Is the DCC making too much money from parking?

'Challispoint' questioned the powers in regard to RPZ's under the LGA whereas it also relates to the Transport Act and the City By-law.

Your points go beyond that.

Suffice for me to repeat what I have said many, many times - the later changes to the Bassett reforms "fixed things that did not need fixing". You might well find that we could agree on some things.

The Minister is, at least, addressing those that relate to formal consultation which, if passed, will permit councils to consult on more thnan a 'preferred option'.

I have consistently argued for that change and, as I commented recently in the ODT, having all options 'on the table' should lead to better-balanced debate instead of the 'start-stop' process we have now.

I did read with interest your earlier piece on how Dunedin developed and the viability of public transport.

People often compare ours (which I personally think is inadequate and does not essentially recognise the physical characteristics etc of the urban area which you referred to) with that of Christchurch.

Then when it comes to cost, they fail to to check the rate the CRC (or Environment Canterbury) levy to provide that service let alone compare it with what the ORC collect.

Richard, you might like to double check what you have been advised about the powers available courtesy of the LGA.

For instance, elected bodies were given discretion about how much power they would cede to the CEO. Giving up every last detail was a choice, no doubt convenient since it meant that councillors could flap their hands helplessly and say "I can do nothing, it's the law."

In other words, some "powers" are compulsory and some aren't but are chosen because they give a certain advantage in one way or another.

From
http://guide.localgovt.co.nz/wordswordswords.html  'Principles, prescription and purpose:
Local authorities in New Zealand traditionally gained their powers from highly “prescriptive” legislation, which set out in detail what local authorities must do, what they can do, and even how they do things. The traditional prescriptive approach of the 1974 Local Government Act was replaced in LGA2002 by a “principled” approach. This gives a generalised power to all local authorities to have full capacity to do anything for the purpose of performing their role – achieving their “purpose".'

Before the Bassett LGA reforms, signing off amounts over (if I remember correctly) about $1000 - perhaps this differed from district to district - had to be done by the elected council, and it was up to them to be sure that it was a reasonable charge for the job. It took up a vast amount of time.

At the time when the sum was set it was probably a huge amount, and few projects or purchases were so costly.

It could have been to adjusted upwards to reflect the prices of the day and then pegged it to inflation or the cost of living.

Now, councillors cannot get involved with the staff and find out what's what on the "factory floor". They have to work with the information presented to them by management and the consultants chosen by management.

This was supposed to overcome unfair influence such as getting one's street resealed ahead of those living on more axle-cracking roads who didn't have a councillor as a brother-in-law.

Has it overcome preferential treatment, mates' deals, contracts awarded for reasons other than best price for good work standards?

From what I have observed, the result has been the cancer-like spread of administration with its associated high costs and overall reduction in transparency.

Richard's opinion is likely to differ. I'm sure there will be no need to wonder long how much it varies from mine.

... that the powers arise from not only the Local Government Act (1974 and 2002) but also the Transport Act and the regulations associated with that as well as the relevant city bylaw.

I have now received further information in regard to parking on George Street:
Albany to Union Street: Multi-use Residential Permits permit residents to park on the Pay and Display areas exempted from payment or any time restrictions applicable to the area. Currently there are 3 residents in this area who are residential permit holders.
Union Street to Howe Street: Unmetered. There are 3 dedicated residential parking zones and 6 permit holders.
Howe Street to Bank Street (the Overbridge): Unmetered. There are currently no RPZ's but an application may be made by any resident.

..but the position is as successive councils have been advised from the outset 18 years ago in regard to providing for private use of a 'reserved' space on a public road.
I have not yet encountered anyone who has applied for a space in a RPZ who thinks that allocated parking of this kind should not incur a fee. Its present level fairly reflects the cost of the scheme. If that does not include 'policing it' then what is the point?
Thank you for your post although I find it rather sad, if not surprising, that you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge the success of the scheme which has brought many benefits in the areas where RSZ's are provided.

I think you are being a bit unfair, Cr Walls, to say that the fee for parking permits is required by statute.
Section 591A of the Local Government Act gives councils the powers to make bylaws to charge fees but doesn't require that you charge them.
Nor does it permit councils to charge a fee for policing compliance with the permit system, only the "reasonable cost to the council of the service involved in granting a permit".

Hi Kiwilass,

Happened to pick up on your post yesterday when checking on another matter.

I have checked with council staff and cannot find anyone who is aware of any plan to make all of George Street "a no parking area". Nor can we identify the area you are referring to. George Street effectively ends at the Motorway Overbridge.

I would be pleased to follow-up for you if you give me more details. I can be contacted on 467 2819.

The Resident's Parking Zone is a concept I brought back from the UK in 1992 as a possible way to accommodate residential parking in the central city, where many properties do not have off-street parks, having been built before the age of the motor car.

There is a (statutorily required) fee for installing, maintaining and, of course, policing them so that only permit-holders have access.

They have proven effective and been extended to certain areas outside the central area (e.g. near local activity (shopping) areas where residential parking has become difficult.)

I await your call.

I agree with you Kiwi lass, and it does sound like a rotten deal for your mother.
I wonder if you have any opinion of why the current council is so determined to gather revenue?
It depends on whether you belive Cr Guest when he told us that the stadium would only cost us $66 a year to pay for the stadium which is, so far, $200 million and counting.

The council have become greedy in their parking fines. My mum lives at the north end of George St, down by the gardens and she's been ticketed for parking outside her own house, for stupid reasons. Now she is being told that the council are going to make all of George St no parking and that she will need to buy a residential parking permit, which at no stage will guarantee that she will be able to find parking. This is crazy. She owns the house in which she lives in and pays the yearly city council rates - should this not mean that she is entitled to park outside of her house?

I think the council is getting quite harsh and maybe even greedy. I use to only see the ticket wardens in the city center, or on main roads, but now I see them everywhere, even patrolling residential streets.
My neighbour was given a ticket because his car was over his WOF date, even though he explained the vehicles engine doesn't work anymore and that it was on private property and not on the road. I felt so shocked when I saw this, and had never seen a warden go up a residential street near Mornington away from all main roads.

[DCC parking enforcement team leader Daphne Griffen responds:  Parking Officers are tasked with enforcement of the entire city. They are not confined to the central business areas as this correspondent suggests, and regularly patrol suburban areas including South Dunedin, Mosgiel, Brighton, Port Chalmers, Middlemarch,Waitati and Waikouaiti.
Parking officers do not knowingly enforce on private property. It should be acknowledged that genuine mistakes can be made and have been made in the past.
Sometimes property owners are unaware of their own boundary lines, believing that grass verges outside their properties is their land when in most cases these areas are road reserve.
It is very difficult to comment further without more precise details regarding the location of the vehicle, but I would be happy to discuss this with your correspondent. I can be contacted by calling DCC Customer Service Centre Ph. 477 4000]

... but that makes no excuse for the poor organisation of Dunedin buses. The bus system in Tauranga works much better and it circulates over much greater distances between The Mount, Welcome Bay, Bayfair, Papamoa, and Tauranga itself. All of which were settlements within their own right, but now have become part of a much bigger city. Dunedin's colonial past has been well and truly put beyond it and inventive decisions for the future should be well under way here. For example: London is installing cycle highways, that take you from a starting point in the suburbs all the way into town without having to contend with traffic. Dunedin could do a smaller version, even installing rope tows (like what you would find on the learners slope on the ski field,) on its major hills.

This is the easiest way for the Dunedin Council to increase revenue because of our obssession of wanting to use our cars every day. The council increases the cost of parking to try and discourage our community from using private vechicles knowing that our community is car-holic. So like an alcoholic we are "strategically" planned and placed in a bottle store and told not to buy any alcohol but if you do it's going to cost you more.
we are a car-holic community, pushed by the pace of busy life and the council knows it and is preying on that fact knowing full well we can't help our selves.

What you are saying is undeniably true. However, it doesn't alter the fact that providing 2 x 2m wide strips down every street for cars to park in represents a huge investment for a city in real estate. A $2m return on that investment seems modest to me.

Yes cars can get congested from time to time in cities and old smoking ones pollute but their benefits easily outweigh the problems.
The roads that you are so against are also used by buses, ambulances, fire appliances and trucks that carry goods we need. Far from a burden on the community.
The best thing about cars is that they offer us freedom to go where we need or want to and when.
What I find really annoying is that motorists are constantly hit in the pocket for taxes that are also used to subsidise buses and trains and cycleways.
If buses and trains are so good then why don't more people use them and why do they need a subsidy and why do councils have to put anti car programmes in place to move people onto public transport?
And far from being green, a six ton bus with 10 people in it can't be more efficient than a small car with one person in it. Indeed, the bus has to make at least two trips (from depot then back again) with just the driver in it.
Cars are her3 to stay and things should be made easier for the motorist.
Public transport is a good backup for those that can't drive or don't have a car.

...Because I would ride a bike to work if I could throw the bike on the back of a cable car and get back up Stuart Street.
I was in Christchurch this weekend and used the buses to get around. It was really easy to do and the timetable was really easy to follow. Why is their no bus map for Dunedin such as the one for Christchurch here?:
http://www.metroinfo.org.nz/docs/route-map-christchurch-021109.pdf
If there is, can someone point me to it?

Public transport works where towns grew up before cars, and in particular before private ownership of cars, became widespread.

In such places shopping centres had to be within walking distance, then within bus or tram distance. Once workplaces were being established outside easy walking or cycling distance people built near the tram, bus or train routes so they could travel to work.

In most of those cities cycling was not practical during the worst of winter.

New Zealand towns such as Dunedin grew from a series of small settlements eg Upper Junction with its own school. As the city grew and filled in the gaps the motor car was becoming more common, and by the time Bradford and many other suburbs were developed the average family owned a car.

Dunedin's physical geography makes bus routes difficult to arrange in such a way that services can be frequent and take people to where they want to go, without an enormous jump in the cost - which would have to come out of rates or fares.

Already fares are higher for many journeys than the cost of using a car, supposing one already owns one. A registered, warranted car is costing money even when it sits in the garage all week. The marginal cost of using it instead of taking public transport is therefore fairly low.

And then there is the convenience of being able to (if not park close to where one wants to go) arrive right at one's home complete with parcels and children - no need to carry rainproof jackets on the bus in case the weather has changed before the trek from the bus stop to home.

These practical difficulties make it most unlikely that public transport will prove a viable alternative for many people, for quite some time.

Agreed that cars have dominated our cities to an astonishing and detrimental extent.
But concomitant to changing that car dominance is the need to furnish appropriate public transport, city planning, decentralised services, affordable goods delivery and other facilities that mean a car stops being an effective necessity for participation in the economy - and as a citizen.
How far have we gone down that route?

The sooner we discard the idea that we are entitled to use our cars without cost or nuisance to others, the better. Private vehicles and their attendant necessaries - such as parks and roads - are a burden on the community. The more their real cost is recognised and covered by their owners, the better.