SUPERCITY = SUPER RIPOFF FOR PUBLIC MAJORITY!

PUBLIC MEETING TO ORGANISE ACTION TO STOP THE SUPERCITY TONIGHT!

Trades Hall Auditorium
147 Great North Road
Grey Lynn

7.30 – 9.30pm

The ‘SuperCity’ will downsize democracy and SUPERSIZE rates – especially water bills for the public majority.

Local ‘councils’ will make decisions over dog control, graffiti and liquor licensing.

WHOOP DE DO!

Menawhile – existing Councils will be gutted of $28 billion worth of public assets, which will be placed under CCOs (Council Controlled Organisations).

Hmmm…. seems no body has actually checked the obvious – where is the ‘cost-benefit’ analysis which PROVES the ‘cost-effectiveness’ of the CCO model for the public majority?

The Royal Commission was tasked with finding ‘cost-effective’ solutions.
They had the powers to investigate and initiate research.

Don’t you think it might have been sensible and ‘scholarly’ to at least attempt to provide some facts and evidence to support the ‘cost-effectiveness’ of the CCO model which they are recommending for $28 billion of public assets?

There is NO democracy for the public majority under the CCO model.

The Board of Directors are business appointees – the public don’t elect them.

Meetings of CCOs are not open to the public.

The ‘Statement of Intent’ which governs the operation and management of CCOs has no direct public input.

After 4 years and 22 arrests, Auckland City Council only now remove Metrowater matters from the ‘CONFIDENTIAL’ section of Finance and Strategy Committee meetings.

But key Watercare matters are still kept under CONFIDENTIAL’!

Under Metrowater CCO stood for ‘Ca$h Cow Organisation’.

What is being proposed is a GIANT Metrowater with ‘user-charges’ for wastewater spread across the region.
Families of 8 can expect water bills of over $2000 per year on top of rates based on the Metrowater model.
That will REALLY help the social well-being of the large poorer families which NEED to use more water! (not).

Disproportionately burdening poorer families for the cost of water services compared with richer families VIOLATES the basic human right to affordable water.

Penny Bright
Media Spokesperson
Water Pressure Group

Ph (09) 846 9825
021 211 4 127
waterpressure@gmail.com

Winnipeg does sound like an interesting example and it’s certainly a shame that this issue hasn’t been considered. Is it often considered in situations like this or do policy advisers usually see it as a non-issues?

@ Paul

I think the monopoly case is slightly overstated because it is an elected body. If you don’t like what the council does then you vote for someone else next time. Voting is also far less costly than moving house, although I suppose it also has a far lower impact on your welfare.

As to the one-size-fits all argument, isn’t that pretty much the same as the concerns about community representation? They seem to have some airtime at the moment so hopefully they will be addressed in the structure of any new council body.

But as Eric also notes, the real question is, Has anyone even looked whether or not the gains from the Supercity outweigh the losses from the lessening of competition? If not, why not? If they have what are the results?

Winnipeg perhaps doesn’t give the cleanest comparison to here: local body rates fund the schools, and the Winnipeg School Division #1 largely corresponds in borders to the city’s limits.

I’m very disappointed to have heard nothing from Rodney Hide on local government competition. I’d totally expect him to know about Tiebout. A few years ago when he was going on about the need for Auckland to merge, I put comments up on his blog asking him about Tiebout; I don’t recall his ever saying anything about it.

It’s possible that the gains from amalgamation outweigh the losses from reduced competition. I just don’t know that anybody’s weighed those losses. Or that they’ve considered that the efficiencies from amalgamation may be ephemeral (as was the case in Winnipeg).