Councils Holding the Country to Ransom

[Wayne]

So people get upset that the council doesn't let them do things.
They should just get out of the way and let us do whatever we want because the free market knows best.
Get rid of the RMA etc - just unnecessary obstruction.
Yet when the Govt forces councils to accept buildings at least 6 stories high within walking distance of transport hubs people complain that it will ruin the villas that they love.
It seems to be that I should be able to do what I want but my neighbour shouldn't.
Interesting isn't it - be careful what you wish for.

[Perry]

Somewhere amidst this should be a few things like: "reasonable" and "common sense."

Councils don't exist as a real entity. Council is collective name for bunch of bureaucrats and impotent, elected representatives.

To give you a personal example.

A council introduced a District Scheme planning ordinance for a rural area that went: the bulk storage and use of organic matter is prohibited.

When I pointed out that would make storing hay in a hay barn illegal, I was ignored.

I lodged an appeal. Only then did the council bureaucrats ask, "can we talk?"

We did and that stupidity was removed and the matter was resolved by way of an "agreed settlement."

That should never have been necessary.

I have only ever encountered one council bureaucrat (a plumbing inspector) who I thought was reasonable. He was very much a person who adhered to this mantra:

Rules are for the guidance of the wise
And the obeisance of fools.

He would pause and think out loud, what is the rule trying to achieve? Can that be done in another way, that works better for all?

One of a kind!

[Perry]

Another oddity. (at best)
19 July 2021

The future of Auckland’s Carlile House remains uncertain, with Auckland Council rejecting an offer to be given the 134-year-old building for free so it can be restored. Auckland Council has offered the church $11 million for the building, but the organisations have been unable to come to an agreement. The United Church of Tonga church’s deputy chairman James Prescott said the church had offered to gift the property to the council, so it could use the money it was going to spend on buying it to restore it instead.

The council told the church it was against the rules for it to be gifted property. Auckland Council heritage manager Noel Reardon did not respond to questions about why the church’s gifting proposal was against the rules.

I say again:

Rules are for the guidance of the wise
And the obeisance of fools.

[Wayne]

Another oddity. (at best)
19 July 2021



I say again:

Rules are for the guidance of the wise
And the obeisance of fools.

Of course, this may have had a bearing on the matter
"The church could then offer $2m to buy back the building to be used for community events. "
"The church itself cannot afford the building restorations, which are estimated to cost about $7 to $10m. Due to its heritage status, Carlile House cannot be knocked down either."
Basically the church wants $10m work done for $2m.

[richard56]

Hi
Would the council have to sell for $2m ?
Couldn't they just say thanks but no thanks...if we sell it will be at market price.?
Richard

[Wayne]

Hi
Would the council have to sell for $2m ?
Couldn't they just say thanks but no thanks...if we sell it will be at market price.?
Richard

That was the deal the church wanted - and the council didn't take it.

[Perry]

But the council did not say that the deal was not financially viable. It gave a specific reason.

The council said the (its?) rules prevented it from receiving a gift. 'Rules' which somehow are not open for examination or discussion.

The church could then offer $2m

Or the council could offer to rent it to the church and others so it could be used for community events.

Better to let it rot away, it seems. At least that's not commercially sensitive information.

[Wayne]

But the council did not say that the deal was not financially viable. It gave a specific reason.

The council said the (its?) rules prevented it from receiving a gift. 'Rules' which somehow are not open for examination or discussion.

You are correct.
I wonder when that policy came in and why?
They have taken gifts of land before (in the distant past).

They didn't say the policy wasn't open for examination - may be a question to your friendly councillor (if you were in Auckland which, from memory, you aren't).

[Perry]

Well, first, we can't rely on the NZ mudstream media - being now bought and paid for propagandists for comrade Cindy's commie-government. But, in this case, at least the question was asked.

That then leads on to why Auckland Council's heritage manager did not respond to questions about why the church’s gifting proposal was against the rules. Why did he not respond? Is the council hiding something?

Your memory serves you well, Wayne - we're both out-of-towners. (I did a seven year stint in Auckland, before the change of millennium. I enjoyed what the metropolis had to offer, but glad I'm now long since back at being a 'country boy.')