Cr Bill Faulkner Faulkners Corner www.sunlive.co.nz

At strategy and policy committee, elected members decided by majority vote to ask you for your view on banning election signs (for council elections) in public places.

A ban would mean election signs could only be placed on private property. So far there has been little feedback from the community. This proposal does not apply to the government elections – once again there is a different set of rules that central government applies to itself. Elected members supporting the proposal did so for the purpose of discussion. Those opposing the proposal said it was unfair.

Mayor Stuart Crosby said there was nothing fair about an election. By having signs did not create a level playing field. Rick Curach said existing members had a competitive advantage. Murray Guy had another change of heart in opposing the proposal. At last year's council election, regional council candidate Grant Dyson urged other candidates to show 'environmental leadership” and join him in taking down their election signs. He is quoted 'I might have expected other EBOP candidates to weigh in and it was an agreeable surprise to get a call from Tauranga mayoral candidate councillor Murray Guy.” In his typical plain speaking way he described the signage as 'environmental crap and pollution” – as they say, a week is a long time in politics! Most councillors indicated their interest in our community's opinions at banning signs and I would imagine the outcome will be heavily influenced by the weight and content of submissions – as it normally is.

Roundup on Roundup
The Toxic Agrichemical Advisory Forum (TAAF) is a local voluntary group formed by council to advise elected members on the use of sprays around the city. They are concerned about the use of additives to Roundup and its lookalike chemicals. Unfortunately they got upset at how the matter was reported to council and didn't appear at the committee to tell us their concerns. Elected members really value and need this input into what will get sprayed around in our city. The matter was postponed while attempts are made to address their procedural concerns.

Dogged on dog noise
At my initiation, staff had produced a good report on the background to the problems they found in enforcing noise control and dog bylaws. It's no surprise that both issues originate with central government by telling councils how the law must be applied.

My concerns revolve around how a victim's rights are largely disregarded. The report outlined how ‘professional abusers' know how to work the systems and beat the law. Unlike the Bay Times, who reported how to do this, I'm not going to make things easy by detailing how to beat the system, but as far as the law allows, council will be beefing up its action plans. Repeat offenders will now get an infringement notice for noise that carry's a fine of $500. Likewise an ongoing roaming dog problem will cost $830. Government is reviewing this legislation. In this PC age where everyone has ‘rights' without accompanying responsibilities it is not really surprising this situation has been created.

Cemetery concerns raised
The future of Tauranga cemeteries was discussed in a workshop this week. I promise no puns about it being a ‘dead' issue or other distasteful inferences although there were numerous one-liners forthcoming during the discussion. The city has expansion for 4600 casket burial plots – enough for the next 29 years at Pyes Pa we were told. A burial costs $2005 which is at the lower end of the scale in the Central North Island. A cremation is cheaper. The cemetery activity is self funding. Staff were seeking direction as to whether or not council should be planning for another site. Elected members were divided on the issue so it was agreed by a slim margin that if a suitable site came up staff would report back, but there would be no active investigation.

Building blues
Another workshop took place about the development and building community on Tauranga growth and how to get this industry moving again. At last, the issue raised a few weeks ago in this column about delays in consent and permit issuing, got a public airing. Information relayed to me and other elected members related to fears from builders and developers that if they publicly complained about delays they would suffer even more delays. One group builder told the workshop that of a five month time slot to build a house two months was taken up with council process. His company had accurate systems in place he said, and the delays were inexcusable. Staff said that speeding up processes had contributed to the leaky homes syndrome. This statement was met with disbelief by the building industry people present. Clearly there is a problem and the Acting CEO promised a thorough investigation and elected members suggested an independent assessment as well.

Measuring the impact
Another matter causing concern is the amount to be paid in development impact fees. These are contributions to fund the impact new development has on existing infrastructure. If impact fees are not collected then the costs of growth have to be paid by existing ratepayers. These fees vary significantly around the city. It's a complex matter (once again controlled by central government) and in my opinion can create hugely unfair charges. As a simple example take the Southern Pipeline. This has an up to 100 year capacity built into it, but the people hooking into it in 100 years will pay exactly the same as the people hooking up when it is completed. Commonsense and fairness might indicate that as the holding costs for the unused portion add up, then the fees would increase, but the legislation specifically prohibits this. Then there is the matter of under collection of impact fees. That's tough luck according to legislation and ratepayers have to pick it up, but if there is an over collection then the money has to be refunded to whoever paid it. Estimates are that some $20-30 million has been under collected since the inception of impact fees some 20 years ago. So growth has never fully paid for growth. On the credit side more ratepayers have meant that fixed costs have been shared (reduced) by more contributors.
This week's mindbender: The severity of the itch is inversely proportional to the reach.