Councils Holding the Country to Ransom

[Davo36]

So achieved more than National did in 9 years of doing nothing to reduce red tape and reform the RMA.

Yes I thought this too.

[Davo36]

this is a Jenny Salesa knee jerk to be seeing to be doing something

it isnt law yet and the devil is in detail Wait to see the exceptions first??

also this is a building act exemption you still have to comply with RMA and the district plan that applies so dont think the council are going away?

Yes you are right as well. The problems don't really lie with the building consents for these things, it's the resource consent that takes all the time, costs all the money and contains all the fishhook conditions.

[Perry]

More Shenanigans

He called them shipping containers; the council called them a building
13 July 2020

A North Canterbury council has come unstuck in its efforts to get a 'building' of shipping containers moved from a local property.

The property owner said that the council was trying to enforce "stupid" rules and lacked common sense. "They told me they were the rules and they had to follow them, but then said I could get the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to overrule them."

MBIE determined that the placement of the containers on the applicant's site does not constitute building work and no building consent was required.

.................................................. .........................

[Wayne]

He called them shipping containers; the council called them a building
13 July 2020

Resource consent will be the next issue, building consent is only part of the battle.

[Perry]

Laugh Hysterically or Cry Sadly

Christchurch councillors in hot water over vigilante action
6 Aug 2020

Two Christchurch city councillors are in trouble after taking vigilante action to sort a flooding problem left unresolved for almost 10 years. Residents have long complained about the flooding on Pages Rd in the city's east, which covers the footpath and forces pedestrians onto a busy road for weeks after it rains.

Fed up at the lack of action by the Christchurch City Council, Councillor Phil Mauger commandeered a digger from his company, Maugers Contracting, and had a 70-metre-long trench dug on red zone land, fixing the flooding overnight. But two days later, the council brought in its own digger and plugged both ends of the trench to stop it working, allowing the flooding to return.

Is there anything to be said?

[Perry]

Napier Sewery Council

The $2.2million ratepayer-funded pipe that's been blocked for five years
13 Oct 2020

Don't worry - it's O.K.
The Ratepayers can pay.

Same 'ol same 'ol.

---

Consultant: Someone you pay handsomely to tell you the time by reading it from your own watch.

[Perry]

Why The Price Difference?
Council bureaucracy and red tape.

Let's NOT get things done! (Except Expensively!)

Guiding Credo or Motto
Don't worry - it's O.K.
The Ratepayers can pay

Christchurch council spends nearly $30,000 undoing councillor's $600 unapproved trench
13 Feb 2021

The council has spent about $29,000 on the trench. It cost $600 for a 'rogue' councillor to dig it. The council estimated it spent about $13,000 to make the site safe immediately after it was dug, including $8500 on a bund, $500 on an archaeology investigation, $3000 on labour and just over $900 on capping. Mauger said it cost him $600 to dig the trench. Following the immediate response, the council spent an additional $16,000 on work associated with the trench, including $5000 on sediment control, $2800 on monitoring and $8000 on labour.

[donna]

It’s exactly what we’’ve come to expect. But to do otherwise may cost more.

cheers
Donna

[Wayne]

Why The Price Difference?
Council bureaucracy and red tape.

Let's NOT get things done! (Except Expensively!)

Guiding Credo or Motto
Don't worry - it's O.K.
The Ratepayers can pay

Christchurch council spends nearly $30,000 undoing councillor's $600 unapproved trench
13 Feb 2021

So $600 to do it fast, cheap, dangerous, and wrong.
Seems like a bargain.

[Perry]

So $600 to do it fast, cheap, dangerous, and wrong.

Wrong - yes;
Fast - yes;
Effective - yes;
Cheap - yes:
Dangerous - who says?

[Wayne]

Wrong - yes;
Fast - yes;
Effective - yes;
Cheap - yes:
Dangerous - who says?

You suggest that they should have left the illegal works and moved on rather than fixing it.
The council said dangerous - do you have any reason to refute that - other than to have a go at councils?

[Perry]

So $600 to do it fast, cheap, dangerous, and wrong. Seems like a bargain.

Let's take a step back and look at what details were made available.

Christchurch council spends nearly $30,000 undoing councillor's $600 unapproved trench
Stuff photo

Two Christchurch city councillors had a trench dug to alleviate flooding in the Bexley red zone after years of complaints from residents.

That's two councillors, not two private, raging Ratepayers. The council had no worries about leaving its Ratepayers with the problem for years - a council responsibility. It seems likely that the councillors involved were concerned about their constituents, rather than bureaucratic empire building - the forte of all councils.

The word 'dangerous' does not appear in the original article. The word used was "unapproved." Later, the wording was: Christchurch city councillors Daniels and Mauger said the work fixed the flooding overnight. But the council, which plugged the trench to stop it from working, questioned its effectiveness. The council said it created health and safety and environmental risks.

Risks? The trench posed risks? What about the risks posed by the flooding?

Daniels and Mauger said the work fixed the flooding overnight.

. . . the council, which plugged the trench to stop it from working. . .

What? Working? Stop it from working? If it was ineffective, how could it have been working? Oh, that's right: typical council PR bullshit.

No sign of the word dangerous, anywhere. That would've been added later by the spin doctors to make the mess look good; to assist with justifying the unjustifiable.

You suggest that they should have left the illegal works and moved on rather than fixing it.

What was so wrong about fixing the problem? Keep in mind that the vigilante 'works' occurred after years of council inaction and residents enduring their street flooding, time and time again. Remember that the secondary problem was the flooding. The primary problem was the council's total lack of action.

The council said dangerous - do you have any reason to refute that - other than to have a go at councils?

I don't have any reason, apart from the absence of the word 'dangerous' in that media item. I know - as do most others - that councils and governments routinely 'massage the message' in ways which would be a lie, if you or I said it. (I've given the original wording details, a few paragraphs back.)

The likely greatest danger was to the council's reputation.

"Two determined men cleaved a path through the floodwaters, while the council was still moistening the palms of its hands."

Reading down the list of Ratepayer money-squandering items, it's obvious that the process was done by a non-competitive, statute-backed, regulatory-function organisation with captive payers, Draconian enforcement powers, no common sense and no concerns for the people who pay their wages.

[donna]

Good to question it Wayne and well researched response Perry.

cheers
Donna

[Perry]

Movable vehicle is not a building: Victory for tiny homes in landmark case
21 Feb 2020

Two curly questions arise from that decision. Viz. Depreciation and permanent.

DV depreciation on a vehicle is 20%.
Depreciation on buildings is zero.

Another is the word permanent?
How long would that be?
A month?
A year?
A decade?

Put a moveable, easily disconnected from services tiny home on wheels on your patch of land, my dear PIs and you seem to have it made. But tread warily.

Vehicle depreciation is allowed. 20% not to be sneezed at.

Section 5 (1) (t) - if used thoughtfully and constructively - would also invalidate the RTA.

But keep in mind that, faster than you can say democracy, comrade commissar Cindy and comrade commissar FarGoneBoy can rush legislation amendments through parliament as communists are wont to do of late. E.g. Fat frump facially WINZ bar-coded, Nano-Brained Ma Hoota and its voiding of local government democracy.

[Wayne]

But keep in mind that, faster than you can say democracy, comrade commissar Cindy and comrade commissar FarGoneBoy can rush legislation amendments through parliament as communists are wont to do of late. E.g. Fat frump facially WINZ bar-coded, Nano-Brained Ma Hoota and its voiding of local government democracy.

You really have lost it haven't you!