting + plan content
    16.11.15 DCC operating deficit $1M worse than budget
    11.11.15 Letter to DCC chief executive re extension for public submissions…
    9.11.15 Letter to DCC chief executive re Proposed 2GP hearings panel
    24.10.15 DCC and the AWFUL 2GP ‘threat of THREATS’
    12.10.15 DCC Proposed 2GP (district plan) —DEFEND YOUR PROPERTY
    3.10.15 DCC: Public Notice Draft 2GP + “Community Presentations”
    3.10.15 DCC appointees to draft 2GP panel #greenasgrass #infatuation
    2.10.15 DCC Draft 2GP hearings panel lacks FULL INDEPENDENCE
    30.10.15 DCC 2GP molasses and the dreadful shooflies (You)
    28.9.15 Message to DCC: The People can’t deal with your 2GP documentation…
    26.9.15 DCC: Proposed 2GP to line pockets of cowboy developers #FIGHTDIRTY

    Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

    13 Comments

    Filed under Business, Climate change, DCC, Democracy, District Plan, Dunedin, Economics, Geography, Infrastructure, New Zealand, People, Politics, Project management, Proposed 2GP, Resource management, Town planning, Travesty, Urban design