Owing to unexpected personal circumstances Bull-chips must cease operation at least in the short to medium term, if not permanently.
I therefore wish to thank everyone who has ever had the interest or the inclination to read the ramblings of this warped and acerbic mind.
It has been a wonderfully educational and cathartic experience which unfortunately cannot continue for the moment.
Hopefully the very existence of this blog has contributed in some small way to the democratic process by at least trying, to help keep the buggers honest and accountable.
If Bull-chips is ever able to resume operations at some future point, we will get the message out there.
Thank you for your interest.
PS. Is that champagne corks that I can hear popping in city hall?
02 July 2009
DIVERSIONARY SPIN
The Nelson City council and it talking parrot the Nelson Mail, also utilise another major piece of diversionary spin to deflect attention away from themselves and their outright rejection of democratic and legislative process.
That diversionary tactic is to characterise their critics as being opposed to each of their pet vested interest projects.
They further characterise that opposition as being anti visionary, anti arts, or anti sport, or anti progress, or whatever label they can hang on their critics, to create dissent and division, in an attempt to hide their own deceit and deception.
But I have never seen any criticism, based simply on any form of anti sentiment or specific dislike, of any community of interest, or of a particular project, per se.
What is being loudly voiced, is total opposition to council's blatant rejection of constitutional democracy, and statute.
What those critics vehemently oppose is the ignoring of legislation, that is involved in imposing their vested interests on the community.
They oppose the insane economics, the pork barreling, the imprudence, the recklessness, the rape of the public purse, the disregard for the economic well being of the ratepayers, all to achieve minority vested interests.
If council actually did things properly and prudently for once, they might even carry the community with them, and their critics might even support those projects.
That diversionary tactic is to characterise their critics as being opposed to each of their pet vested interest projects.
They further characterise that opposition as being anti visionary, anti arts, or anti sport, or anti progress, or whatever label they can hang on their critics, to create dissent and division, in an attempt to hide their own deceit and deception.
But I have never seen any criticism, based simply on any form of anti sentiment or specific dislike, of any community of interest, or of a particular project, per se.
What is being loudly voiced, is total opposition to council's blatant rejection of constitutional democracy, and statute.
What those critics vehemently oppose is the ignoring of legislation, that is involved in imposing their vested interests on the community.
They oppose the insane economics, the pork barreling, the imprudence, the recklessness, the rape of the public purse, the disregard for the economic well being of the ratepayers, all to achieve minority vested interests.
If council actually did things properly and prudently for once, they might even carry the community with them, and their critics might even support those projects.
01 July 2009
DEBT: FIGMENT & SPIN
Is is amazing how the Nelson City council, parroted by the Nelson Mail, continually and deliberately mislead the public about their critics stance, in an attempt to justify and divert attention away from their insane economics.
The prime example of this sleight of hand, is council's repeated mantra that it would be irresponsible for them to accede to their critics demands to stop or reduce capital spending, during the current economic climate, as that would itself hurt both jobs and the economy.
The only problem with that load of old bull chips, is that no critic that I have ever seen or heard, has ever made any such suggestion or demand.
That accusation is outright spin, and a blatant invention of council and its talking parrot.
What the critics have all said, is that it is highly irresponsible of council to expand and increase capital spending by threefold in such tight economic times.
In other words council should contain and restrain its capital expenditure at existing levels, instead of this profligate and unwarranted massive blow out of capital expenditure, purely to satisfy their own vested interests.
It is that totally unnecessary threefold expansion of capital expenditure that the critics consider to be such imprudent economic insanity.
Council claims about their critics demanding, cessation or reduction of capital expenditure, is a deliberate figment of council misdirection and spin.
The prime example of this sleight of hand, is council's repeated mantra that it would be irresponsible for them to accede to their critics demands to stop or reduce capital spending, during the current economic climate, as that would itself hurt both jobs and the economy.
The only problem with that load of old bull chips, is that no critic that I have ever seen or heard, has ever made any such suggestion or demand.
That accusation is outright spin, and a blatant invention of council and its talking parrot.
What the critics have all said, is that it is highly irresponsible of council to expand and increase capital spending by threefold in such tight economic times.
In other words council should contain and restrain its capital expenditure at existing levels, instead of this profligate and unwarranted massive blow out of capital expenditure, purely to satisfy their own vested interests.
It is that totally unnecessary threefold expansion of capital expenditure that the critics consider to be such imprudent economic insanity.
Council claims about their critics demanding, cessation or reduction of capital expenditure, is a deliberate figment of council misdirection and spin.
30 June 2009
THE PUBLIC INTEREST
The vested interests of the Nelson City council and its talking parrot the Nelson Mail, give rise to a stark ethical irony.
The huge irony involved in the interaction between this dangerous coupling, is that the ethics and morals of the concept of "the public interest" and "the public good", get flushed down the gurgler.
The Mail's constant carping at, and putting down of council critics, is problematic to say the least.
If the Mail was properly tending to its own fundamental fourth estate duty and reason for being, of looking after the the public interest and the public good, then the critics would all be out of a job tomorrow.
Instead of running interference for the council and its incompetent economics, the Mail should be taking the lead and denouncing any council profligacy and imprudence, itself. Again, the silence is deafening.
However I suppose it is expecting to much to ask a rabidly left wing media to criticise a rabidly left wing council.
I also expect that it is asking to much of the Mail to criticise one of its own largest customers and paymaster.
And none of this says anything about the councils own ethical duties to the public, to tend to the public good and the public purse with care and prudence.
The huge irony involved in the interaction between this dangerous coupling, is that the ethics and morals of the concept of "the public interest" and "the public good", get flushed down the gurgler.
The Mail's constant carping at, and putting down of council critics, is problematic to say the least.
If the Mail was properly tending to its own fundamental fourth estate duty and reason for being, of looking after the the public interest and the public good, then the critics would all be out of a job tomorrow.
Instead of running interference for the council and its incompetent economics, the Mail should be taking the lead and denouncing any council profligacy and imprudence, itself. Again, the silence is deafening.
However I suppose it is expecting to much to ask a rabidly left wing media to criticise a rabidly left wing council.
I also expect that it is asking to much of the Mail to criticise one of its own largest customers and paymaster.
And none of this says anything about the councils own ethical duties to the public, to tend to the public good and the public purse with care and prudence.
29 June 2009
DEBT: PENIS ENVY
The Nelson City council and its ventriloquists dummy the Nelson Mail, are envious that the Tasman District council is not receiving the same harsh criticism of its proposed debt levels.
The Nelson Mail is parroting its puppet master's concerns, that its critics seem to be treating its paymaster in a biased and unfair manner.
If the Mail took the puppet masters arm out of its intestinal tract for long enough to be able to think for itself, then it would be obvious that the reason that its paymaster is receiving that flack, is not just because of the singular issue of debt alone.
The reason for that flack is instead, the deadly toxic combination of taking a mortgage holiday in conjunction with adopting that level of debt.
If the only way the council can afford to pay for that level of debt, is to stop paying other debts, in other words by taking a mortgage holiday, then the alarm bells should be clamouring throughout the fourth estate. Instead the silence is deafening.
The Tasman council understands the dangerous inter-reaction of that toxic combination and therefore avoids that particular lunacy like the plague.
The reason that the Nelson council so deservedly receives such uneven criticism is that unlike Tasman, it is reckless enough to undertake that very lunacy.
The Nelson Mail is parroting its puppet master's concerns, that its critics seem to be treating its paymaster in a biased and unfair manner.
If the Mail took the puppet masters arm out of its intestinal tract for long enough to be able to think for itself, then it would be obvious that the reason that its paymaster is receiving that flack, is not just because of the singular issue of debt alone.
The reason for that flack is instead, the deadly toxic combination of taking a mortgage holiday in conjunction with adopting that level of debt.
If the only way the council can afford to pay for that level of debt, is to stop paying other debts, in other words by taking a mortgage holiday, then the alarm bells should be clamouring throughout the fourth estate. Instead the silence is deafening.
The Tasman council understands the dangerous inter-reaction of that toxic combination and therefore avoids that particular lunacy like the plague.
The reason that the Nelson council so deservedly receives such uneven criticism is that unlike Tasman, it is reckless enough to undertake that very lunacy.
28 June 2009
DEBT: BEFUDDLEMENT
The Nelson City council must be deeply intoxicated by debt if it is prepared to triple its debt levels based solely on the transparently wrong justification of debt to equity ratio.
Debt to equity ratio is a business model yardstick, that quite simply does not translate to infrastructural government.
That both the council and the Nelson Mail are prepared to justify such indebtedness simply and solely on such flimsy ideology, is an outright condemnation of their economic nous, rather than a defence or justification of it.
Iceland and all the American and European banks and financial institutions and freddie mac, fannie may, Chrysler and General motors, would all have been complying with their debt ratios, when they went down the gurgler.
Banks and financial institutions are required to comply with debt ratios by law, and if they were not, then the boards of those organisations would all be in jail by now.
Economists universally agree that the global finacial crisis has been brought about by that very reliance on such expanding debt, and as a result that debt argument has been comprehensively discredited to such a degree, that globally organisations are scrambling to claw back debt levels to survive.
Council is seriously out of touch with economic reality in attempting to apply that debt ratio justification and in perversely clinging to such badly discredited dogma.
The critics are right to question why council is adopting the very course of action that has brought the rest of the world to its knees.
Debt to equity ratio is a business model yardstick, that quite simply does not translate to infrastructural government.
That both the council and the Nelson Mail are prepared to justify such indebtedness simply and solely on such flimsy ideology, is an outright condemnation of their economic nous, rather than a defence or justification of it.
Iceland and all the American and European banks and financial institutions and freddie mac, fannie may, Chrysler and General motors, would all have been complying with their debt ratios, when they went down the gurgler.
Banks and financial institutions are required to comply with debt ratios by law, and if they were not, then the boards of those organisations would all be in jail by now.
Economists universally agree that the global finacial crisis has been brought about by that very reliance on such expanding debt, and as a result that debt argument has been comprehensively discredited to such a degree, that globally organisations are scrambling to claw back debt levels to survive.
Council is seriously out of touch with economic reality in attempting to apply that debt ratio justification and in perversely clinging to such badly discredited dogma.
The critics are right to question why council is adopting the very course of action that has brought the rest of the world to its knees.
25 June 2009
RATES: DECEIT
The deceit that the Nelson City council is indulging in over rates increase information, is becoming apparent.
This Hands up mob's, come hell or high water, vested interest driven intention, to forcibly impose a PAC on the community, no matter what the cost to the ratepayer, is driving council to extreme lengths of deceit, in their attempts to hide the real level of rates imposition and economic harm, that this hare brained white elephant will inflict.
The LTCCP rates increase data was structured in such a way that it was impossible to understand whether the declared percentage increases were the figures before or after the mortgage holiday manipulation.
The way the data was presented, forced the reader to the conclusion, that the stated rate increase of 12.65% was the figure before manipulation, and that the mortgage holiday sham brought the increase down significantly from that point.
It is now obvious that visual misdirection was involved in that sleight of hand.
It is also clear, that the declared 12.65% figure, was the end figure after manipulation, and the actual underlying rate increase is well in excess of that.
Recent information coming to light indicates that council had actually publicly admitted, that the real rate increase, is in fact 16.00%.
That 16.00% figure certainly fits with the fact, that the general rate increase is in practice, panning out at somewhere between 14.00% and 21.00%.
No wonder they are so desperate to hide that information.
This Hands up mob's, come hell or high water, vested interest driven intention, to forcibly impose a PAC on the community, no matter what the cost to the ratepayer, is driving council to extreme lengths of deceit, in their attempts to hide the real level of rates imposition and economic harm, that this hare brained white elephant will inflict.
The LTCCP rates increase data was structured in such a way that it was impossible to understand whether the declared percentage increases were the figures before or after the mortgage holiday manipulation.
The way the data was presented, forced the reader to the conclusion, that the stated rate increase of 12.65% was the figure before manipulation, and that the mortgage holiday sham brought the increase down significantly from that point.
It is now obvious that visual misdirection was involved in that sleight of hand.
It is also clear, that the declared 12.65% figure, was the end figure after manipulation, and the actual underlying rate increase is well in excess of that.
Recent information coming to light indicates that council had actually publicly admitted, that the real rate increase, is in fact 16.00%.
That 16.00% figure certainly fits with the fact, that the general rate increase is in practice, panning out at somewhere between 14.00% and 21.00%.
No wonder they are so desperate to hide that information.
24 June 2009
ZERO CONSULTATION
It is absolutely amazing how the Nelson City council can just totally ignore the entire statutory planning process when it suits, and when it wants to spend money on its vested interests.
The latest example of this sort of improper expenditure is the Theatre Royal.
Council has approved a couple of million bucks worth of financial committals to the Theatre Royal, without any planning notification or consultation whatsoever.
They have achieved that significant piece of expenditure by adding it, sight unseen into the confirmed LTCCP, without ever declaring that intention to the public, via the draft LTCCP.
Because of that slieght of hand, the public have never been notified, or consulted about that intended expenditure, in total contravention of every part of the legislative planning process.
If that intended expenditure has never been declared in the published draft plan, then clearly the public were kept in the dark about that expenditure, and were thus unable to give any sort of assent, informed or otherwise, silent or otherwise.
This despotic totalitarian council are as usual, giving a one finger salute to democracy.
The latest example of this sort of improper expenditure is the Theatre Royal.
Council has approved a couple of million bucks worth of financial committals to the Theatre Royal, without any planning notification or consultation whatsoever.
They have achieved that significant piece of expenditure by adding it, sight unseen into the confirmed LTCCP, without ever declaring that intention to the public, via the draft LTCCP.
Because of that slieght of hand, the public have never been notified, or consulted about that intended expenditure, in total contravention of every part of the legislative planning process.
If that intended expenditure has never been declared in the published draft plan, then clearly the public were kept in the dark about that expenditure, and were thus unable to give any sort of assent, informed or otherwise, silent or otherwise.
This despotic totalitarian council are as usual, giving a one finger salute to democracy.
23 June 2009
RATES: SHAM
The stark realities of the Nelson City councils Claytons rate increases are now starting to be revealed, with reports coming to light about the size of the individual general rate increases that are being imposed.
Increases that have been heard of so far, are in the range of a staggering 14% to 21% percent.
If this trend of general rate increases, of nothing lower than 14% continues, then that situation is even worse than previously assumed, and is a blunt demonstration of the consequences of that idiotic and unnecessary mortgage holiday.
While the council are crowing about their falsely engineered 3.2% rate increase, the underlying reality is that the underpinning general rate increase, which is the bulk of the rates, is being pushed up at this astonishing speed.
That rate of increase is planned to continue over the next six years, after which council will then start clawing back the postponed charges in addition to increases of this magnitude, which have already been locked into place.
The future rates outlook for Nelson is bleak if this trend is confirmed.
Increases that have been heard of so far, are in the range of a staggering 14% to 21% percent.
If this trend of general rate increases, of nothing lower than 14% continues, then that situation is even worse than previously assumed, and is a blunt demonstration of the consequences of that idiotic and unnecessary mortgage holiday.
While the council are crowing about their falsely engineered 3.2% rate increase, the underlying reality is that the underpinning general rate increase, which is the bulk of the rates, is being pushed up at this astonishing speed.
That rate of increase is planned to continue over the next six years, after which council will then start clawing back the postponed charges in addition to increases of this magnitude, which have already been locked into place.
The future rates outlook for Nelson is bleak if this trend is confirmed.
21 June 2009
DESPOTIC COUNCIL
The Nelson City council is giving a one finger salute to the whole concept of democracy.
Despite the community giving unequivocal directions, by a clear cut majority, about the mortgage holiday and the performing arts centre, this fascist dictatorial council has blatantly rejected those democratic directions out of hand, and is now rowing it own waka on its own course of outright vested interest.
It must now be obvious even to the most obtuse supporters of the hands up flock, that this gang is driven by a conflicted agenda of massive vested interest.
This mob's vested agenda is so heavily in conflict with the very idea of democratic representation and consultation, that they are prepared to openly reject and flout those very constitutional principles of democratic government, in order for their vested interests to prevail over the community's majority wishes and democratic directions.
These autocratic despots cannot be left to run wild with public monies to satiate their every personal whim and desire, while laying waste to the public purse, and imposing such an intolerable and unecessary economic burden on the community.
The quicker this tyrannous rabble can be got rid of the better.
Despite the community giving unequivocal directions, by a clear cut majority, about the mortgage holiday and the performing arts centre, this fascist dictatorial council has blatantly rejected those democratic directions out of hand, and is now rowing it own waka on its own course of outright vested interest.
It must now be obvious even to the most obtuse supporters of the hands up flock, that this gang is driven by a conflicted agenda of massive vested interest.
This mob's vested agenda is so heavily in conflict with the very idea of democratic representation and consultation, that they are prepared to openly reject and flout those very constitutional principles of democratic government, in order for their vested interests to prevail over the community's majority wishes and democratic directions.
These autocratic despots cannot be left to run wild with public monies to satiate their every personal whim and desire, while laying waste to the public purse, and imposing such an intolerable and unecessary economic burden on the community.
The quicker this tyrannous rabble can be got rid of the better.
18 June 2009
LTCCP: SPIN BEGINS
The Nelson City council is already cranking the spin machine into gear in its attempt to hide all the other bits of deceit, that they have already indulged in during during the LTCCP.
That spin has started with the latest issue of council's propaganda rag, Live Nelson, proclaiming that the general rate, will increase by more than 3.2%.
That little gem of a quote will probably join councils now infamous rugby cup quote, that the WRC multi million dollar expenditure exercise, "Could cost more than ZERO".
Well this present rates statement, is in exactly the same vein as its WRC little brother, because the the general rate increase, as declared in the estimates, was actually a planned increase of 12.65%, but now that the overall rate increase has been bumped up slightly, so also will the general rate increase be bumped up slightly, probably to somewhere around 13%.
Wouldn't it be great to be able to drive your own domestic economy with such rose tinted glasses, because, if you did, I suspect that you would not survive for very long, before you got flushed down the dunny.
That spin has started with the latest issue of council's propaganda rag, Live Nelson, proclaiming that the general rate, will increase by more than 3.2%.
That little gem of a quote will probably join councils now infamous rugby cup quote, that the WRC multi million dollar expenditure exercise, "Could cost more than ZERO".
Well this present rates statement, is in exactly the same vein as its WRC little brother, because the the general rate increase, as declared in the estimates, was actually a planned increase of 12.65%, but now that the overall rate increase has been bumped up slightly, so also will the general rate increase be bumped up slightly, probably to somewhere around 13%.
Wouldn't it be great to be able to drive your own domestic economy with such rose tinted glasses, because, if you did, I suspect that you would not survive for very long, before you got flushed down the dunny.
17 June 2009
PAC: MORE CONTEMPT
Wow, the Nelson City council are so contemptuous of the public that they treat us like morons. A cheaper performing arts centre is planned, Yeah right.
Well if thats the case, then council needs to go back to skool and learn some basic mathematics.
Because the public private partnership deal has collapsed around councils ears, means that the ratepayers will now have to pick up the whole tab for the entire project.
The LTCCP made it very clear that the $32.5M cost was just the ratepayers share of the project, with the private partners share being additional to, or on top of that figure.
Now that the private partner has evaporated into thin air, then the ratepayer gets to shoulder the entire burden, of the whole project.
However because council has kept the full cost of the whole project secret, then that figure is an unknown quantity.
But on the presumption that the partnership was an equal partnership, then that figure could have been anywhere up to $65M or more.
Even though the $4M cost of the land purchase might drop out of the equation, that still does not create a cheaper project, no matter what sleight of hand is used.
It is entirely contemptuous of the public for council to even attempt to call that increased cost committment, a price reduction. What a load of bollocks.
In fact the land deal has apparently already soured, and may well become a contractual nightmare, that could end up costing ratepayers dearly.
Well if thats the case, then council needs to go back to skool and learn some basic mathematics.
Because the public private partnership deal has collapsed around councils ears, means that the ratepayers will now have to pick up the whole tab for the entire project.
The LTCCP made it very clear that the $32.5M cost was just the ratepayers share of the project, with the private partners share being additional to, or on top of that figure.
Now that the private partner has evaporated into thin air, then the ratepayer gets to shoulder the entire burden, of the whole project.
However because council has kept the full cost of the whole project secret, then that figure is an unknown quantity.
But on the presumption that the partnership was an equal partnership, then that figure could have been anywhere up to $65M or more.
Even though the $4M cost of the land purchase might drop out of the equation, that still does not create a cheaper project, no matter what sleight of hand is used.
It is entirely contemptuous of the public for council to even attempt to call that increased cost committment, a price reduction. What a load of bollocks.
In fact the land deal has apparently already soured, and may well become a contractual nightmare, that could end up costing ratepayers dearly.
16 June 2009
LTCCP: ARROGANCE
What extreme ignorance and arrogance of the Nelson City council to claim that the public do not understand basic economics and budgeting.
This council claim that they have some sort of god given insight into economics, that mere mortals are not privvy to.
They state that the public cannot apply sound domestic economic fundamentals to council budgeting, and that only they have the ability to perform that sort of black magic.
What a load of old bull chips. This council is made up of lay people that put their pants on one leg at a time, like the rest of us, and no degrees in economics are listed among their ranks.
So what council induction course did they attend that gave them that mystic black knowledge.
Economists throughout history have compared running national and corporate economies with running domestic economies. They have stated time and again that the budgetary principles and skill sets are exactly the same.
Some even say that household economists have a far greater challenge because they do not have the luxury of being able to fall back onto draconian powers of force to take money from other peoples pockets to balance their budget.
The domestic economist also understands the universal truth that one must live within their means, and their budget, and unlike this council, they also fully understand the deadly consequences that will occur if they stop paying their bills.
Stopping payment on council bills will bequeath a terrible legacy upon ratepayers. The bill collector and the bailiff will eventually come knocking, demanding payment.
This council claim that they have some sort of god given insight into economics, that mere mortals are not privvy to.
They state that the public cannot apply sound domestic economic fundamentals to council budgeting, and that only they have the ability to perform that sort of black magic.
What a load of old bull chips. This council is made up of lay people that put their pants on one leg at a time, like the rest of us, and no degrees in economics are listed among their ranks.
So what council induction course did they attend that gave them that mystic black knowledge.
Economists throughout history have compared running national and corporate economies with running domestic economies. They have stated time and again that the budgetary principles and skill sets are exactly the same.
Some even say that household economists have a far greater challenge because they do not have the luxury of being able to fall back onto draconian powers of force to take money from other peoples pockets to balance their budget.
The domestic economist also understands the universal truth that one must live within their means, and their budget, and unlike this council, they also fully understand the deadly consequences that will occur if they stop paying their bills.
Stopping payment on council bills will bequeath a terrible legacy upon ratepayers. The bill collector and the bailiff will eventually come knocking, demanding payment.
15 June 2009
PAC: SECRECY
So, the Nelson City council are playing the secrecy game again.
The performing farce centre arrangements have fallen over, and that is politically embarrassing for council, so they are resorting to secrecy, claiming that the public think that the project is further ahead than it really is.
It is not as far ahead as the public think, because the project has fallen over again, and the public private partnership has evaporated, causing them to return to the drawing board.
But even though it has fallen over again, council are still trying to keep that project locked into the LTCCP, and that is a ridiculous planning sham.
The public private partnership project that was notified in the LTCCP has evaporated and no longer exists, and to pretend otherwise is a planning deceit.
But more importantly, that project cannot be replaced without going through a completely new planning round.
New notification and consultation is required because all the previous parameters and cost sharing and financial arrangements and implications have all so radically changed, that the existing project no longer meets any of the legislative planning requirements.
Because the nature of the project and the cost implications have all so radically changed, council is now required to renotify and reconsult the public before it can insert this new project into the LTCCP.
But it is impossible for council to meet the LTCCP legislative planning requirements to fully inform the ratepayers, if that very information and those very details are being withheld from the public and being kept secret.
The performing farce centre arrangements have fallen over, and that is politically embarrassing for council, so they are resorting to secrecy, claiming that the public think that the project is further ahead than it really is.
It is not as far ahead as the public think, because the project has fallen over again, and the public private partnership has evaporated, causing them to return to the drawing board.
But even though it has fallen over again, council are still trying to keep that project locked into the LTCCP, and that is a ridiculous planning sham.
The public private partnership project that was notified in the LTCCP has evaporated and no longer exists, and to pretend otherwise is a planning deceit.
But more importantly, that project cannot be replaced without going through a completely new planning round.
New notification and consultation is required because all the previous parameters and cost sharing and financial arrangements and implications have all so radically changed, that the existing project no longer meets any of the legislative planning requirements.
Because the nature of the project and the cost implications have all so radically changed, council is now required to renotify and reconsult the public before it can insert this new project into the LTCCP.
But it is impossible for council to meet the LTCCP legislative planning requirements to fully inform the ratepayers, if that very information and those very details are being withheld from the public and being kept secret.
14 June 2009
PAC: TOO FAR AHEAD
So the Nelson City council claims that the public thinks, that the performing arts centre project is more advanced than it really is.
Well whoopty doo. That is a complete load of old double speak that is being trotted out here.
The public are fully entitled to not only presume, but to also know with certainty that this vexed project is a lot further advanced than council is letting on, because legislation requires that it be that advanced, before it can be allowed into the LTCCP.
Those legislative prerequisites demand that the project be advanced to the point that the public are able to be accurately notified as to the full nature of the project, and in particular, to be completely informed of the full cost implications and their detailed impact on the rates burden.
If the project is not advanced enough to meet those specifications, then quite simply it should not be in the LTCCP.
In its indecent and premature haste to commit the community to this project, council has put it into the LTCCP, and as a result, the public are entitled to presume that council are complying with those legislated planning requirements.
After all there is a statutory presumption enshrined in New Zealands constitutional arrangements that requires government to act in accordance with the law at all times.
Well whoopty doo. That is a complete load of old double speak that is being trotted out here.
The public are fully entitled to not only presume, but to also know with certainty that this vexed project is a lot further advanced than council is letting on, because legislation requires that it be that advanced, before it can be allowed into the LTCCP.
Those legislative prerequisites demand that the project be advanced to the point that the public are able to be accurately notified as to the full nature of the project, and in particular, to be completely informed of the full cost implications and their detailed impact on the rates burden.
If the project is not advanced enough to meet those specifications, then quite simply it should not be in the LTCCP.
In its indecent and premature haste to commit the community to this project, council has put it into the LTCCP, and as a result, the public are entitled to presume that council are complying with those legislated planning requirements.
After all there is a statutory presumption enshrined in New Zealands constitutional arrangements that requires government to act in accordance with the law at all times.
11 June 2009
LTCCP: SERIES: 7 of 7
QUESTION.
As stated at the beginning of this mini-series those questions posed were considered to be relevant and compelling questions.
However to conclude, Bullchips would add one further question of its own.
That question is; "If these were the private and personal finances of any Nelson City council individual, would they make exactly the same decisions and use their own monies in exactly the same way they have been prepared to commit public monies?"
The public finance act demands a far higher than normal standard of care and accountability, than any private funds, with those imposed fiduciary duties amounting to a form of risk averse parsimony.
The guardians of any public funds are meant to administer the public purse to a high standard of prudence and care.
The Nelson City council gives scant regard to those standards, and instead treats hard earned public monies in a particularly cavalier manner, for the purpose of funding vested interests and implementing vested agenda.
It is way past time that the public watchdogs savaged this wayward council and brought it under close scrutiny and tight control.
As stated at the beginning of this mini-series those questions posed were considered to be relevant and compelling questions.
However to conclude, Bullchips would add one further question of its own.
That question is; "If these were the private and personal finances of any Nelson City council individual, would they make exactly the same decisions and use their own monies in exactly the same way they have been prepared to commit public monies?"
The public finance act demands a far higher than normal standard of care and accountability, than any private funds, with those imposed fiduciary duties amounting to a form of risk averse parsimony.
The guardians of any public funds are meant to administer the public purse to a high standard of prudence and care.
The Nelson City council gives scant regard to those standards, and instead treats hard earned public monies in a particularly cavalier manner, for the purpose of funding vested interests and implementing vested agenda.
It is way past time that the public watchdogs savaged this wayward council and brought it under close scrutiny and tight control.
10 June 2009
LTCCP: SERIES: 6 of 7
QUESTION.
The most marked demonstration of the toxic nature of the underlying consequences underpinning this mortgage holiday, is the massively disproportionate shift in the share of the funding burden that is shunted onto ratepayer shoulders.
A fundamental rating principle exists that a maximum of only 50% of council's total revenue needs should be raised through rating.
That principle was again confirmed by the recent commission of inquiry into rates. In fact the commission went further and strongly recommended that, that 50% limit, should be reduced even beyond that point.
However this mortgage holiday requires quite the opposite, and the 50% funding limit massively blows out to in excess of 65%.
The word massive is used because that increase is a geometric increase rather than a simple arithmetic increase. Thus the increase is a compounding multiplier, which is in reality, a hugely disproportionate and exponential shift in the funding burden.
What advice has this lay council sought or received as to the sustainability, affordability, prudence, and the many other effects of that magnitude of a shift in the funding burden.
The most marked demonstration of the toxic nature of the underlying consequences underpinning this mortgage holiday, is the massively disproportionate shift in the share of the funding burden that is shunted onto ratepayer shoulders.
A fundamental rating principle exists that a maximum of only 50% of council's total revenue needs should be raised through rating.
That principle was again confirmed by the recent commission of inquiry into rates. In fact the commission went further and strongly recommended that, that 50% limit, should be reduced even beyond that point.
However this mortgage holiday requires quite the opposite, and the 50% funding limit massively blows out to in excess of 65%.
The word massive is used because that increase is a geometric increase rather than a simple arithmetic increase. Thus the increase is a compounding multiplier, which is in reality, a hugely disproportionate and exponential shift in the funding burden.
What advice has this lay council sought or received as to the sustainability, affordability, prudence, and the many other effects of that magnitude of a shift in the funding burden.
09 June 2009
LTCCP: SERIES: 5 of 7
QUESTION.
The worst consequence of this mortgage holiday is via the underlying doubling of rates that is required to underpin and sustain it.
The planned trebling of debt and trebling of interest, imposes funding needs that lock double digit rate increases into place - for at least ten years.
The council estimates reveal underlying rate increases, of the order of 12.65%, 13.29% and 11.06% - underpinning this mortgage holiday.
However the government has repeatedly announced that double digit rate increases are wholly unacceptable. The government has also loudly signalled its intention to introduce an inflation based rates cap.
When that rates cap is imposed, the double digit rate increases, already locked into place, will not be able to be realised, and will instantly become a deficit.
Those double digit rate increases will turn into minus or negative rate increases, and will be deficit funded.
What expert advice or report has this lay council sought or received on the economic and financial consequences, of having double digit, deficit rates funding, locked into place, for at least ten years?
The worst consequence of this mortgage holiday is via the underlying doubling of rates that is required to underpin and sustain it.
The planned trebling of debt and trebling of interest, imposes funding needs that lock double digit rate increases into place - for at least ten years.
The council estimates reveal underlying rate increases, of the order of 12.65%, 13.29% and 11.06% - underpinning this mortgage holiday.
However the government has repeatedly announced that double digit rate increases are wholly unacceptable. The government has also loudly signalled its intention to introduce an inflation based rates cap.
When that rates cap is imposed, the double digit rate increases, already locked into place, will not be able to be realised, and will instantly become a deficit.
Those double digit rate increases will turn into minus or negative rate increases, and will be deficit funded.
What expert advice or report has this lay council sought or received on the economic and financial consequences, of having double digit, deficit rates funding, locked into place, for at least ten years?
08 June 2009
LTCCP: SERIES: 4 of 7
QUESTION.
Unanimous economic advice, publicly warns that disproportionate and counterproductive costs are well known consequences of taking mortgage holidays.
Given the certainty of that expert public advice, what steps has this council taken to appraise itself of, and quantify, those certain and inevitable consequences?
A cursory analysis of the estimates reveals the inevitable consequences underlying and underpinning this mortgage holiday. In round figures they are essentially - a tripling of debt, a tripling of interest, and a doubling of rates.
What advice was sought or received by this lay council, to quantify and consider the costs and consequences, of the inevitable underpinning effects, caused by this radical action?
What cost benefit analysis was undertaken prior to approval - as required by legislation?
Where are the reports briefing this lay council on the costs, consequences, affordability, and sustainability of such major increases in debt, interest, and rates?
Unanimous economic advice, publicly warns that disproportionate and counterproductive costs are well known consequences of taking mortgage holidays.
Given the certainty of that expert public advice, what steps has this council taken to appraise itself of, and quantify, those certain and inevitable consequences?
A cursory analysis of the estimates reveals the inevitable consequences underlying and underpinning this mortgage holiday. In round figures they are essentially - a tripling of debt, a tripling of interest, and a doubling of rates.
What advice was sought or received by this lay council, to quantify and consider the costs and consequences, of the inevitable underpinning effects, caused by this radical action?
What cost benefit analysis was undertaken prior to approval - as required by legislation?
Where are the reports briefing this lay council on the costs, consequences, affordability, and sustainability of such major increases in debt, interest, and rates?
07 June 2009
LTCCP: SERIES: 3 of 7
QUESTION.
Not a single economist has been reported in NZ or Australian media, as being in favour of suspending loan repayments, other than as an instrument of absolute last resort.
Economists call these mortgage holidays, "Holidays from Hell", and have all strongly recommended against them, unless such dire financial difficulties exist, that there is nowhere else to turn.
The logic given for that advice is that the costs of taking such draconian action, are generally so disproportionate and counter productive, that it can actually bring about a ruinous opposite outcome, rather than the intended rescue.
Given this unanimous expert advice, then what dire financial difficulties of last resort, exist with the public purse, that forces council to take this radical action, which will impose such disproportionate and counter productive costs onto ratepayers?
What advice has this lay council sought or received, that justifies and causes them to discard such such compelling expert counsel, and dismiss it out of hand?
Not a single economist has been reported in NZ or Australian media, as being in favour of suspending loan repayments, other than as an instrument of absolute last resort.
Economists call these mortgage holidays, "Holidays from Hell", and have all strongly recommended against them, unless such dire financial difficulties exist, that there is nowhere else to turn.
The logic given for that advice is that the costs of taking such draconian action, are generally so disproportionate and counter productive, that it can actually bring about a ruinous opposite outcome, rather than the intended rescue.
Given this unanimous expert advice, then what dire financial difficulties of last resort, exist with the public purse, that forces council to take this radical action, which will impose such disproportionate and counter productive costs onto ratepayers?
What advice has this lay council sought or received, that justifies and causes them to discard such such compelling expert counsel, and dismiss it out of hand?
04 June 2009
LTCCP: SERIES: 2 of 7
QUESTION.
World economists unanimously declare that the root cause of the global economic crisis is the all pervasive reliance on debt - and in particular, incessantly escalating levels of debt, being used to sustain economic performance and growth.
Faced with this collective wisdom, identifying the root cause of this universal collapse of national and corporate economies, administrations everywhere are desperately scrambling to claw back and reduce debt to proper, principled levels.
That being so, then what expert economic advice, has this lay council sought or received, which justifies it, to so comprehensively reject and refuse that collective expert wisdom, and to instead, perversely increase debt levels by over 300%?
What advice has this lay council received that gives it the assurance and certainty to embark upon the very course of action that has brought the rest of the world to its knees?
World economists unanimously declare that the root cause of the global economic crisis is the all pervasive reliance on debt - and in particular, incessantly escalating levels of debt, being used to sustain economic performance and growth.
Faced with this collective wisdom, identifying the root cause of this universal collapse of national and corporate economies, administrations everywhere are desperately scrambling to claw back and reduce debt to proper, principled levels.
That being so, then what expert economic advice, has this lay council sought or received, which justifies it, to so comprehensively reject and refuse that collective expert wisdom, and to instead, perversely increase debt levels by over 300%?
What advice has this lay council received that gives it the assurance and certainty to embark upon the very course of action that has brought the rest of the world to its knees?
03 June 2009
LTCCP: SERIES: 1 of 7
DUTY BOUND
The Nelson City council has stated in writing that it has neither sought nor received any advice or reports on its mortgage holiday decision.
All boards of governance are legally, and duty bound, to seek all the advice and information necessary, to properly and fully inform themselves, before taking any decision, on any matter, outside of their own expertise or cognisance.
That precautionary best practice is an absolute duty, particularly when member's funds, and liabilities are at risk.
Disregard of those fundamenatal fiduciary duties and best practice obligations, whether by omission or comission, is by definition imprudent, negligent, and reckless.
This council mortgage holiday decision flies in the face of the collective wisdom of economic experts, and without the production of any credible advice to the contrary, must be regarded as entirely arbitrary, whimsical, and ill-informed
The Nelson City council has stated in writing that it has neither sought nor received any advice or reports on its mortgage holiday decision.
All boards of governance are legally, and duty bound, to seek all the advice and information necessary, to properly and fully inform themselves, before taking any decision, on any matter, outside of their own expertise or cognisance.
That precautionary best practice is an absolute duty, particularly when member's funds, and liabilities are at risk.
Disregard of those fundamenatal fiduciary duties and best practice obligations, whether by omission or comission, is by definition imprudent, negligent, and reckless.
This council mortgage holiday decision flies in the face of the collective wisdom of economic experts, and without the production of any credible advice to the contrary, must be regarded as entirely arbitrary, whimsical, and ill-informed
02 June 2009
LTCCP: DUTY BOUND
The Nelson City council has confirmed in writing that it has not taken any economic or financial advice about its decision to take a mortgage holiday; a decision which imposes a trebling of debt, a trebling of interest and a doubling of rates.
One organisation has just publicly released its submission to the LTCCP which canvasses the view that council was ethically and duty bound to take advice.
The submission expresses its stance on that duty and then poses five questions with regard to council's actions, which it deduces, are entirely whimsical.
That stance and those questions are so relevant and compelling, that bullchips will repeat them verbatim over the next six blogs
One organisation has just publicly released its submission to the LTCCP which canvasses the view that council was ethically and duty bound to take advice.
The submission expresses its stance on that duty and then poses five questions with regard to council's actions, which it deduces, are entirely whimsical.
That stance and those questions are so relevant and compelling, that bullchips will repeat them verbatim over the next six blogs
01 June 2009
PAC: RESURRECTIONS
It appears that the Nelson City council has secretly resurrected the Millenium trust, to put pressure on the TDC, to join the performing arts centre fiasco.
The trust's functions and commitments had long ago, been taken over by, and absorbed into the council.
However submissions were recently being made to the TDC, under the name of the Millenium Trust.
Those submissions were demanding that the TDC participate in and provide, significant funding for the PAC financial albatross.
If the Millenium trust has been resurrected, and is now alive and well, then presumably its ten million dollar funding committment, is also resurrected and alive and well.
Yippee! Ten million bucks less, for the ratepayers to get suckered into.
The trust's functions and commitments had long ago, been taken over by, and absorbed into the council.
However submissions were recently being made to the TDC, under the name of the Millenium Trust.
Those submissions were demanding that the TDC participate in and provide, significant funding for the PAC financial albatross.
If the Millenium trust has been resurrected, and is now alive and well, then presumably its ten million dollar funding committment, is also resurrected and alive and well.
Yippee! Ten million bucks less, for the ratepayers to get suckered into.
28 May 2009
WRC: SET IN CONCRETE
The Nelson City council keep claiming that no decision has been made about hosting the world rugby cup. Yeah right! Does this council really think that the public are gullible enough to swallow that dead rat.
Well it has now been officially confirmed, that those council claims are not worth the paper they are written on, and that this council couldnt lie straight in bed if it tried.
Since when does the government announce in its budget, the hand-out of $1.5 million dollars worth of taxpayer funds, to something that does not exist.
So when the government prominently announces, that very $1.5 million dollar handout to the council, it clearly gives the lie to those claims that no world cup decision will be made until after consultation with the public.
The strings attached to that government largesse confirm the fallacy and deception of council claims.
Those caveats restrain the application of that handout, to spending only for hosting the world cup, and confirmation of the application of that money, strictly to world cup hosting, must be authenticated by the world cup ministers tick of approval.
If this is not a concrete case of outright predetermination then nothing is.
Well it has now been officially confirmed, that those council claims are not worth the paper they are written on, and that this council couldnt lie straight in bed if it tried.
Since when does the government announce in its budget, the hand-out of $1.5 million dollars worth of taxpayer funds, to something that does not exist.
So when the government prominently announces, that very $1.5 million dollar handout to the council, it clearly gives the lie to those claims that no world cup decision will be made until after consultation with the public.
The strings attached to that government largesse confirm the fallacy and deception of council claims.
Those caveats restrain the application of that handout, to spending only for hosting the world cup, and confirmation of the application of that money, strictly to world cup hosting, must be authenticated by the world cup ministers tick of approval.
If this is not a concrete case of outright predetermination then nothing is.
27 May 2009
LTTCP: IDIOTIC MATHS
The brazenness of the Nelson City council's deceit, shown in the rate increase information in its plans and estimates, is breathtaking in its audacity.
Depending on which set of figures you use from the estimates, as they are all different, but they all similarly declare a near doubling of rates over the ten year period of the plan.
Consequently there is a fundamental underlying double digit annual rate increase, underpinning this LTCCP.
For example the estimates declare rate increases in the order of 12.65%, 13.29%, and 11.06% as inherent to this plan.
But even those figures do not tell the whole truth, because even at those stated levels, the total of all ten individual rate increases does not add up to anywhere near the ten year total rate increase.
All ten annual rate increases only add up to around 65% of the ten year total increase.
If the rate increases after massage by the mortgage holiday are used, the discrepancy is even more startling.
The total of those individual rate increases only adds up to just on 50% of the ten year total rate increase.
This proposed mortgage holiday is simply a subterfuge to hide a marked increase in spending, a trebling of debt, a trebling of interest payments and a doubling of rates.
The severe reality of those numbers is being hidden by this sleight of hand. Council are obscuring these untenable rate increases by using a barrage of different figures that dont appear anywhere in the plans or estimates.
It is councils responsibility to tranparently inform ratepayers, not to deceive them by pulling the wool over their eyes.
Depending on which set of figures you use from the estimates, as they are all different, but they all similarly declare a near doubling of rates over the ten year period of the plan.
Consequently there is a fundamental underlying double digit annual rate increase, underpinning this LTCCP.
For example the estimates declare rate increases in the order of 12.65%, 13.29%, and 11.06% as inherent to this plan.
But even those figures do not tell the whole truth, because even at those stated levels, the total of all ten individual rate increases does not add up to anywhere near the ten year total rate increase.
All ten annual rate increases only add up to around 65% of the ten year total increase.
If the rate increases after massage by the mortgage holiday are used, the discrepancy is even more startling.
The total of those individual rate increases only adds up to just on 50% of the ten year total rate increase.
This proposed mortgage holiday is simply a subterfuge to hide a marked increase in spending, a trebling of debt, a trebling of interest payments and a doubling of rates.
The severe reality of those numbers is being hidden by this sleight of hand. Council are obscuring these untenable rate increases by using a barrage of different figures that dont appear anywhere in the plans or estimates.
It is councils responsibility to tranparently inform ratepayers, not to deceive them by pulling the wool over their eyes.
26 May 2009
PAC: CONTEMPTUOUS
The Nelson City council are treating the public like fools with their ongoing claims that the performing arts centre will bring economic salvation to the region.
Recently repeated claims of economic nirvana, treat the public with contempt, and getting that huge old breeding sow of a porky, to take off and get airborne, flies in the face of both aerodynamics and gravity, and is an outright deceit.
Council has never quantified that economic flight of fantasy. It has never provided any figures or financial projections to justify their ridiculous claims of huge economic benefit.
Council has not provided any such justification because it knows, that those claims are simply not true.
Council is budgeting $1.1 million dollars per annum, for operating expenses, while making no provision at all for any counter balancing operating income or revenue.
That being the case then it is clear that this project is being proceeded with on the basis of entirely illiterate, artistic, and economic nonsense and wishfull fantasy, rather than any detailed professional analysis of cold hard reality.
If this massively expensive project is not based on any hard economic reality, then it can only be regarded as an entirely reckless application of public funds.
If the council do not know what the financial consequences of this white elephant are, then how can they fulfill their legislative obligations to notify the pubilic of those consequences.
The ancient mariner would be proud to wear this particular albatross around his neck.
Recently repeated claims of economic nirvana, treat the public with contempt, and getting that huge old breeding sow of a porky, to take off and get airborne, flies in the face of both aerodynamics and gravity, and is an outright deceit.
Council has never quantified that economic flight of fantasy. It has never provided any figures or financial projections to justify their ridiculous claims of huge economic benefit.
Council has not provided any such justification because it knows, that those claims are simply not true.
Council is budgeting $1.1 million dollars per annum, for operating expenses, while making no provision at all for any counter balancing operating income or revenue.
That being the case then it is clear that this project is being proceeded with on the basis of entirely illiterate, artistic, and economic nonsense and wishfull fantasy, rather than any detailed professional analysis of cold hard reality.
If this massively expensive project is not based on any hard economic reality, then it can only be regarded as an entirely reckless application of public funds.
If the council do not know what the financial consequences of this white elephant are, then how can they fulfill their legislative obligations to notify the pubilic of those consequences.
The ancient mariner would be proud to wear this particular albatross around his neck.
25 May 2009
OPERA: OUT OF CONTROL
Clearly, the Nelson City council opera in the dark, is still being kept firmly in the fiscal dark, and financial planning for that event, is an entrepreneurial deception from start to finish.
Council has been asked two years in a row what budgetary controls it intends imposing, to bring this Beckham look alike event, under proper control.
There has still been no answer given to that question, and it appears that council still does not intend reining in, this out of control beast, and with sponsorship pulling out, there is a distinct possibility that the organisers will go for broke, on one last extravaganza, before the plug is pulled.
It is therefore timely to once again demand an answer to the question of what budgetary controls council intends imposing, before this sponsorship vacuum is just filled by an even greater loss and imposition on ratepayers pockets.
With operational costs of around a quarter of a million dollars plus considerable staff costs, weighed against an operational income of only around eighty thousand dollars, this event is a business, budgetary, entrepreneurial, and promotional farce.
No wonder private promoters wont touch it, and if the council is foolish enough to run such a financial cot case of an event, then the private promoters will just sit back and laugh and cream off all the agency, finders and other fees instead.
This event must be cut and tailored according to its cloth. A proper budget must be set, and the organisers must be handcuffed to, and controlled within that budget.
If that is not possible, then this event must be ditched, and consigned to history.
Council has been asked two years in a row what budgetary controls it intends imposing, to bring this Beckham look alike event, under proper control.
There has still been no answer given to that question, and it appears that council still does not intend reining in, this out of control beast, and with sponsorship pulling out, there is a distinct possibility that the organisers will go for broke, on one last extravaganza, before the plug is pulled.
It is therefore timely to once again demand an answer to the question of what budgetary controls council intends imposing, before this sponsorship vacuum is just filled by an even greater loss and imposition on ratepayers pockets.
With operational costs of around a quarter of a million dollars plus considerable staff costs, weighed against an operational income of only around eighty thousand dollars, this event is a business, budgetary, entrepreneurial, and promotional farce.
No wonder private promoters wont touch it, and if the council is foolish enough to run such a financial cot case of an event, then the private promoters will just sit back and laugh and cream off all the agency, finders and other fees instead.
This event must be cut and tailored according to its cloth. A proper budget must be set, and the organisers must be handcuffed to, and controlled within that budget.
If that is not possible, then this event must be ditched, and consigned to history.
24 May 2009
LTCCP: BLACKMAIL
The Nelson City council is resorting to blackmail in their attempt to defend the indefensible, of this mortgage holiday insanity.
In response to growing criticism, council are now claiming that not taking that holiday to hell, will require council to rip many millions of dollars worth of capital expenditure [capex] out of the LTCCP, which seriously hurts the local economy.
That is a ship load of absolute bull chips, which comprehensively demonstrates this council's abysmal ignorance of proper capital planning.
This holiday from hell, is in fact, the sleight of hand that is required, to hide a massive increase in capex and rates, rather than to avoid any decrease in capex.
If that mortgage holiday did not exist, the huge and unacceptable, underlying rate increases, underpinning that increased capex would be out in the open and ratepayers would be howling from the roof tops in protest.
The real problem underlying this whole issue, is that this "hands up" council knows that it is only a one term council, and it is therefore attempting to lock its vested interest spending agenda into place, before being given the heave ho.
Council is cramming ten years worth of capital expenditure into three years, and then contractually locking that expenditure into place, to kneecap any future ability to alter that spending agenda or massage it into any semblance of prudence.
The claim that millions need to be ripped out of this plan is absolute hogswash and rubbish.
If that planned capex is introduced evenly, and spread out consistently over the entire ten year period of the plan, then there are no unacceptable rate increases to hide, and the need for a mortgage holiday disappears.
Instead of massively cramming everything into the beginning of the plan, any responsible captain of a ship of state, would be steering a prudent, steady as she goes course, rather than an entirely distorted and erratic course, which gives the impression that whoever is at the helm is intoxicated.
In response to growing criticism, council are now claiming that not taking that holiday to hell, will require council to rip many millions of dollars worth of capital expenditure [capex] out of the LTCCP, which seriously hurts the local economy.
That is a ship load of absolute bull chips, which comprehensively demonstrates this council's abysmal ignorance of proper capital planning.
This holiday from hell, is in fact, the sleight of hand that is required, to hide a massive increase in capex and rates, rather than to avoid any decrease in capex.
If that mortgage holiday did not exist, the huge and unacceptable, underlying rate increases, underpinning that increased capex would be out in the open and ratepayers would be howling from the roof tops in protest.
The real problem underlying this whole issue, is that this "hands up" council knows that it is only a one term council, and it is therefore attempting to lock its vested interest spending agenda into place, before being given the heave ho.
Council is cramming ten years worth of capital expenditure into three years, and then contractually locking that expenditure into place, to kneecap any future ability to alter that spending agenda or massage it into any semblance of prudence.
The claim that millions need to be ripped out of this plan is absolute hogswash and rubbish.
If that planned capex is introduced evenly, and spread out consistently over the entire ten year period of the plan, then there are no unacceptable rate increases to hide, and the need for a mortgage holiday disappears.
Instead of massively cramming everything into the beginning of the plan, any responsible captain of a ship of state, would be steering a prudent, steady as she goes course, rather than an entirely distorted and erratic course, which gives the impression that whoever is at the helm is intoxicated.
20 May 2009
LTCCP: AUDIT PORKIES
The Nelson City council is mounting such a desperate rearguard defence of its imprudent debt and mortgage holiday policies, that it has got so many squadrons of flying porkies airborne, that the sky is pink with them; and leading that airborne armada is the chief porky that claims the auditors have given approval to those ruinous policies.
Yes the auditors have audited the LTCCP, but that audit is not a normal audit. It is a special type of audit examining assurance engagements, which the auditors have most significantly plastered two major disclaimers all over.
Those two audit disclaimers explicitly state,
For a lay Council to so radically reject and depart from such universally established economic thinking, on debt and mortgage holidays, without taking any appropriate economic advice; is by definition grossly imprudent and negligent.
Further if council really think, that their radical rejection of accepted economic thinking is actually approved by the auditors, then they need to sack them and find themselves some new auditors who understand the definition of prudent.
Yes the auditors have audited the LTCCP, but that audit is not a normal audit. It is a special type of audit examining assurance engagements, which the auditors have most significantly plastered two major disclaimers all over.
Those two audit disclaimers explicitly state,
"It is not our responsibility to express an opinion on the merits of any policy content within [the LTCCP]."Thus for council to claim that some form of inherent acceptance or approval of those debt and mortgage holiday polices, is built into or intrinisic to that audit, is just palpable nonsense.
"We do not guarantee complete accuracy of the information in [the LTCCP]."
For a lay Council to so radically reject and depart from such universally established economic thinking, on debt and mortgage holidays, without taking any appropriate economic advice; is by definition grossly imprudent and negligent.
Further if council really think, that their radical rejection of accepted economic thinking is actually approved by the auditors, then they need to sack them and find themselves some new auditors who understand the definition of prudent.
19 May 2009
LTCCP: PURE PORKIES
It has become crystal clear that one hand of the Nelson City council hasn't got a clue what it's other hand is doing.
Councils left hand is abusing and accusing every man and his dog, claiming that they have provided the requested data, about the financial consequences of taking their ridiculously dangerous mortgage holiday of last resort.
But another day on, and this very information has still not been provided. Instead council's right hand has categoricaly denied that any such information exists and, nor has any been researched, prepared, released or provided to anyone inside council, let alone anyone outside council.
Yesterday council released another statement saying that,
It is now patently obvious that no such data exists, and if that is the case then clearly council had, and still has, absolutely no understanding or appreciation of the ruinous financial consequences and implications of this catastrophic holiday from hell or this ruinous LTTCP.
At the very least, that ignorance is disastrously imprudent, let alone in breach of the legislative requirements.
Council are putting up smoke screens everywhere and their wide spread abuse of all and sundry, is a telling symptom and indication, that they have neglected, and are in default of their required fidicuary duties and responsibilities.
This council must now either ditch this negligent and stunningly irresponsible and totally unnecessary, $112 million dollar disaster, or resign.
Councils left hand is abusing and accusing every man and his dog, claiming that they have provided the requested data, about the financial consequences of taking their ridiculously dangerous mortgage holiday of last resort.
But another day on, and this very information has still not been provided. Instead council's right hand has categoricaly denied that any such information exists and, nor has any been researched, prepared, released or provided to anyone inside council, let alone anyone outside council.
Yesterday council released another statement saying that,
"[Council] have never provided the information [that has been] asked for as it would be a major exercise as it was continually changing."So who is telling the flying porkies in this saga, council's left hand or their right hand.
It is now patently obvious that no such data exists, and if that is the case then clearly council had, and still has, absolutely no understanding or appreciation of the ruinous financial consequences and implications of this catastrophic holiday from hell or this ruinous LTTCP.
At the very least, that ignorance is disastrously imprudent, let alone in breach of the legislative requirements.
Council are putting up smoke screens everywhere and their wide spread abuse of all and sundry, is a telling symptom and indication, that they have neglected, and are in default of their required fidicuary duties and responsibilities.
This council must now either ditch this negligent and stunningly irresponsible and totally unnecessary, $112 million dollar disaster, or resign.
18 May 2009
LTTCP: DEVILS RANSOM
Wow, the Nelson City council are so desperate to keep the financial consequences of their idiotic holiday to hell secret, they are now resorting to name calling and plain old abuse.
In reply to a simple and legitimate information request, as to what the costs and financial consequences of their proposed mortgage holiday were, council quite arrogantly and improperly stated,
Even further they point blank refuse to do so. But why. Why the secrecy? What is going on? What is so difficult about providing such a simple piece of information?
Well the cat is now well and truly out of the bag. The Nelson Mail has just provided that very piece of data that the city council has been so deperately trying to hide.
In its page 3 article of the 18th of May, the Nelson Mail unequivocally states that,
That is a stunning revelation of reckless financial adventurism, for which there is no purpose whatsoever, and for which there can be no justification whatsoever.
So the real price of this pact with the devil has been revealed. The cost of the devils ransom is quite simply $112 million dollars.
No wonder council was trying to hide that information.
In reply to a simple and legitimate information request, as to what the costs and financial consequences of their proposed mortgage holiday were, council quite arrogantly and improperly stated,
"It would be a huge exercise to work this [information] out, and [they] do not have the time. It would mean reworking the whole estimates".To this very moment council have still not provided that information, which is a requisite of the LTCCP.
Even further they point blank refuse to do so. But why. Why the secrecy? What is going on? What is so difficult about providing such a simple piece of information?
Well the cat is now well and truly out of the bag. The Nelson Mail has just provided that very piece of data that the city council has been so deperately trying to hide.
In its page 3 article of the 18th of May, the Nelson Mail unequivocally states that,
"Withholding repayments will increase debt, currently at $57 million, to a maximum in 2013-14, of $169 million.So there it is, openly stated, in black and white, that this totally unwarranted and ridiculous mortgage holiday, is going to cost ratepayers a staggering $112 million dollars for that stupid piece of unnecessary financial slieght of hand.
That is a stunning revelation of reckless financial adventurism, for which there is no purpose whatsoever, and for which there can be no justification whatsoever.
So the real price of this pact with the devil has been revealed. The cost of the devils ransom is quite simply $112 million dollars.
No wonder council was trying to hide that information.
17 May 2009
LTCCP: DEVIL'S PACT
So why is the Nelson City council signing up with the devil for a mortgage holiday to hell, and is it a one way ticket, or a return journey.
If every economist known, accepts that these debt holidays are such toxic financial instruments of last resort, and all so unanimously recommend against them, then why is this council, against all sensible advice, so foolishly adopting this highly imprudent course of action.
It is obvious that something is driving this unwise and ill-considered action. What is going on. Is council going broke or what?
One reason for this mortgage holiday is that council are trying to disguise the true level of rates increase, that is about to be imposed on ratepayers. The real level of rates increase that this LTCCP is hiding is quite astonishing.
Council admits that the actual increase for the general rate AFTER mortgage holiday manipulation, is 12.65%, and if that is the case, then what was it BEFORE that manipulation, probably closer to, if not more than a whopping 20%.
As an example water rates were meant to increase significantly this year, because the previous smoothing loan had expired, however after mortgage holiday manipulation water rate increases were reduced to minus 4.84%.
If this is the size of the manipulation that is being wrought by this mortgage holiday, then a similar size shift in the increase to the general rate, would put that underlying increase to the general rate into astronomical orbit.
The actual underlying rate increases hidden in this LTCCP, are probably somewhere in the vicinity of 20% or more, but those figures are being kept secret from ratepayers.
These sorts of costs are the actual underlying implications and consequences for ratepayers, and such profligate spending has to catch up with the ratepayer at some point. The credit card has to be paid for sooner or later.
When the devil comes calling, to demand payment for this pact, it will literally cost ratepayers a devils ransom.
If every economist known, accepts that these debt holidays are such toxic financial instruments of last resort, and all so unanimously recommend against them, then why is this council, against all sensible advice, so foolishly adopting this highly imprudent course of action.
It is obvious that something is driving this unwise and ill-considered action. What is going on. Is council going broke or what?
One reason for this mortgage holiday is that council are trying to disguise the true level of rates increase, that is about to be imposed on ratepayers. The real level of rates increase that this LTCCP is hiding is quite astonishing.
Council admits that the actual increase for the general rate AFTER mortgage holiday manipulation, is 12.65%, and if that is the case, then what was it BEFORE that manipulation, probably closer to, if not more than a whopping 20%.
As an example water rates were meant to increase significantly this year, because the previous smoothing loan had expired, however after mortgage holiday manipulation water rate increases were reduced to minus 4.84%.
If this is the size of the manipulation that is being wrought by this mortgage holiday, then a similar size shift in the increase to the general rate, would put that underlying increase to the general rate into astronomical orbit.
The actual underlying rate increases hidden in this LTCCP, are probably somewhere in the vicinity of 20% or more, but those figures are being kept secret from ratepayers.
These sorts of costs are the actual underlying implications and consequences for ratepayers, and such profligate spending has to catch up with the ratepayer at some point. The credit card has to be paid for sooner or later.
When the devil comes calling, to demand payment for this pact, it will literally cost ratepayers a devils ransom.
14 May 2009
OPERA: ARROGANCE
The Nelson City council demonstrates breathtaking arrogance in castigating its own ratepayers, for demanding that the proper financial controls and disciplines, required by the Public Finance Act, be applied to council's out of control, opera and arts and events spending.
Councils extremely churlish position that ratepayers are not able to understand the value of this arts and events spending, instead demonstrates its own grossly ignorant lack of understanding of the proper governance of public funds.
The public understand only too well the value of things, such as those necessities, like clean drinking water, and sanitary waste disposal, etc; and if push came to shove, these less essential and discretionary arts activities, come a very distant second in the funding stakes.
If council applied the same funding criteria to water and sewage as it does to opera then there would be a 300% discount applied to cost, and at that rate council would be paying us to take those services or would be putting rates refund cheques in the mail. Yeah right.
Arts and events spending does not have some patronised privileged position and like all council services, is required to be funded on a self supporting basis, and must also stand in the queue, along with every body else.
It is blatantly obvious that council events funding is being applied whimsically and disproportionately, to satisfy widespread vested interests within council, and to such an extent, that it is at best, political patronage, or at worst a widespread conflict of interest.
Councils extremely churlish position that ratepayers are not able to understand the value of this arts and events spending, instead demonstrates its own grossly ignorant lack of understanding of the proper governance of public funds.
The public understand only too well the value of things, such as those necessities, like clean drinking water, and sanitary waste disposal, etc; and if push came to shove, these less essential and discretionary arts activities, come a very distant second in the funding stakes.
If council applied the same funding criteria to water and sewage as it does to opera then there would be a 300% discount applied to cost, and at that rate council would be paying us to take those services or would be putting rates refund cheques in the mail. Yeah right.
Arts and events spending does not have some patronised privileged position and like all council services, is required to be funded on a self supporting basis, and must also stand in the queue, along with every body else.
It is blatantly obvious that council events funding is being applied whimsically and disproportionately, to satisfy widespread vested interests within council, and to such an extent, that it is at best, political patronage, or at worst a widespread conflict of interest.
13 May 2009
LTCCP: NEGLIGENT?
While the Nelson City council's LTCCP is an outright financial disaster for the city, it now appears that it is a negligent and or incompetent disaster to boot.
The legislatively required and fundamental purpose of an LTCCP, is to notify and inform the ratepayers of the detailed financial implications and consequences of the councils intentions.
While Council is proposing to triple debt, triple interest payments, double the rate take, and geometrically increase the rates ratio burden to a massive 65%, it has just admitted that it has not commissioned, sought, taken, or received any advice as to the financial or economic implications and consequences of those highly imprudent intentions.
This staggering admission is an open acknowledgement that council has flagrantly ignored and abrogated its legislated fiscal obligations and responsibilities and that blatant ignoring of its fiduciary duties, whether by ommission or commission, can only be classified as negligent or incompetent or negligent incompetence.
If this council does not know, or want to know, or understand, the fraught consequences of its proposed actions and intends pushing on in the face of ignorance of those disastrous implications, then it must be sacked and removed from office, and a commissioner appointed in its place.
The very first action of that commissioner, must be to revoke this ruinous LTCCP and put a prudent financial plan in its place.
This LTCCP is a financial catastrophe, that must be stopped in its tracks.
The legislatively required and fundamental purpose of an LTCCP, is to notify and inform the ratepayers of the detailed financial implications and consequences of the councils intentions.
While Council is proposing to triple debt, triple interest payments, double the rate take, and geometrically increase the rates ratio burden to a massive 65%, it has just admitted that it has not commissioned, sought, taken, or received any advice as to the financial or economic implications and consequences of those highly imprudent intentions.
This staggering admission is an open acknowledgement that council has flagrantly ignored and abrogated its legislated fiscal obligations and responsibilities and that blatant ignoring of its fiduciary duties, whether by ommission or commission, can only be classified as negligent or incompetent or negligent incompetence.
If this council does not know, or want to know, or understand, the fraught consequences of its proposed actions and intends pushing on in the face of ignorance of those disastrous implications, then it must be sacked and removed from office, and a commissioner appointed in its place.
The very first action of that commissioner, must be to revoke this ruinous LTCCP and put a prudent financial plan in its place.
This LTCCP is a financial catastrophe, that must be stopped in its tracks.
12 May 2009
OPERA: TAP DANCING
Wow, the Nelson City council is so desperate to hide the true losses of the Opera in the Dark, that it is going to extreme lengths to deceive the public.
Council is treating the public with such contempt that it is prepared to grossly fudge the figures, in its attempts to turn that financial flying pigs ear of an event into some form of economic silk lined public purse.
Those figures are outright bulldust. Council are claiming a $16,000 loss, but that figure is nonsensical flying hogs wash. That loss does not declare or take into account the costs of council staff time, that was supposedly donated to the event.
That statement alone is an outright deception. Staff costs are a direct and real cost to the ratepayer, therefore it must be accounted for as a very real expense to the event and a very real expense to the ratepayer.
As for cross crediting underspends in other budgets as some form of loss prevention income, is the most creative accounting ever seen, and is just barefaced tap dancing. That is still a direct cost and loss, no matter which pocket it comes out of.
This event has so far, declared expenditure of $233,000 plus staff time, with income of just $78,000, and that is clearly an operating loss of $155,000 plus staff time.
Even with sponsorship and other grants of $89,000 included, to arrive at the overall balance for the event, there is still a $66,000, plus staff time, loss to be accounted for.
To claim those figures as only a $16,000 loss is simply contemptuous of the public, and obviously the true losses of this charade have yet to be revealed.
Council is treating the public with such contempt that it is prepared to grossly fudge the figures, in its attempts to turn that financial flying pigs ear of an event into some form of economic silk lined public purse.
Those figures are outright bulldust. Council are claiming a $16,000 loss, but that figure is nonsensical flying hogs wash. That loss does not declare or take into account the costs of council staff time, that was supposedly donated to the event.
That statement alone is an outright deception. Staff costs are a direct and real cost to the ratepayer, therefore it must be accounted for as a very real expense to the event and a very real expense to the ratepayer.
As for cross crediting underspends in other budgets as some form of loss prevention income, is the most creative accounting ever seen, and is just barefaced tap dancing. That is still a direct cost and loss, no matter which pocket it comes out of.
This event has so far, declared expenditure of $233,000 plus staff time, with income of just $78,000, and that is clearly an operating loss of $155,000 plus staff time.
Even with sponsorship and other grants of $89,000 included, to arrive at the overall balance for the event, there is still a $66,000, plus staff time, loss to be accounted for.
To claim those figures as only a $16,000 loss is simply contemptuous of the public, and obviously the true losses of this charade have yet to be revealed.
11 May 2009
SEWAGE: FOR BRAINS
The Nelson City council have decided to go ahead with the duplication of the Bells Island sewage line, despite submissions during public consultation, raising extremely serious technical concerns about the fundamentally defective thinking underpinning parts of that project.
Those concerns were, the deeply flawed risk analysis, [18 April 09], and the insanity of spending $54 million dollars upgrading the sewage plant, to immediately thereafter, consider shutting the plant down and relocating inland, [20 April 09].
No wonder so many people think that this council tops its cranial cavity up with the raw product from this plant. However the lunacy of making such a crazy decision is so impossibly stupid that it must be regarded as highly improbable, even for this council.
Surely they must have given full and proper consideration to those crucially significant issues and adopted appropriate measures to correct and repair that planning. Surely this is just a failure to inform the public of those changes. Surely this is just a notification and information failure.
Anything else is so blatantly reckless, that it beggars belief.
Those concerns were, the deeply flawed risk analysis, [18 April 09], and the insanity of spending $54 million dollars upgrading the sewage plant, to immediately thereafter, consider shutting the plant down and relocating inland, [20 April 09].
No wonder so many people think that this council tops its cranial cavity up with the raw product from this plant. However the lunacy of making such a crazy decision is so impossibly stupid that it must be regarded as highly improbable, even for this council.
Surely they must have given full and proper consideration to those crucially significant issues and adopted appropriate measures to correct and repair that planning. Surely this is just a failure to inform the public of those changes. Surely this is just a notification and information failure.
Anything else is so blatantly reckless, that it beggars belief.
10 May 2009
PAC: DONE DEAL
The Nelson City council is claiming in thier propaganda rag, Live Nelson, that no decision has been made on the PAC, and that there will be full and robust consultation.
What an absolute load of bull chips. The pigs are all refuelled, and lined up ready for flight, with councils actions speaking far louder than their words.
Clearly this council has not got a clue about what notification and consultation even mean, and that is at the very root of this problem.
Notification and consultation is meant to be about whether or not there should even be a PAC, in the first place. Consultation is not just about what colour to paint the toilet seats.
The ratepayers are meant to be canvassed on whether or not Nelson needs or even wants, or can afford a PAC, and that consultation has never happened in the life of this project.
Council are just ramming that presumption down the public's throat as a done deal, that the community wants, needs and can afford this expensive Taj Mahal.
That decision which has yet to be made, is a decision of wishes, versus need and affordability, with the LTCCP planning and decision making process being, fundamentally an economic and financial decision making process.
Essentially the legislation requires any notification and consultation and the resulting decision, to focus on the costs and the economic effect on affordability for ratepayers.
In this latest Live Nelson attempt to avoid these irritating matters, council openly admit that they have not got a clue as to what the costs are, let alone how many funding partners there will be to divide the costs between.
Therefore it is totally impossible for council to meet the legislative requirements of notifying and spelling out, what the financial effects are on rates and the ratepayers.
Clearly then, it is equally as impossible for ratepayers to make any informed decision on the affordability of this project, let alone for council to make any claim of affordability.
Obviously the inclusion of this project in the LTCCP is wholly improper and extremely premature, and until council can provide the legislatively required detail and specifics of this project, then any attempt to try and force it through so prematurely and without the legislatively required information, is an outright consultation sham and a financial scam to boot.
This farce is either a knowing rort or ignorant mismanagement of the worst order, choose your weapon. Either way, Live Nelson's own allegations of mismanagement are whole heartedly endorsed and agreed with.
What an absolute load of bull chips. The pigs are all refuelled, and lined up ready for flight, with councils actions speaking far louder than their words.
Clearly this council has not got a clue about what notification and consultation even mean, and that is at the very root of this problem.
Notification and consultation is meant to be about whether or not there should even be a PAC, in the first place. Consultation is not just about what colour to paint the toilet seats.
The ratepayers are meant to be canvassed on whether or not Nelson needs or even wants, or can afford a PAC, and that consultation has never happened in the life of this project.
Council are just ramming that presumption down the public's throat as a done deal, that the community wants, needs and can afford this expensive Taj Mahal.
That decision which has yet to be made, is a decision of wishes, versus need and affordability, with the LTCCP planning and decision making process being, fundamentally an economic and financial decision making process.
Essentially the legislation requires any notification and consultation and the resulting decision, to focus on the costs and the economic effect on affordability for ratepayers.
In this latest Live Nelson attempt to avoid these irritating matters, council openly admit that they have not got a clue as to what the costs are, let alone how many funding partners there will be to divide the costs between.
Therefore it is totally impossible for council to meet the legislative requirements of notifying and spelling out, what the financial effects are on rates and the ratepayers.
Clearly then, it is equally as impossible for ratepayers to make any informed decision on the affordability of this project, let alone for council to make any claim of affordability.
Obviously the inclusion of this project in the LTCCP is wholly improper and extremely premature, and until council can provide the legislatively required detail and specifics of this project, then any attempt to try and force it through so prematurely and without the legislatively required information, is an outright consultation sham and a financial scam to boot.
This farce is either a knowing rort or ignorant mismanagement of the worst order, choose your weapon. Either way, Live Nelson's own allegations of mismanagement are whole heartedly endorsed and agreed with.
07 May 2009
LTCCP: THEFT BY FORCE
The Nelson City council's proposed LTCCP is an abuse of statutory power tantamount to theft by force.
The courts have ruled that these plans of council are "formal statements of intent", and as such they are clearly the formal process used to statutorily justify and authorise, the exercise of the legislative power, to levy money on the ratepaying subjects of the state.
Those plans are meant to be a line by line bookbuilding process that transparently notifies the full, cent by cent details, of the rating implications of any imposition that the plan will enable the council to take by statutory force.
This LTCCP does not even pretend to go there. Quite simply it is a sham and a scam. For example council freely admit, in that very plan, that it hasn't got a clue what the cost of the performing arts centre will be, and yet the plan intends reaching into ratepayers pockets and taking more than thirty million dollars by the draconian force of state, and yet it doesn't even know how much it will actually cost or what the full financial implications are for ratepayers.
How does the ratepayer know whether he is being overcharged or shortchanged. If that project costs less than that guesstimate plucked from god knows where, will the council refund that overcharged money? Will there be a cheque in the mail? Yeah right!
At the very least this is an abuse of legislative power, and at worst is theft by force, and might even be fraudulent to boot.
The courts have ruled that these plans of council are "formal statements of intent", and as such they are clearly the formal process used to statutorily justify and authorise, the exercise of the legislative power, to levy money on the ratepaying subjects of the state.
Those plans are meant to be a line by line bookbuilding process that transparently notifies the full, cent by cent details, of the rating implications of any imposition that the plan will enable the council to take by statutory force.
This LTCCP does not even pretend to go there. Quite simply it is a sham and a scam. For example council freely admit, in that very plan, that it hasn't got a clue what the cost of the performing arts centre will be, and yet the plan intends reaching into ratepayers pockets and taking more than thirty million dollars by the draconian force of state, and yet it doesn't even know how much it will actually cost or what the full financial implications are for ratepayers.
How does the ratepayer know whether he is being overcharged or shortchanged. If that project costs less than that guesstimate plucked from god knows where, will the council refund that overcharged money? Will there be a cheque in the mail? Yeah right!
At the very least this is an abuse of legislative power, and at worst is theft by force, and might even be fraudulent to boot.
06 May 2009
PAC: WHITE ELEPHANT
The Nelson City council is so blindly pre-determined, to push on with that colossal white elephant of a performing arts centre, that it is convieniently turning Nelson's blind eye to the economic realities of this huge financial albatross in the making.
It is now obvious that every event that this council has promoted or run or sponsored or otherwise had anything to do with over recent times, has been an outright financial disaster, with each loss costing ratepayers considerable sums.
Even privately run promotions and events are also facing that very dilemma and are similarly going down the financial gurgler.
Those very statistics would seem to be the ominously loud and strident clamour of alarm bells ringing out a very pointed warning that Nelson does not have any capacity whatsoever to support this Alice in wonderland fantasy of a PAC.
Clearly the message that those alarm bells are warning us of, is that this region does not have any form of a suitable base to support these arty farty shows and events.
Nelson plainly does not have the economic base to support it, nor does it have a sufficiently large interest base, to make these events viable economic starters.
All polling to date indicates that the supporters of this excessive fantasy are very much a vocal minority, who it can now be seen, are obviously not prepared to put their money where their mouths are.
If there is no appetite or support, financial or otherwise, for these events, then it is eminently clear that the PAC's loudly trumpeted justification of economic salvation for Nelson is a sham and a totally flawed nonsense.
If this gargantuan white elephant proceeds in the face of this obvious lack of support, it will become another massive albatross around the neck of Nelson's long suffering ratepayers.
It is now obvious that every event that this council has promoted or run or sponsored or otherwise had anything to do with over recent times, has been an outright financial disaster, with each loss costing ratepayers considerable sums.
Even privately run promotions and events are also facing that very dilemma and are similarly going down the financial gurgler.
Those very statistics would seem to be the ominously loud and strident clamour of alarm bells ringing out a very pointed warning that Nelson does not have any capacity whatsoever to support this Alice in wonderland fantasy of a PAC.
Clearly the message that those alarm bells are warning us of, is that this region does not have any form of a suitable base to support these arty farty shows and events.
Nelson plainly does not have the economic base to support it, nor does it have a sufficiently large interest base, to make these events viable economic starters.
All polling to date indicates that the supporters of this excessive fantasy are very much a vocal minority, who it can now be seen, are obviously not prepared to put their money where their mouths are.
If there is no appetite or support, financial or otherwise, for these events, then it is eminently clear that the PAC's loudly trumpeted justification of economic salvation for Nelson is a sham and a totally flawed nonsense.
If this gargantuan white elephant proceeds in the face of this obvious lack of support, it will become another massive albatross around the neck of Nelson's long suffering ratepayers.
04 May 2009
LTCCP: DEBT CANCER
The Nelson City councils draft LTCCP intends tripling public debt levels from the present $57M, to a staggering $170M. That is an appallingly short sighted and dangerous proposition, which flies in the face of the world economic crisis.
National economies are going broke, international banks are going down the tubes, major public companies are turning their toes up, public insurers are going down the gurgler, huge mortgage institutions are down the drain.
Amazingly all of the worlds economic experts and commentators are without exception, laying the blame for these economic collapses at the door of living on continually increasing levels of debt.
So while everybody else in the world, is attempting to desperately reduce or claw back debt levels or restructure debt to remain within prudent debt covenants, this council is entirely blind to that cause and effect and intends flying in the face of that unanimously accepted cause of failure, by foolishly adopting the very course of action that has brought the rest of the world to its knees.
Not only are they intending to buy their groceries with this hugely expanded level of debt, they intend putting that debt on their credit card, and then, even worse still, they then intend to take a repayment holiday and suspend payments on that credit card.
Those actions are not only foolish but also downright dangerous and by adopting that course of action, it will be more than likely that this widespread aggressive cancer of debt, is being encouraged to claim yet another victim.
That growing list of failures, including Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, can now look forward to having Nelson Mac or Nellie May, added to their ranks, and when that happens, the long suffering ratepayers will be forced to bail this council out of this festering, self inflicted and cancerous wound.
National economies are going broke, international banks are going down the tubes, major public companies are turning their toes up, public insurers are going down the gurgler, huge mortgage institutions are down the drain.
Amazingly all of the worlds economic experts and commentators are without exception, laying the blame for these economic collapses at the door of living on continually increasing levels of debt.
So while everybody else in the world, is attempting to desperately reduce or claw back debt levels or restructure debt to remain within prudent debt covenants, this council is entirely blind to that cause and effect and intends flying in the face of that unanimously accepted cause of failure, by foolishly adopting the very course of action that has brought the rest of the world to its knees.
Not only are they intending to buy their groceries with this hugely expanded level of debt, they intend putting that debt on their credit card, and then, even worse still, they then intend to take a repayment holiday and suspend payments on that credit card.
Those actions are not only foolish but also downright dangerous and by adopting that course of action, it will be more than likely that this widespread aggressive cancer of debt, is being encouraged to claim yet another victim.
That growing list of failures, including Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, can now look forward to having Nelson Mac or Nellie May, added to their ranks, and when that happens, the long suffering ratepayers will be forced to bail this council out of this festering, self inflicted and cancerous wound.
03 May 2009
OPERA: IN THE DARK
So the Nelson City Council are now saying that it is expected that Opera in the Dark will once again run at a loss, but council cannot put a figure on that loss because details are still being reconciled as they only had estimates and no final figures and they were still waiting for some invoices.
Any body who believes that line of old cobblers will believe any thing, but worst of all it demonstrates that this council's financial culture is seriously defective, and most probably contrary to the Public Finance Act.
The excuses given for withholding that loss from the public, show that this council's financial practices are highly questionable and entirely deficient, and are so open ended, that there is clearly no budgetary control in place whatsoever.
The public finance act requires certainty in all public financial dealings, and it is normally mandatory for the committal of any public monies, for any goods and services, to have detailed controls in place, before any expenditure can be committed to.
Those controls usually require a written quote or at the very least multiple telephone quotes recorded and certified in an official register, and if those sort of controls were in place, council would clearly be able to provide accurate provisional figures, within days of the event taking place.
Council is admitting that it does not have that certainty and does not know exactly what costs it has committed itself to, and that is quite improper financial practice.
But even worse there is clearly no budgetary control or process in place, when council admits that it does not design or control the cost structure of the event, to the expected income.
While it may not be run as a for profit event, at the very least, it must be run and controlled as a break even event. It must be tailored to a budget and tightly controlled within that budget, and not undertaken as the financially open ended exercise that it is at present. To do otherwise is a reckless use of public funds.
Any body who believes that line of old cobblers will believe any thing, but worst of all it demonstrates that this council's financial culture is seriously defective, and most probably contrary to the Public Finance Act.
The excuses given for withholding that loss from the public, show that this council's financial practices are highly questionable and entirely deficient, and are so open ended, that there is clearly no budgetary control in place whatsoever.
The public finance act requires certainty in all public financial dealings, and it is normally mandatory for the committal of any public monies, for any goods and services, to have detailed controls in place, before any expenditure can be committed to.
Those controls usually require a written quote or at the very least multiple telephone quotes recorded and certified in an official register, and if those sort of controls were in place, council would clearly be able to provide accurate provisional figures, within days of the event taking place.
Council is admitting that it does not have that certainty and does not know exactly what costs it has committed itself to, and that is quite improper financial practice.
But even worse there is clearly no budgetary control or process in place, when council admits that it does not design or control the cost structure of the event, to the expected income.
While it may not be run as a for profit event, at the very least, it must be run and controlled as a break even event. It must be tailored to a budget and tightly controlled within that budget, and not undertaken as the financially open ended exercise that it is at present. To do otherwise is a reckless use of public funds.
30 April 2009
LTCCP: HELLS DANGER
The most disastrous danger with the Nelson City council's LTCCP, is that it is flying in the face of government directions and giving a one finger salute to Minister Rodney Hide, by totally ignoring the government's public statements and directions on the subject of the economic need to bring rates and spending under control, and particularly so in the current economic climate.
Minister Hide has always made it abundantly clear to local government that double digit rate increases are simply not acceptable and has explicitly and publicly made that particular statement many times over.
He has also made it extremely clear that he intends to introduce a rates cap to counter, the out of control spending being indulged in by local government.
However as previously discussed the fundamental underlying effect of Nelson's LTCCP is, that it locks into place double digit plus, plus inflation, rate increases for the next ten years or more, and that puts the NCC on a head on collision course with the governments stated objectives.
Therefore when the government puts that rates cap into place, at around the rate of inflation, the Nelson City council will be caught with its backside hanging out in the wind.
If council lock these double digit plus, plus inflation, rate increases into place, then, when the government puts a rates cap into place at inflation levels, the effect is, that the NCC is left with negative or minus double digit rate increases locked into place.
Effectively Nelson will be going backwards out the back door in reverse gear at reverse double digit warp speed.
If this LTTCP is allowed to survive it will lock into place minus rate increases and negative progress for many years to come, which will oversee the disastrous ruination of Nelson.
This is an extremely dangerous game of head on chicken that this council is playing with the government, and any resulting pissing contest will see this council staring down the loaded barrel of long term backwards progress. This LTCCP is outright insanity and must be stopped.
Minister Hide has always made it abundantly clear to local government that double digit rate increases are simply not acceptable and has explicitly and publicly made that particular statement many times over.
He has also made it extremely clear that he intends to introduce a rates cap to counter, the out of control spending being indulged in by local government.
However as previously discussed the fundamental underlying effect of Nelson's LTCCP is, that it locks into place double digit plus, plus inflation, rate increases for the next ten years or more, and that puts the NCC on a head on collision course with the governments stated objectives.
Therefore when the government puts that rates cap into place, at around the rate of inflation, the Nelson City council will be caught with its backside hanging out in the wind.
If council lock these double digit plus, plus inflation, rate increases into place, then, when the government puts a rates cap into place at inflation levels, the effect is, that the NCC is left with negative or minus double digit rate increases locked into place.
Effectively Nelson will be going backwards out the back door in reverse gear at reverse double digit warp speed.
If this LTTCP is allowed to survive it will lock into place minus rate increases and negative progress for many years to come, which will oversee the disastrous ruination of Nelson.
This is an extremely dangerous game of head on chicken that this council is playing with the government, and any resulting pissing contest will see this council staring down the loaded barrel of long term backwards progress. This LTCCP is outright insanity and must be stopped.
29 April 2009
PAC: COST CRAZINESS
The craziest financial tap dancing that the Nelson City council is indulging in over the PAC are the illogical and incomprehensible costings of this foolhardy flight of fancy. This project has not even made it onto the drawing board yet and its costs are rocketing into orbit at warp speed.
The councils previous LTCCP proposed a regional performing arts and conference centre structured as a three way regional partnership equally funding a total capital commitment of $30M with the capital costs very roughly split at around 50% for the arts venue and 50% for the conference venue.
However the collapse of that regional arrangement caused council to secretly change the project to a community facility and that secret change has forced council into a structural change, with the PAC now being touted as a public private partnership. While information is being deliberately limited, it currently appears that this new partnership will be a two way public private partnership with one partner being responsible for the performance venue and the other for the conference venue.
However that structural change is being covertly used to camouflage and hide a massive ratcheting up of the scale and costs of this rogue economic white elephant. The LTCCP just issued states
If councils equal share of this project is budgeted at $32.4M then the financial extension of that figure says that the whole project cost has massively escalated and is now estimated at $64.8M.
Whatever the actual figures are, they indisputably reveal a massive hike in this foolhardy project which is responsible for an unacceptable distortion of the rate burden. This project is out of control financial madness and totally imprudent to boot.
The councils previous LTCCP proposed a regional performing arts and conference centre structured as a three way regional partnership equally funding a total capital commitment of $30M with the capital costs very roughly split at around 50% for the arts venue and 50% for the conference venue.
However the collapse of that regional arrangement caused council to secretly change the project to a community facility and that secret change has forced council into a structural change, with the PAC now being touted as a public private partnership. While information is being deliberately limited, it currently appears that this new partnership will be a two way public private partnership with one partner being responsible for the performance venue and the other for the conference venue.
However that structural change is being covertly used to camouflage and hide a massive ratcheting up of the scale and costs of this rogue economic white elephant. The LTCCP just issued states
Council's estimated contribution would be up to $32.4 million, NOT including any other funding provided through a Public Private Partnership.Therefore on the assumption that the partnership will be a roughly equal one, then that LTCCP statement is actually declaring that there has been a massive blow out and escalation of the costs of this dreamtime project.
If councils equal share of this project is budgeted at $32.4M then the financial extension of that figure says that the whole project cost has massively escalated and is now estimated at $64.8M.
Whatever the actual figures are, they indisputably reveal a massive hike in this foolhardy project which is responsible for an unacceptable distortion of the rate burden. This project is out of control financial madness and totally imprudent to boot.
28 April 2009
LTCCP: BLATANT GREED
Among the most reckless and disastrous side effects of the Nelson City councils proposed LTCCP Holiday from Hell, is the massive imbalance it wreaks on ratepayers.
One of the most fundamental indicators of proper and prudent governance that can be found in any council plan is the balance between income derived from compulsory rates, versus all other non rateable income.
That other income is major funding derived from sources such as, local bodies fuel tax, central funding of roads and other government plans, policies and social initiatives; council charges, development contributions, consent and permit charges, and fines income from legislative infringements, etc, ad infinitum.
There is a fundamental administrative principle that income from rates should not exceed 50% of councils total income, and the recent commission of enquiry into rates reconfirmed that principle and went even further stating that councils should be actively working to reduce that rates percentage to well below the 50% mark.
As there is a geometric progression involved in shifting that ratio, the next 1% shift takes a progressive doubling of the previous shift, to achieve the next step.
It is therefore staggering that this LTCCP proposes to increase that rates ratio by stretching it out from around the 50% mark, to around a mind boggling 66%, and because of that geometric progression, that is a massive blow out, and exponential shift of the funding burden, onto the ratepayers shoulders.
That shift is an abuse of the power to levy, and is simply unacceptable. If that shift of the funding burden is a knowing shift, then it is nothing other than a reckless rort, but if on the other hand, it is an unknowing shift born of council ignorance then it is simply incompetent.
If there is any symptom that reveals the agressive cancer of this councils financial objectives, it is this shift in the rates burden ratio, which is so untenable and unaffordable, that it cannot be allowed to survive. This LTCCP must go.
Unfortunately there are even worse effects of this Holiday from Hell yet to be revealed and they will be addressed next.
One of the most fundamental indicators of proper and prudent governance that can be found in any council plan is the balance between income derived from compulsory rates, versus all other non rateable income.
That other income is major funding derived from sources such as, local bodies fuel tax, central funding of roads and other government plans, policies and social initiatives; council charges, development contributions, consent and permit charges, and fines income from legislative infringements, etc, ad infinitum.
There is a fundamental administrative principle that income from rates should not exceed 50% of councils total income, and the recent commission of enquiry into rates reconfirmed that principle and went even further stating that councils should be actively working to reduce that rates percentage to well below the 50% mark.
As there is a geometric progression involved in shifting that ratio, the next 1% shift takes a progressive doubling of the previous shift, to achieve the next step.
It is therefore staggering that this LTCCP proposes to increase that rates ratio by stretching it out from around the 50% mark, to around a mind boggling 66%, and because of that geometric progression, that is a massive blow out, and exponential shift of the funding burden, onto the ratepayers shoulders.
That shift is an abuse of the power to levy, and is simply unacceptable. If that shift of the funding burden is a knowing shift, then it is nothing other than a reckless rort, but if on the other hand, it is an unknowing shift born of council ignorance then it is simply incompetent.
If there is any symptom that reveals the agressive cancer of this councils financial objectives, it is this shift in the rates burden ratio, which is so untenable and unaffordable, that it cannot be allowed to survive. This LTCCP must go.
Unfortunately there are even worse effects of this Holiday from Hell yet to be revealed and they will be addressed next.
27 April 2009
PAC: CON JOB
Nelson City Council vested interests, are so desperate to force a performing arts centre [PAC] onto the community, against the will of the majority, they are resorting to extreme sleight of hand and outright deception in their attempts to justify this rogue economic white elephant.
The worst of these deceptions centres around the bafflingly inexplicable and hugely excessive costs of this flight of fancy. These costs are so illogical and incomprehensible they can only be described as foolhardy madness.
The previous LTCCP sold a $30M PAC to the public on the basis that it was a regional facility to be funded as an equal three way partnership between the NCC, the TDC, and the Millenium Trust. That plan explicitly committed each partner to a $10M share. Thus it has always, only ever been proposed, that the Nelson ratepayers commitment to this project was but $10M.
Since then the TDC has backed out of the project and the Trust has never raised a cent, and has since evaporated off the face of the earth. As a consequence the PAC no longer enjoys the status and therefore funding, as a regional facility.
To avoid that irritating inconvenience, the city council has covertly and without any declaration or notification or consultation, secretly altered its plans to change the status of the project from a regional facility to a community facility.
However the implications of that secret little stroke of the pen are massive, and hugely expensive. That covert change alters the whole economic and funding structure of the project, by landing the entire $30M plus commitment and responsibility for the project, solely at the feet of Nelson ratepayers.
Those vested interests are so desperate to force this project through, they are prepared to fly in the face of this 300% shift in financial commitment, and that desperation is unacceptably distorting the rating burden. It is this single issue that is currently forcing the imposition of those diabolical funding practices, such as the holiday from hell, and the doubling of rates, interest and debt.
There is a lot more of this financial tap dancing going on over the PAC which is so grossly distorting the rating burden. Accordingly we will explore this subject further over the coming days.
The worst of these deceptions centres around the bafflingly inexplicable and hugely excessive costs of this flight of fancy. These costs are so illogical and incomprehensible they can only be described as foolhardy madness.
The previous LTCCP sold a $30M PAC to the public on the basis that it was a regional facility to be funded as an equal three way partnership between the NCC, the TDC, and the Millenium Trust. That plan explicitly committed each partner to a $10M share. Thus it has always, only ever been proposed, that the Nelson ratepayers commitment to this project was but $10M.
Since then the TDC has backed out of the project and the Trust has never raised a cent, and has since evaporated off the face of the earth. As a consequence the PAC no longer enjoys the status and therefore funding, as a regional facility.
To avoid that irritating inconvenience, the city council has covertly and without any declaration or notification or consultation, secretly altered its plans to change the status of the project from a regional facility to a community facility.
However the implications of that secret little stroke of the pen are massive, and hugely expensive. That covert change alters the whole economic and funding structure of the project, by landing the entire $30M plus commitment and responsibility for the project, solely at the feet of Nelson ratepayers.
Those vested interests are so desperate to force this project through, they are prepared to fly in the face of this 300% shift in financial commitment, and that desperation is unacceptably distorting the rating burden. It is this single issue that is currently forcing the imposition of those diabolical funding practices, such as the holiday from hell, and the doubling of rates, interest and debt.
There is a lot more of this financial tap dancing going on over the PAC which is so grossly distorting the rating burden. Accordingly we will explore this subject further over the coming days.
25 April 2009
LTCCP: HELL BOUND
So why is the Nelson City council's LTCCP such a wolf in sheeps clothing, that gives such a false appearance of prudence and belt tightening. How does it achieve a reduced rate increase while still increasing expenditure.
Simply put, it is an exercise in smoke and mirrors, achieved by putting future grocery bills on the credit card. Increased expenditure and the consequential increase in the rate burden, will be disguised and hidden by stopping payments on mortgage, rent, and hire purchase payments. Those payments, will instead, all be put on the credit card. Council intends taking what is called a repayment or mortgage holiday. Effectively what council are doing is changing the method of rates funding from cash funding to debt funding.
But nationally, economists are all unanimous in their condemnation of such mortgage holidays, describing them as
Does this mean that the Nelson City Council has dire financial problems or is this just gross financial greed and recklessness.
The particular carnage that this imprudent holiday will wreak on Nelson ratepayers is that it, doubles the rate take [$40M - $80M] and triples interest charges [$3.5M - $11M] and just on triples debt [$57M - $170M] over the period of the plan, and that doubling of interest, rate take and debt, irrevocably locks this and future councils into imprudent ongoing rate increases of at least 11%, and probably more, plus inflation of 3%, for the forseeable future.
What ratepayers are agreeing to by this LTCCP, is a minimum of ten years worth of rate increases of at least, 11% or more, plus inflation of 3%, and that is irresponsible if not reckless.
However, even more serious and disastrous effects are created by this trip to Hell and they will be analysed next in this series.
Simply put, it is an exercise in smoke and mirrors, achieved by putting future grocery bills on the credit card. Increased expenditure and the consequential increase in the rate burden, will be disguised and hidden by stopping payments on mortgage, rent, and hire purchase payments. Those payments, will instead, all be put on the credit card. Council intends taking what is called a repayment or mortgage holiday. Effectively what council are doing is changing the method of rates funding from cash funding to debt funding.
But nationally, economists are all unanimous in their condemnation of such mortgage holidays, describing them as
Holidays from hell.They show their stong criticism by illustrating the debt carnage that those holidays wreak on borrowers, and because of that fiscal carnage, they all give exactly the same advice;
Those holidays from hell should be avoided like the plague if at all possible.Credit card debt doesnt just evaporate. It bites us on the bum, by just sitting there and compounding while steeply increasing our debt levels and repayment problems. When people are forced into mortgage holidays they are always in dire financial straits.
Does this mean that the Nelson City Council has dire financial problems or is this just gross financial greed and recklessness.
The particular carnage that this imprudent holiday will wreak on Nelson ratepayers is that it, doubles the rate take [$40M - $80M] and triples interest charges [$3.5M - $11M] and just on triples debt [$57M - $170M] over the period of the plan, and that doubling of interest, rate take and debt, irrevocably locks this and future councils into imprudent ongoing rate increases of at least 11%, and probably more, plus inflation of 3%, for the forseeable future.
What ratepayers are agreeing to by this LTCCP, is a minimum of ten years worth of rate increases of at least, 11% or more, plus inflation of 3%, and that is irresponsible if not reckless.
However, even more serious and disastrous effects are created by this trip to Hell and they will be analysed next in this series.
23 April 2009
WRC: HYPOCRISY
The Nelson City Council is claiming all sorts of Alice in Wonderland economic benefits from hosting WRC games. But if, as previously shown [17 April 09], council's own economists have assessed the economic impact as being "ZERO", and as the consequential cost benefit analysis must be 100% negative [19 April 09], then how does council even begin to claim such fanciful fairyland figures.
The answer to that question is, simply by good old deception.
Economist Berl's economic activity assessment states that
So much so, Berls assessment shows that the Park upgrade figures comprise 80% of the claimed WRC economic activity.
So, what is wrong with that? Well bluntly put that is just plain old deception and gross hypocrisy.
During notification of the Park upgrade council went to extreme lengths to divorce the two proposals. Council loudly and repeatedly stated that the two proposals had nothing to do with each other, and publicly castigated any ratepayer who even dared to draw any connection between them. Council further attempted to distance the two proposals from each other by insisting that the upgrade was for the provision of a multi purpose outdoor events venue rather than being an upgrade driven by and for the WRC.
To now embrace the upgrade as such an essential part of hosting WRC games, that it requires inclusion of all costs and expenditure connected with the upgrade as being a fundamental part of the WRC economic activity assessment, is at best gross hypocrisy and at worst an outright deceit.
The answer to that question is, simply by good old deception.
Economist Berl's economic activity assessment states that
The proposed $7m upgrade to Trafalgar Park is essential to being able to hold a RWC game in Nelson Tasman and has been factored into the analysis.So, because the game hosting figures have proven to be such a dismal economic lemon, those figures have been boosted by including the Trafalgar Park upgrade figures as being part and parcel of the WRC economic activity figures.
So much so, Berls assessment shows that the Park upgrade figures comprise 80% of the claimed WRC economic activity.
So, what is wrong with that? Well bluntly put that is just plain old deception and gross hypocrisy.
During notification of the Park upgrade council went to extreme lengths to divorce the two proposals. Council loudly and repeatedly stated that the two proposals had nothing to do with each other, and publicly castigated any ratepayer who even dared to draw any connection between them. Council further attempted to distance the two proposals from each other by insisting that the upgrade was for the provision of a multi purpose outdoor events venue rather than being an upgrade driven by and for the WRC.
To now embrace the upgrade as such an essential part of hosting WRC games, that it requires inclusion of all costs and expenditure connected with the upgrade as being a fundamental part of the WRC economic activity assessment, is at best gross hypocrisy and at worst an outright deceit.
22 April 2009
LTCCP: DISASTER
The Nelson city council has just published their LTCCP accompanied by an extensive PR blitz giving the appearance of emminent prudence and reasonableness and which achieves the holy grail of a rates increase of around the rate of inflation.
However do not be fooled and duped by this smooth PR talkfest.
This plan is quite the opposite of what it appears, and any level of serious analysis shows this LTTCP to be a wolf in sheeps clothing, and an absolute calamitous disaster in the making, locking into place ruinous long term effects, which will drive Nelson backwards for the forseeable future, and will stymie progress for many years, even decades, to come. This plan is so ruinous on many levels that it cannot be allowed to survive and must be ditched before it sends Nelson broke and out the back door.
It is automatically assumed that for any plan to achieve a rate increase of 3%, that it is the result of prudence and responsible belt tightening in response to the current global economic crisis; but quite the opposite is true.
This plan actually and irresponsibly loosens the fiscal belt and increases spending, and does so by particularly imprudent methods.
So how is a reduction in rate increases possible while spending is actually being increased. Quite clearly that is just physically and mathematically not possible. Simply put that decrease is a mirage that has been manufactured by smoke and mirrors, and is a fundamental deception. The reality is entirely the opposite.
The disastrous reality of this imprudent LTCCP must be laid bare and will thus be explored in a series of blogs over coming days. While this is a dry subject the ruination that it will bring about deserves serious analysis and exposure.
However do not be fooled and duped by this smooth PR talkfest.
This plan is quite the opposite of what it appears, and any level of serious analysis shows this LTTCP to be a wolf in sheeps clothing, and an absolute calamitous disaster in the making, locking into place ruinous long term effects, which will drive Nelson backwards for the forseeable future, and will stymie progress for many years, even decades, to come. This plan is so ruinous on many levels that it cannot be allowed to survive and must be ditched before it sends Nelson broke and out the back door.
It is automatically assumed that for any plan to achieve a rate increase of 3%, that it is the result of prudence and responsible belt tightening in response to the current global economic crisis; but quite the opposite is true.
This plan actually and irresponsibly loosens the fiscal belt and increases spending, and does so by particularly imprudent methods.
So how is a reduction in rate increases possible while spending is actually being increased. Quite clearly that is just physically and mathematically not possible. Simply put that decrease is a mirage that has been manufactured by smoke and mirrors, and is a fundamental deception. The reality is entirely the opposite.
The disastrous reality of this imprudent LTCCP must be laid bare and will thus be explored in a series of blogs over coming days. While this is a dry subject the ruination that it will bring about deserves serious analysis and exposure.
21 April 2009
OPERA: IN THE DARK
Two years ago, the Nelson City Council owned and run, Opera in the Dark, incurred a financial loss which cost Nelson ratepayers, well in excess of $100,000.00.
Subsequently, and some time prior to the next opera, that is, the one held just three months ago, council were directly asked, what financial controls were in place to prevent that event from blowing out and again being run at a similar or even greater loss.
Staggeringly Council admitted that it had no such controls in place.
That loss and the resulting questioning over those non existent controls should have rung sufficient alarm bells, warning council that it urgently needed to impose and implement proper budgetary controls and financial management over events staff, especially as, uncontrolled budgetary over runs were becoming a familiar refrain in the councils events calendar.
Therefore when the jungle tom-toms started to claim that this years opera had made another loss, of even far greater proportions than the last, council was asked to confirm and detail the size and nature of those losses.
Stunningly council has simply refused to provide that information. Not only is such a refusal highly improper, it is also arrogant, as these are ratepayer funds that are being grossly mismanaged and ratepayers have a right to that information.
Unfortunately for council when people are kept in the dark, or an information vacuum, speculation becomes rife and replaces informed commentary, and that speculation is saying that, this out of control events situation, exactly parallels the Beckham soccer match debacle and that the loss, on a per capita basis, rivals and may even exceed that Beckham event.
Council needs to understand that such sloppy financial management is totally unacceptable when dealing with public funds and that like the Beckam event it must be investigated and proper accountability must happen and heads must roll.
It is becoming increasingly apparent that council events management is out of control and regards itself as having some sort of priveleged political patronage that does not have to conform to proper financial and budgetary management and other required governance norms.
If council is so incapable of running properly budgeted and controlled events, that it has to deceive by secrecy and ommission then it should get out of those activities. This arrogant secrecy over Opera in the Dark is wholly unacceptable and the public must be kept properly informed.
Subsequently, and some time prior to the next opera, that is, the one held just three months ago, council were directly asked, what financial controls were in place to prevent that event from blowing out and again being run at a similar or even greater loss.
Staggeringly Council admitted that it had no such controls in place.
That loss and the resulting questioning over those non existent controls should have rung sufficient alarm bells, warning council that it urgently needed to impose and implement proper budgetary controls and financial management over events staff, especially as, uncontrolled budgetary over runs were becoming a familiar refrain in the councils events calendar.
Therefore when the jungle tom-toms started to claim that this years opera had made another loss, of even far greater proportions than the last, council was asked to confirm and detail the size and nature of those losses.
Stunningly council has simply refused to provide that information. Not only is such a refusal highly improper, it is also arrogant, as these are ratepayer funds that are being grossly mismanaged and ratepayers have a right to that information.
Unfortunately for council when people are kept in the dark, or an information vacuum, speculation becomes rife and replaces informed commentary, and that speculation is saying that, this out of control events situation, exactly parallels the Beckham soccer match debacle and that the loss, on a per capita basis, rivals and may even exceed that Beckham event.
Council needs to understand that such sloppy financial management is totally unacceptable when dealing with public funds and that like the Beckam event it must be investigated and proper accountability must happen and heads must roll.
It is becoming increasingly apparent that council events management is out of control and regards itself as having some sort of priveleged political patronage that does not have to conform to proper financial and budgetary management and other required governance norms.
If council is so incapable of running properly budgeted and controlled events, that it has to deceive by secrecy and ommission then it should get out of those activities. This arrogant secrecy over Opera in the Dark is wholly unacceptable and the public must be kept properly informed.
20 April 2009
SEWAGE: INSANITY
The Nelson City Council is proposing to spend up to 54 Million dollars to upgrade the Bells Island sewage plant.
The formal statement of proposal provided to the public admits and accepts that many of the options given were selected because of pressure on council over cultural sensitivities about sewage lines traversing the Waimea inlet.
That formal proposal also stated that after the upgrade was finshed, council would sit down and consider whether the method of sewage disposal should be changed from disposal at sea, to disposal on land, which would necessitate the sewage plant being shut down and relocated to an inland site. It was again admitted that this option was also being considered for reasons of cultural sensitivity.
In fact some of this cultural pressure is in the nature of formal submissions demanding that Bells Island be shut down within the next ten years.
Therefore this situation staggeringly proposes that council having just spent up to 54 million dollars upgrading the sewage plant, would then immediately after that upgrade and considerable expenditure, turn round and consider whether or not to shut down and relocate that newly upgraded plant. Such a proposal is sheer insanity, and must be stopped dead in its tracks.
Before one single cent, of ratepayers money is spent on any further new works at Bells Island, one of two things must happen. Either all consideration of relocation of the sewage plant must be scrapped and permanantly taken off the table, or, that possibility must be embraced and properly considered and a decision made one way or the other. To do any thing else is outright madness.
Despite media reporters being present during submissions on this pivotal issue, that crucial information appears to have again been supressed and kept from the public.
The formal statement of proposal provided to the public admits and accepts that many of the options given were selected because of pressure on council over cultural sensitivities about sewage lines traversing the Waimea inlet.
That formal proposal also stated that after the upgrade was finshed, council would sit down and consider whether the method of sewage disposal should be changed from disposal at sea, to disposal on land, which would necessitate the sewage plant being shut down and relocated to an inland site. It was again admitted that this option was also being considered for reasons of cultural sensitivity.
In fact some of this cultural pressure is in the nature of formal submissions demanding that Bells Island be shut down within the next ten years.
Therefore this situation staggeringly proposes that council having just spent up to 54 million dollars upgrading the sewage plant, would then immediately after that upgrade and considerable expenditure, turn round and consider whether or not to shut down and relocate that newly upgraded plant. Such a proposal is sheer insanity, and must be stopped dead in its tracks.
Before one single cent, of ratepayers money is spent on any further new works at Bells Island, one of two things must happen. Either all consideration of relocation of the sewage plant must be scrapped and permanantly taken off the table, or, that possibility must be embraced and properly considered and a decision made one way or the other. To do any thing else is outright madness.
Despite media reporters being present during submissions on this pivotal issue, that crucial information appears to have again been supressed and kept from the public.
19 April 2009
WRC: RECKLESS
For any proposed items of significant expenditure, councils are required to provide a cost benefit analysis to ratepayers so that a properly informed debate and decision can be arrived at during subsequent planning processes.
The Nelson City Council have loudly and repeatedly proclaimed that just such a cost benefit analysis exists in respect of the World Rugby Cup proposal, but it was to be kept secret. However council promised that, that cost benefit analysis would be publicly released prior to the LTCCP planning round so that ratepayers could make properly informed submissions to the LTCCP.
Given economist Berl's stunning conclusion in their economic activity assessment that, "the economic impact generated as a result of holding the games is effectively ZERO", then it becomes patently obvious that any calculation of cost benefit to ratepayers must also be "ZERO", at best; but in reality it is actually a grossly negative benefit. As any and all expenditure is a direct cost to ratepayers, and as there is "ZERO" balancing income or benefit to ratepayers, then any cost benefit must be 100% negative.
The fact that both the economic activity assessment and the cost benefit analysis existed, prior to any decision being made, seriously calls into question the prudence of that decision. To proceed in the face of such seriously adverse economic assessments, data and analysis, can now be seen as, at best, entirely imprudent and foolhardy if not reckless.
In the light of these economic revelations, that cost benefit analysis must be made public. The LTCCP planning round is now in full swing and the promised cost benefit analysis is still being kept secret, and that continued secrecy raises the distinct suspicion that no such cost benefit analysis actually exists.
It is time for council to put up. They must publish that analysis or admit that it does not exist. If it does not exist then clearly council has been misleading the public. When politicians are found to have been deceiving the public, the usual practice is for resignation or removal. Ethically, they should jump before they are pushed.
The Nelson City Council have loudly and repeatedly proclaimed that just such a cost benefit analysis exists in respect of the World Rugby Cup proposal, but it was to be kept secret. However council promised that, that cost benefit analysis would be publicly released prior to the LTCCP planning round so that ratepayers could make properly informed submissions to the LTCCP.
Given economist Berl's stunning conclusion in their economic activity assessment that, "the economic impact generated as a result of holding the games is effectively ZERO", then it becomes patently obvious that any calculation of cost benefit to ratepayers must also be "ZERO", at best; but in reality it is actually a grossly negative benefit. As any and all expenditure is a direct cost to ratepayers, and as there is "ZERO" balancing income or benefit to ratepayers, then any cost benefit must be 100% negative.
The fact that both the economic activity assessment and the cost benefit analysis existed, prior to any decision being made, seriously calls into question the prudence of that decision. To proceed in the face of such seriously adverse economic assessments, data and analysis, can now be seen as, at best, entirely imprudent and foolhardy if not reckless.
In the light of these economic revelations, that cost benefit analysis must be made public. The LTCCP planning round is now in full swing and the promised cost benefit analysis is still being kept secret, and that continued secrecy raises the distinct suspicion that no such cost benefit analysis actually exists.
It is time for council to put up. They must publish that analysis or admit that it does not exist. If it does not exist then clearly council has been misleading the public. When politicians are found to have been deceiving the public, the usual practice is for resignation or removal. Ethically, they should jump before they are pushed.
18 April 2009
SEWAGE: PLAN FLAWED
The Nelson City Council is proposing to spend up to 54 million dollars to upgrade the Bells Island sewage plant.
Both the council and the Nelson Mail have repeatedly pushed a corporate spin to justify such large expenditure. That spin being, that the Waimea Estuary section of the pipeline is, "in imminent danger of total failure."
However that spin was challenged on the basis that, if that was in fact the danger or risk being faced, then why was council not immediately undertaking urgent maintainence by way of repair or replacement, and at the probable cost of only a couple of million dollars or so.
Council then admitted that, that was not in fact the risk being faced, and that automatic shut down systems were in place to prevent such catastrophic spills.
Council also admitted, that the real risk, actually being faced, was that if sometime in the future the pipeline ever did somehow or other fail, then no duplicate pipeline existed as a back up against that future contingency that may or may not ever happen.
Therefore the risk currently being faced is, no different, or no greater, a risk than has always been present, since Bells Island was first commissioned.
If that is so, then the risk analysis underpinning the proposed 54 million dollar expenditure can only be regarded as deeply flawed, and the consequential risk benefit analysis, and cost benefit analysis, must both be equally as deeply flawed.
Alternatively, if any risk of failure does actually exist, then a proper risk analysis would seem to indicate, that the project being proposed is the wrong project to address that risk.
Despite media reporters being present during submissions on this pivotal issue, this crucial information appears to have been supressed, and kept from the public.
Both the council and the Nelson Mail have repeatedly pushed a corporate spin to justify such large expenditure. That spin being, that the Waimea Estuary section of the pipeline is, "in imminent danger of total failure."
However that spin was challenged on the basis that, if that was in fact the danger or risk being faced, then why was council not immediately undertaking urgent maintainence by way of repair or replacement, and at the probable cost of only a couple of million dollars or so.
Council then admitted that, that was not in fact the risk being faced, and that automatic shut down systems were in place to prevent such catastrophic spills.
Council also admitted, that the real risk, actually being faced, was that if sometime in the future the pipeline ever did somehow or other fail, then no duplicate pipeline existed as a back up against that future contingency that may or may not ever happen.
Therefore the risk currently being faced is, no different, or no greater, a risk than has always been present, since Bells Island was first commissioned.
If that is so, then the risk analysis underpinning the proposed 54 million dollar expenditure can only be regarded as deeply flawed, and the consequential risk benefit analysis, and cost benefit analysis, must both be equally as deeply flawed.
Alternatively, if any risk of failure does actually exist, then a proper risk analysis would seem to indicate, that the project being proposed is the wrong project to address that risk.
Despite media reporters being present during submissions on this pivotal issue, this crucial information appears to have been supressed, and kept from the public.
17 April 2009
WRC: REVELATIONS
The Nelson City Council and the Nelson Mail loudly trumpet that there will be 14 million dollars worth of economic activity generated for Nelson, from hosting the World Rugby Cup. However it appears that the harsh economic realities of that imprudent financial adventurism are hugely different to those claimed by them.
Councils own economic impact assessment commmissioned from respected economists Berl, quite simply and startlingly states that;
Councils own economic impact assessment commmissioned from respected economists Berl, quite simply and startlingly states that;
"The revenues generated from admission (ticket) sales at the match, goes direct to the New Zealand Rugby Union.That economic assessment is a sober and altogether stunning revelation of council imprudence and financial adventurism, and no wonder it was being kept secret.
Revenues generated from food and beverages to spectators at the match grounds are retained by Rugby World Cup Limited (RWCL).
The hospitality spending by spectators and in hosting VIP guests outside the games precinct would normally be included in the overall spending estimates used to generate GDP in the analysis. However, these revenues (or certainly profits) are retained by the RWCL.
In the event that all revenues associated with hosting Pool games at Trafalgar Park go direct to the RWCL, the economic impact generated as a result of holding the games is effectively ZERO.
The cost of hosting a game will effectively be paid by the council and ultimately the ratepayers.
This suggests that all expenditure associated with hosting a match is effectively a diversion or transfer of expenditure (by council) rather than additional expenditure coming into the region and conferring economic benefits to the region.
Only in the event that a portion of the Pool game revenues (either ticket revenues or other on site match revenues) is allocated to meeting the cost of mounting any games would there be downstream benefits into the regional economy."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
