16 June 1998

While the Council holds the water right for the scheme, the Council does not operate the Kiwitea rural water supply scheme. (p 33, DAP)

'Community' means people, thus 'community development' means people development. The Central Business Development programme cannot therefore be described as 'community development' programme. (p 24 DAP)

The introductory statement, particularly the first paragraph on p 44 of the DAP is very good. ("Council accepts that community development is about the active involvement of people in issues that affect their lives. It is a process based on the sharing of skill, knowledge and experience. It is a process that embraces community action, community service, community work and other community endeavours. It values participation, empowerment and self-help.") However, the three ways of implementing the overall goal listed in the strategic summary, p 44, ("To help to develop Manawatu district communities through: providing and maintaining essential services and facilities; co-ordinated district promotion; working with existing industry and business, both rural and urban providing clear guidelines for new developments to ensure simple consent processes.")do not really address the issues listed, or more importantly, the vision for the district as outlined on p 21 of the DSP.

The clear message from Central Government is that if anything is to happen in our district it is up to us. Council plays an important and significant leadership role.

At present the Council has no definitive information to indicate the state of health of the community or communities in any of its /their different dimensions. Overseas, considerable effort has gone into developing such indicators, which not only give a clear picture of where a community is at, but how it is progressing. The major step is then to develop policies that will improve the situation, whether it be aspects of the physical environment, the infrastructure or peoples behaviour and perceptions. At present the work of the Council is monitored. The development of indicators of community well-being go well beyond this and give a much more comprehensive framework for analysis and policy development.

If the Manawatu District is to be a 'healthy community' or consist of a series of healthy communities, Council must become pro-active and it must encourage the people in the District to become pro-active.

Two programmes which are being developed overseas that give examples of how this might be done are given below. I have previously made submissions on Council supporting a Social Services Council.

Most of the money invested by people and businesses in the District is invested elsewhere. The requirement is increasingly for the highest profit return possible. Projects are therefore constrained by this requirement, to produce a quick return.

Real investment in our district needs to take a much longer time-frame with lower immediate profit margins, but much more long term benefits to the community, the infrastructure (in the broadest sense), jobs that will stay here, projects that will lead to improvements in the health and well-being of the residents.

Council could promote, organise and take a lead role in the creation of a "Develop the Manawatu District Investment Fund".

There is much discussion overseas about 'low road development' and 'high road development'.

'Low Road Development' provides casual, part-time jobs with no security with none of the normal employment supplementary conditions or benefits.

'High Road Development' provides full-time, secure, well paid jobs with provision for sick leave and holidays and the normal protections.

Many Councils and communities are adopting 'Living Wage' and 'High Road Development' campaigns.

This Council could adopt such programmes.

All changes in policy and practice should be tested against the Vision for the region - will they help build a healthier community. In most cases, increasing user charges for community facilities will not lead to a healthier community. It will lead to resentment and anger, as already displayed at public meeting and letters to the Herald, it will lead to reduction in the use of services, alienation of sections of the community and a widening of the gap between those able to use facilities and those not able to.

The increase in user pays will also change the nature of the organisations forced to do this and the Council in overseeing this. It will change the focus from service to monitoring, policing and control. The latter are very costly and in other fields (such as health) absorb a very significant slice of the budget.

Going down the more user pays track results in lower accessibility of the service, a fall in the standards of service provision, a change in the nature of the activity and a change in the nature of the oversight authority, with increased costs at all levels.

The same applies to contracting out. The competitive model increases the cost structure, takes the focus from service to profit margins, lowers the level of service and changes the nature of the activity.

The public meeting at Cheltenham on 18 May was predominantly about the strong desire for ratepayers/landowners/farmers to express their very strong objection to north-south roading rate line.

There was standing room only and the strong message to come from the meeting was that if there is not information that would stand up in Court to justify the higher cost of maintaining the roads uphill of the line and that this increased money is actually spent of these roads, that the line be done away with. Those present considered the existence of the line a gross inequity and injustice.

The meeting felt very strongly that the roads are a network. This view was tentatively supported by the Mayor and Deputy Mayor, but is not supported by the Funding policy, yet the meeting was told that the Review of this activity had not been completed. This is not the way the DAP is written.

It is important that Council be very clear on its attitude to roads and their management so that it may pass on a clear message to Local Government NZ and other agencies as to what it wants to see happen or done with the roading system. Any changes are likely to have a major impact on the Council and the community and the Council should have a clear position on these issues.

Another very strong message was that the level of income throughout the district cannot support a rate increase. They were prepared to accept a reduction in services if this was necessary. However, examples of inefficiencies were cited - the much lower costs of operating the Kiwitea Rural Water Supply Scheme when it was and is again run by the community as compared with when it was run by the Council, and the double cutting of roadsides when one cut should have been quite sufficient and would have been made but for the lack of the appropriate equipment.

The construction of the ditches along road sides, "car traps' is another example of excessive and costly work. In many areas, the ditches are probably at least twice the volume they need be, they have been dug to well below the culverts draining them, and many crossing points were damaged and had to be rebuilt.

6. The Vision 2015 Components (DSP)

Several of the items listed are not supported by any specific goals, objectives or programmes. In the absence of these they become words with no substance and are an illusion.

While they and many others are commendable, each aspect of the Vision must have steps to implement it. Three such are given above.

Council does not have the ability to "ensure" that anything happens or is done, especially when it involves land use. It has the power to encourage, yet very little in the way of encouraging policies appear in any of the documents.

The approach tends to be more about regulation and control. If the Vision is to become a reality, the Council is likely to be much more influential if it adopts a positive, facilitation and better still an encouraging, promotional approach to development issues in particular. This is particularly relevant to the treatment of home based occupations, rural subdivision and residential matters but is taken many steps further with the proposals suggested above.

The majority of incomes in the District are low and probably falling. This situation needs to be recognised and addressed with the emphasis on improving services and reducing costs, not the opposite. The over-riding approach should be to build community in terms of cohesion and direction rather than adopt policies that will alienate and disadvantage.

The Council has the opportunity to be pro-active in the furtherance of its vision. If it does this, the people will willingly support it.

I am prepared to discuss any of the issues or ideas I have raised at length with interested Councillors and staff.

Ian Ritchie

16 June 1998

Links | | UBINZ | | GeoCities