Seldom has the Dunedin City Council been under such sustained
opprobrium as at present. Every move seems to bring a torrent
of criticism.
While the fiercest and most bitter attacks have come through
opposition to the Forsyth Barr Stadium, a series of other
matters have also raised ire, protest or disquiet.
Part of what is happening is because of the tone of these
times.
Authority and establishment of any ilk are there to be
lambasted.
Many in the self-esteem generations, which include the baby
boomers, believe they are right and know best, and they will
not be told otherwise.
Respect has disintegrated and negative scepticism is the
norm.
Such, though, are the current woes of the Dunedin City
Council that it needs to look to itself.
For a start, whatever the rights and wrongs of hefty local
authority funding for the stadium, its backers, including the
council, allowed the opposition on to the front foot through
secrecy and lack of leadership.
In rugby parlance, they were forever trying to recover from
behind the advantage line.
The parking debacle has followed a different line.
The council, many months ago, did announce its plans, and
these received considerable publicity.
It claims "engagement with key stakeholders and community
representatives and full consultation" took place and that it
responded to public demands.
Why then did the implementation turn out so badly? First, the
consultation, as many angry business people attest, did not
include actually speaking to those who would be most directly
involved.
Second, the plans remained theoretical and distant until
their implications were clear.
While the "conversion of some free parking on the fringes" of
the central business district does not sound so bad, the
actuality of many commuters and shift workers losing their
free or cheap parks brought home the reality of the policy.
Consultation wrapped in bureaucratic language does not go to
the nub of a matter and it so easily obfuscates.
Ratepayers do not want, or require, the public relations
version of a planned policy but rather the cold facts and,
most importantly, the bald implications.
In the parking instance, blaming unexpected consequences on
some of the problems reflects poorly on the council.
Combine the supposed expertise of staff and consultants with
- one would hope - the savvy of councillors, and the result
should have been much better.
A handful of councillors, perhaps stung by the parking
furore, are wary about the rubbish collection proposals.
They are wise to proceed with care because the extra costs
for the frugal and those living alone are large.
The one-size-fits nearly all will not go down well once all
its implications sink home, despite the extensive
"consultation".
The council's Wall Street mall project is receiving its share
of criticism and, whether it likes it or not, the Otago
Regional Council's handling of bus timetable changes and the
increase in fares spills over into anti-DCC feeling.
Even the Town Hall redevelopment, largely greeted positively,
has run into flak over the Moray Pl glass cube.
Proper consultation with Opoho residents over a new road for
Lovelock Ave came too late, and a classic symptom of the
blinkered approach came when Ken Robertson was cut off by a
new fence and track from training his horses on the beach at
Ocean View.
The council had followed the rules with notes in letterboxes
and public notification but was still unaware Mr Robertson
had been using the beach virtually every day for 56 years.
Public trepidation has become more acute, not just by the
accumulation of mistakes and misjudgments, but by the
attitude to spending.
Despite the financial constraints from stadium costs and the
recession, the council seems willing to continue the binge.
Handling the costs of one ambitious new project was fine, so
one councillor said last week, because it was budgeted for in
the long-term plan.
It is not just so-called "naysayers" or the 2000-plus members
of the Facebook site "Lost the Plot" who are frustrated and
concerned.
Of course, sometimes it does not matter what approach is
taken, the process is a convenient scapegoat whenever the
outcome is disliked.
The council, nevertheless, could have avoided a degree of the
antagonism with clear and decisive leadership, with
unambiguous directions and with confidence imparted.
Once, however, trust and goodwill are lost, it is hard to win
them back.
Lost the plot, down the plug-hole
The editorial makes some good points, but why the ambivalance in some parts. The DCC might have some excuses for their bad decisions and stormtrooper attitude, but they haven't given any. Why does the ODT feel the need to make excuses for the DCC's behaviour by saying there is a lot of negativity these days etc. The "so-called nay-sayers" haven't picked out the DCC (and ORC) as targets using some ramdom process, the criticisms are completely justified, not just partly justified, and is based on their destructive and dangerously bad decision making and arrogant attitude.
The reputation of the DCC has suffered some severe self-inflicted injuries, hopefully the public anger with their behaviour will last until next year's election. There is no need to feel sorry for these people - hold their feet to the fire, ask the tough questions, get the truth out of them. Democracy doesn't work if we don't know what's going on.
Clear and decisive leadership, with unambiguous directions
"Clear and decisive leadership" is exactly the problem because they have been going the wrong way. The DCC needs to work on their decision making and listening skills. Like a flock of Lemmings, Mayor Chin is leading us over the cliff of financial destruction. Never again should we let a bunch of clowns (such as what we now have in council) make any decisions that affect us or our city.
Leadership ....
"Clear and decisive leadership" is pretty useless if no one will follow you - if a politician wants people to follow them without engagement then they do need the people's trust - if you don't have your citizens trust then you need to engage them, talk to them, explain your arguments, be open about what is happening and listen (that's the most important word 'listen') to your citizens. If after that they don't seem to want to follow you, don't try and lead, you'll just find yourself standing in a field by yourself.
If you really want to hear what your citizens think get out a bit, don't just listen to people in an echo chamber of your own ideas - if you're in favour of a stadium don't just go and listen to the rugby people or the tartan mafia, persuading them doesn't really help you be a leader or gain people's trust. Of course they'll say what you want to hear. Go listen to the speeches at a STS march, attend their public meeting, offer to go up on the stage and make your points, argue with people who disagree with you.
And be open with the facts, don't hide them and use them when it suits you - that just puts you in a position of power that alienates the very people you want to follow you - be open, publish everything - put that stadium contract on the city's website, without all the numbers blanked out, publish the CST's accounts so we can see where the money is being spent. That will put a stop to all the rumours about insiders profiting from the real estate deals - or confirm them. If you don't people will do their own research and possibly come to different conclusions based on less information than you have.
Remember: 'transparency' and 'accountability' - that's what we want from our politicians in exchange for our trust.
We're in a different world than we were 20 years ago - information used to flow in very proscribed ways - newspapers, radio, television and politicians used to get access to those in a way that the rest of us didn't. But the media has changed - now we have the internet and it's a much more democratic medium - everyone can have a say in a way they didn't a generation ago - the people joining the facebook page are largely young - they've grown up with a very different idea of how to interact with the world - they're used to having their say and as they get older will continue to expect that, politicians will have to adapt or retire. I've been using the internet for over 20 years now it's always been this way, it's not going to change.
Politicians are going to have to engage their citizens in public forums and persuade them. Richard Walls' appearances in these pages are a welcome start, I may disagree with him and publicly take him to task but I welcome him standing up and engaging with us - time for the rest of the councilors to come out of the woodwork too.
DCC legacy
The legacy of the current lot is going to be so costly that is would be a very brave person to stand for council for the next fifteen years. The council suffer from what I call “Sydney Syndrome” where they believe that Dunedin is a large thriving city requiring bold initiatives like covered stadiums, risky property investments and $4 an hour parking spaces. Unfortunately for us Dunedin, (lovely as it is) is an insignificant town in international terms with a small base of long suffering ratepayers. Rate increases above inflation over the next few years will seriously affect the financial health of the citizens, and yet we have no choice but to pay them. The current decision makers will be long gone, leaving new councils to clean up the mess.
People need to take our city back
But even with the sanity of this article the DCC seems unable to relate to its citizens.
It is time for a change. We need a new council - one that understands the financial constraints of our society at this moment in time; a council that empathises with low income and pensioner funds; a council that recognizes that all its citizens need to be heard a council that gets its not "one size fits all" a council that understands the outcry of its people; a council that can stop spending our money and assets.
Bbring on the new and quickly.