Track Dunedin City Council rate increases over the past 15
years and a pattern emerges.
As expected, most increases outstrip inflation levels.
Councils have complained about being saddled with more
responsibilities, major infrastructure upgrades have been
required and it is the nature of local government to spend
more and more. Empires built on other people's money will
expand without assiduous and active watchdogs.
But less obvious is the effect of elections.
Every three years the mayor and the councillors go before the
electorate and each election year they seem to try that much
harder to subdue spending increases.
In the in-between years, they appear to be influenced more by
the special interest groups and managers who press, through
the annual plan and through public submissions, for their
"worthy" causes and their "essential" spending.
The system itself these days means that councillors and
mayors without sufficient fortitude will concede to the
pressures.
Since 1997, the city rates increases (with election years in
italics) have been 4.9%, 2.5%, 5.7%, 5.1%, 2.9%, 1.9%, 2.9%,
2.8%, 8.5%, 5.5%, 6.4%, 10.4%, 7%, with a proposed rise this
year of 5.2% and for next year of 8.9%.
The local body elections are in October so it should not
surprise that the current proposed increase has been trimmed,
while the post-election prospects for ratepayer purses are
bleak.
While councillors might claim to have had little room to
manoeuvre today, it will be especially tough for the next
council in 2011.
Over these 15 years, the average rates increase after an
election is 7.08%, in election year the average is 3.96%, and
the figure for the middle year is 5.08%. The one exception to
the post-election spike was in the 2002-03 year, when the
rates rose by their smallest amount over this period, 1.9%.
One way to cushion and postpone rates increases is through
borrowing, and this helped ameliorate the increase for
several years. But interest on such debts must be paid and
pay-day is arriving fast.
In order to improve the look of the figures, councillors are
also trimming depreciation allowances, but the inflow of
depreciation money will be essential for paying for services
in the future, such as the huge amount needed for water-pipe
replacement.
And the scale of rate increases would have been even worse if
it was not for the hefty hikes in the amounts extracted in
the form of "dividends" from the council-owned companies.
Finance from the Waipori fund from the sale of the Waipori
power stations and additional "user pays" income has also
helped curb increases.
Councillors clearly are looking towards the elections already
and they must be aware of the unprecedented level of disquiet
about the rates rises and spiralling debt they have overseen.
Most, including those who are now trying to distance
themselves from the extra commitments and singular spending
programme of recent years, must take their share of the
responsibility.
Few have displayed the vigour required to curb a burgeoning
bureaucracy, or the courage to say "no" while bearing in mind
the city's demographic.
They should all remember, nevertheless, that the public does
not desire to be represented by men and women who are
bitterly negative.
The results of the last elections indicated that.
Many voters recognise that Dunedin cannot stagnate and that a
judicious and strictly limited choice of big projects was,
and is, reasonable and even necessary for the city's growth
and vibrancy - and that will mean rate rises ahead of
inflation.
At the same time, voters expect a frugal council to
efficiently keep to its core functions, with minimal spending
in discretionary areas.
It is here that councillors, once again, have failed to be
prepared to say "no".
In the months leading to the poll later this year, voters who
are worried about the state of the city's finances - as they
should be - should focus on the election of a leadership that
recognises these facts while also being positive about what
the city has to offer.
It is possible for a council to be dynamic and uplifting
without relying on the crutch of big spending, and it is
possible to oppose "thinking big" without destructive
cynicism.
Dunedin is a small city perfectly placed to make the fullest
advantage of its extraordinary location and amenities (and
the new stadium will, for better and worse, be part of that).
But Dunedin cannot supply all the facilities and services of
a bigger centre, and its mayor and councillors - as well the
voters - will have to recognise that hard fact.
I'm pleased that someone's listening
'Mike St. K', I'm sure we are on the same wavelength. Quite a number of years ago I worked in product-development. My work involved illustration of part catalogues, instruction books and other literature, as well as the ongoing development of consumer-orietated whiteware as a member of a design team.
I turned my back on prospects of future promotion by staying put in Dunedin, accepting years of much less rewarding employment. I don't think my faith in Dunedin is being reflected in the actions of the city council anymore.
The North Queensland tropics have always looked attractive, but you get to a time in life when uprooting yourself and re-establishing elsewhere becomes more of an effort than the exercise is worth.
There are a great number of skills involved in product development, many of which tend to be overlooked, including those which ensure smooth transitions between 'models' when bringing new products into production.
Ian Taylor's animation facility has proven that remoteness from world markets is not an overpowering handicap when developing intellectual property. I have always held that there is a great amount of 'raw brain' in Dunedin, and it's always a pity to see it having to relocate elsewhere to reach and express its potential.
Let's concentrate on the things we're good at to provide a sure basis for Dunedin's ongoing future and not throw all our resources behind something we haven't been good at for years, and likely won't be again (especially now that the sport has been reduced to terms of pure purchasing-power). You know the sport I mean.........Rugby.
The rural sector is going to be around for a long time yet, but it wouldn't do any harm to consider what will happen on the day when it is no longer viable to transport vast quantities of physical 'product' overseas. At the very least, let's add value in the meantime by doing extra processing here before shipping it offshore.
Meanwhile, on my street frontage water in the kerb and channelling disappears down a crack in the concrete, and emerges again some metres further down the hill. The pavement had to be 'filled' a few months ago as unexplained holes began to appear.
It's normal for water to seep out from under the tarseal and join the 'storm-water' without the inconvenience to it of having to go through taps. I'm not holding out any hopes that this will be attended to within the next twenty years; by which time tourists will probably visit us only to see what it is like existing in a third-world "time warp".
Knowledge economy
Alot of people, myself included, agree with Ian Smith's ideas of Dunedin growing a 'knowledge economy'. But in the Dunedin we have presently we have councillors who chose the stadium debt. Resulting in services being cut to fund the stadium spend. As Cr Guest has said, any stinting on providing funds for the stadium will be interpreted by himself (and no doubt other stadium councillors), as underminding the stadium. This means a basic "knowedge' hub like the library council service will be viewed as competing with funds for the stadium and Guest and other councillors have shown which they will support.
A knowledge economy
Our city council has long failed to grasp that fact that only 'real' growth in the economy will ensure Dunedin's future. 'Bread and Circuses' in the form of a stadium can never do it.
I have long held that we are in a unique position to establish a considerable 'knowledge economy' in the city, based upon the proximity of our university and polytech in tandem with knowledge-intensive local industries.
Sure, some land adjacent to both would not go amiss either, which is why I feel it is important to can the short-sighted and potentially disastrous plans for what remains of our foreshore.
Land will be in short enough supply in the future without giving the pick of it over to 'yuppy' flats, cafes and coffee-bars in futile endeavours to 'tart-up' the waterfront, consistently the coldest part of town apart from the more extreme hill-suburbs.
Our distance from world markets, 'carbon-footprint' and other considerations will eventually choke much of the life out of our farming industry as fossil-based fuels needed to transport our produce to world markets, become ever more expensive, and finally dry-up.
The entire planet is not going to be able to grow bio-fuels at reasonable prices to take the place of long-vanished hydro-carbons; well, not while feedings burgeoning populations.
Recent moves both locally and by central government - for example pulling the plug on a loan to help develop a School of Design in Dunedin, while dishing out, without conditions, $15m for a stadium - would indicate, to me at least, that we are being dictated to by people with a tenuous hold on the realities of our situation.
Ideas, knowledge and intellectual-property can be transmitted overseas at little cost by electronic means, which improve with every passing year, minimising the disadvantages due to our isolation in World terms.
That cannot be said of our much-vaunted primary production, especially once economic considerations make it difficult to transport it beyond the farm-gate, much less to the other side of the world, where the 'demand' will likely be.
If New Zealand in general and Dunedin in particular cannot contrive to be light-on-its-feet and adapt to what will clearly be a much changed world situation, then we 'have' no future, it's as simple as that.
So why our seeming determination to sacrifice what few realistic chances we have?
Are we to be like Dickens' Mr McCawber and plough ahead aimlessly, in the forlorn hope that 'something will turn up'?
Be assured, it won't.
Growth
While I largely agree with you, I think that the same factors that will make it less economic to export primary farm produce will also invigorate the local mmanufacturing base.
Instead of having to import F&Ps whiteware from Mexico it will make more sense to make it in NZ - but given the choices you know many of those new factories will end up in Auckland.
We do need a good R&D park in town but, more importantly, we need more seed capital in the local economy. To grow we have to make new companies faster than they leave.
Having our cake and eating it too
There is a way to have our cake and eat it too. We can't continue to increase the burden on our ratepayers at an average rate that's higher than inflation - it's sad that the current council is incapable of understanding this.
Instead, if we want these big projects, we need to grow our local economy to increase the rating base, and that's something the current council, with its focus on the service sector with projects like Wall St and the stadium, doesn't really seem to show any real understanding of.
We need development that brings new wealth into our economy, not things that just move the existing wealth around.