Rimmington & Rates Control interview dreams & come out with "facts"!

  In an astounding claim in the Waikato Times today, former Mare Russ ('Russ-Russ') Rimmington claimed he had met Roger and Jane Hennebry on "fight against the Hamilton Casino" - a claim that is impossible, unless he had invented a time travel machine.

  While Rimmington (nicknamed 'Russ-Russ' after flirting with the idea of importing pandas from China at the cost to ratepayers of several million dollars) did indeed himself jump on the 1998 anti-casino bandwagon after he saw the huge public opposition being organised against it, Roger & Jane were never seen in that campaign.

  As the publicity officer, and a founding member of the Casino Opposition Action Committee, I never even met the pair until mid-2001, when Roger decided he could save the city by being elected to Council, and by which time the Casino was already a reality.

  Of course, Russ-Russ has often been economical with the facts, or conveniently overlooked the inconvenient ones; in fact the very same Hennebrys that he is now so enamoured of were great supporters of his nemesis, the chaotic Mayor David Braithwaite, after Braithwaite dumped Rimmington in the 2001 elections.

  Whether Russ-Russ sticks with the Rates Control group if he is elected to EW is also another matter - as was put to him a couple of months ago, he is likely to quickly distance himself from that negative mob if his dream of a Chairmanship at EW requires the support of the majority of more normal members.

  Ah well, we all know politics makes strange bedfellows, and while talking about beds, it would be nice if the Times checked they were getting facts, not dreams, in their interviews!

Greypower apologists for 'Rates Control'?

  A letter appeared in today's Waikato Times pointing out that the 'non-political' local Greypower organisation was actually very political - in favour of the negative whingers and moaners in the 'Rates Control' group. I've written to the Times with my own views on this....

  B M Crawforth’s letter (23 September) criticising the “non-aligned” Hamilton Greypower for its blatant support for the political group ‘Rates Control’ strikes a chord.

  Recently that group held what purported to be a public ‘election meeting’ (6^th September) to which it did not invite any candidates other than “Rates Control” ones.

  A few other candidates heard about this meeting one day in advance and were able to attend, but most others did not.

  As someone who helped organise six meetings in the West Ward – to which every single city council candidate was invited and given equal opportunity to speak – I am appalled at the lack of democracy of Greypower and their ‘Rates Control’ mates.

  If that is an example of the open-ness and transparency these groups carry on about, then heaven help the city if these backroom types actually get elected.

  Fortunately, that is a very unlikely occurrence.

  Unfortunately for a once proud and independent organisation, Greypower’s credibility has gone down the tubes, and it will be some time before they recover it.

For the record, I have been predicting for some time that this Rates Control crowd will only get between one and three Councillors elected to Hamilton City Council, and will lose Environment Waikato seats. I have also long predicted that their 'leader' (now there's a misnomer if ever there was one), Roger Hennebry, will come 3rd in the Mayoral race - as another, unkind, Councillor said "Rates Control's biggest problem is their leader!"

Eastgate legal opinion vindicates community stand

  A high-powered legal opinion received by the Hamilton City Council has shown staff should NOT have issued a 'Certificate of Compliance' (resource consent) for the Eastgate development on the corner of Clyde and Grey Sts in Hamilton East.
  The opinion - by Paul Cavanagh QC - also states that a 'consent notice' preventing access by the Eastgate developers onto the busy Grey St should not have been removed by Council staff.
  Both actions by Council planning staff - supported by well-paid lawyers - were strongly opposed by the Hamilton East Community Trust, who were at a total financial disadvantage throughout the battle, with both the millionaire applicant, and the Council opposing them at every stage. HECT's 'expert' witnesses in the end refused to attend the Environment Court on behalf of HECT, when HECT ran out of cash to pay their appearance costs, thuse severely damaging the community's case. Both Council and the Ministry of the Environment had earlier refused to fund any of the community's legal costs.
  The opinion is a complete vindication of the community's stand, as represented by the HECT.
  This whole case is a sad and unfortunate indictment of the way in which a number of planning consent issues have been handled in Council (and probably not just in Hamilton). Developers - with every advantage of funds, experience, access to decision-makers, and familiarity with the legal/planning fraternity - are often on a different (and vastly superior) playing field to the community.
  Councils and their staff must change the way they look at planning consent issues when there is a strongly-expressed community viewpoint - they may not be required to take into account the community's interests, but if they are doing their jobs they damn well ought to, in my humble opinion!
  Recent concerns expressed by the Templeview community over the proposed demolition of Church College buildings by the US-based Church hierarchy were another case in point. It was extremely difficult to get Council staff to agree to seriously consult with the local community over these plans.
  The fact that two Hamilton City Councillors had to pay towards the legal costs of the HECT, just to ensure a genuinely independent legal opinion was accessed, is not good enough - I hope everyone has learnt a lesson from this.

Lower school speed zones campaign gains momentum

The unanimous decision by Selwyn District Council last week to reduce speed limits outside 7 schools in their District is a sensible one, made in the interests of safety for our most vulnerable road users.
The fact that some schools may not meet the normal NZ Transport Authority criteria for lower speed zones shows up at least two issues:
1. How out of date and potentially ‘unsafe’ NZTA criteria could be; and
2. How little control ‘Road Controlling Authorities’ like District and city councils really have over roads in their areas.
Hamilton City Council has progressively introduced lower (40kph) speed zones outside 48 of its schools over the last three years, but is having trouble convincing NZTA that the remaining 7 schools without these zones deserve and need the same treatment.
At the next meeting of the Hamilton City Council Transport Committee we will be discussing how our Council and the affected communities in Hamilton can break through the same NZTA barriers to achieve a safer environment for all of our children.
We hope that the Government’s transport agency will see sense and help, rather than hinder, this move.
Good work Selwyn District Council, and the Selwyn communities who have fought for this for so long.

Medical Council treats Dr Vatsyayann & patients unfairly

Last night I attended a public meeting of (mainly) patients at Dr Suresh Vatsyayann’s Vercoe Rd medical clinic. Between 140-150 people were present at a meeting that was called with one day’s notice.

Whatever one thinks of the rights and wrongs of Dr Vatsyayann’s actions and philosophies – and I don’t personally agree with all of them – there were at least 2 matters that I believe would be of concern to any elected representative in Hamilton city:

·         Dr Vatsyayann has been suspended by the Medical Council for four months, starting after today, yet their hearing into the charges/allegations against him does not take place for another 6 months (in February 2011). This implies that he is viewed as guilty in advance, without any chance to answer the charges until after the punishment has finished.

·         Dr Vatsyayann was given one week’s notice of suspension of his license – he is the sole GP running his clinic, which has over 3,000 patients on its books - at a time when it is widely acknowledged that there is great difficulty getting locums or other replacement medical professionals – how much consideration did the Medical Council give the needs of these members of the Hamilton community?

City Councillors and MPs have no ability to directly influence such actions by this powerful and independent body – however that does not mean that we should not express our opinions on behalf of our constituents.

From a more ‘personal opinion’ viewpoint, I observed that a large proportion of patients at the meeting were from self-described ‘lower socio-economic’ groups who had initially been attracted to Dr Vatsyayann’s clinic because of his policy of free consultations. This service he offers is not replicated by any other medical centre in the city, so there will be severe implications for some Hamilton families as a result of the Medical Council’s actions.

There were a number of others present who stated that although they could afford to attend medical centres with the normal high charges, they chose to have Dr Vatsyayann as their GP because of their regard for his medical skills.

If any of you feel inclined to find out more about the situation, I urge you to contact Ms Raewin Peck (raewin-ark@slingshot.co.nz) who is co-ordinating a patients’ group in support of Dr Vatsyayann’s license to practice being restored.

Simple rating fix for CBD = wishful thinking

   The Waikato Times (18-8-10) has suggested that Hamilton City faces a choice of a residential ratepayer $300 'subsidy' of CBD commercial properties in order to reduce CBD rates.
   The truth is that the issue is far  more complex than suggested by the Times... they have proposed reduced rates for the CBD would come about by introducing a capital value rating system (rating on the value of both land and buildings, as opposed to the current land value-only rating system) - a number of Councillors have jumped on this bandwagon, including Mayoral candidate Roger Hennebry, who should have known better.
   And it is interesting to see Gordon Chesterman calling the current Council 'gutless' for shieing away from the issue - I don't recall him putting any sort of alternative rating proposition forward during the whole of his 6 years on Council, but then its election time!
   The facts (although you shouldn't let them get in the way of a good story!) show that if you introduced capital value rating, many CBD commercial premises would actually face massive rate increases - so that would be no solution for them, would it?
   In 2000 a previous Council actually proposed a partial introduction of capital rating, with the balance remaining on land value - even under that cut-down version, I recall one small CBD cafe/lunchbar facing a rates increase of several hundred percent; clearly not sustainable. That suggested change involved about 8-10,000 ratepayers getting an increase in rates, and about the same number getting a rates cut....of course most of the 8-10,000 in line for an increase vigorously opposed the change, and almost none of those getting a cut submitted in support - so it died a quick death.
   The same would happen again if any Council was foolish enough to try and bring in capital value rating.
   What I suggested to the Times, but they didn't report, was that Council look at reducing the 'commercial differential' (the percentage loading that is put on all commercial prioperties when compared with residential ones) for CBD properties -rates income lost on this should be spread across other commercial properties outside the CBD as there is currently an uneven playing field with most non-CBD commercial property having significantly lower land values (and therefore rates) than CBD commercial properties.
   Under this scenario, The Base and Westfield Chartwell (who pay miniscule rates compared with similar developments elesewhere) would pay a slightly larger share, while CBD properties would pay less.
   There need be no increase on residential rates in order to do this - this and other alternatives also ought to be canvassed by the Times.
   Of course, this suggestion is by no means the complete answer - parking, promotion, CBD activities and sprucing up the CBD shops will also all need to play their part.

Hennebry Team's anti-public transport rave against rail

The Hennebry Council Team have shown their true colours with their latest attack on the Hamilton-Auckland passenger rail service.
In an empty-headed rant to the Waikato Times editor, the Tania version of the Fighting Hennebrys has tried to drag central Government politics into the local body election campaign by falsely claiming the Hamilton-Auckland passenger train is a Labour Party gimmick.
Many members of the National Party, including Hamilton West MP Tim MacIndoe, have publicly supported the rail service, questioning only its timing – they say it’s a “not if, but when” situation.
The Labour Party had nothing to do with establishing the campaign for the rail service, but they are welcome to support it, and some of its members do.
So also do many thousands of other Hamiltonians, not the least of whom are members of the business community who are forced to waste hours each day in Auckland Motorway traffic jams, not to mention paying a fortune for Auckland parking.
Contrary to Hennebry’s claims, all reports on the potential service to date show that the service would be easily affordable if it received just the normal subsidy buses do at the moment, or rail services do in Auckland and Wellington.
Perhaps Hennebry hasn’t read them, or perhaps she doesn’t believe Hamilton deserves the same public transport support as other major cities?
The Hennebry Team have never supported Hamilton's fast-growing public transport network, trying at various times to:

• cancel Sunday bus services
• cut middle-of-the-day buses
• prevent new bus routes starting
• cut kerbside facilties for bus passengers
• demand large bus fare increases

The Hennebrys that have been elected have NEVER made a positive comment about Hamilton's public transport, so why would anyone expect them to change their spots over a passenger rail service that might help bring the city into the modern age?
Of course, their attitude is hardly surprising when you consider that the "leader" (there's a misnomer if ever there was one) Roger owns seven cars - he's far too busy deciding which one to drive each day without worrying about a good transport system for anyone else!