Should Waiheke Island De-Amalgamated from Auckland Council?

Forums › Off topic › Should Waiheke Island De-Amalgamated from Auckland Council?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

20515 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4795

#1261841 18-Mar-2015 17:05

Geektastic:
mattwnz:
KiwiNZ: This is a tricky one, in the Wellington Region we are going through the debate as to should we have a super city. There is a case for and a case against and both camps have some merit. Personally I am opposed to super cities. I also don't have a lot of faith in Local Government, I would rather see it dealt with by central Government.
As for Waiheke Island I am not sure that their funding requirements could be met by the residents alone.

I agree in the sense that it should be handled centrally these days, as there are effiencies doing it that way, and costs are shared across a large pool of people. But I am for a supercity because it is better than the current system where you have many tiny councils with so much duplication.

That is certainly true in the Wairarapa, where what should be one county council is handled by 3 disparate councils no bigger or more effective than a parish council.

I believe the wairarapa have some big potential costs coming up such as a sewage treatment plant, and flood protection systems that need to be built, and they have big roading infrastructures to manage. So in terms of costs I think they would benefit from being part of a big supercity. I think the super citys benefit the smaller areas, than the larger areas, and the super citys don't want to be accused of ignoring the smaller areas.

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1261842 18-Mar-2015 17:06

cyberhub:
Geektastic: I think it shows very little of use: you cannot tell how well they spend the money, just how much.

For example, SWDC road maintenance is appalling - their contractors verge on incompetent, the management of the contracts is hopeless and most of the work ends up being done again within 18 months if not sooner. This is at least as important as how much they actually spend.

They are also wasting $6 million on a new 'community centre'. My advice to the mayor when she asked me what I thought they should do (the old one is not earthquake code compliant) was "bulldoze it and sell the site as it is not worth spending money on something used only for a few AmDram productions and a couple of concerts in a year." but no - we need a new, expensive one with a lovely Maori name....a HUGE waste of money IMV.

Our rates bill exceeds $3500 now and we get precisely SFA for that really - they do not even empty our bins. No doubt they will expect us to pay more for the pointless community centre as well.

$3500 is alot for Wairarapa, tell me how would you feel if your council suddenly decided it was going to increase rates 5.6% compounding yearly for the next ten years. Which effectively means 70% increase in rates?

I'd feel even more annoyed than I do now.

Aside from roads, we get very little from our council and they cannot even do that properly. I'd prefer the roads to come under the MOT and the council to be disbanded. As far as I can see, we have one because we always have, not because we actually need one. Privatise the water and sewage (works fine that way in Europe - and we get neither at our address in any case) and after that, what are they for?

mattwnz

20515 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4795

#1261845 18-Mar-2015 17:10

Geektastic:
cyberhub:
Geektastic: I think it shows very little of use: you cannot tell how well they spend the money, just how much.

For example, SWDC road maintenance is appalling - their contractors verge on incompetent, the management of the contracts is hopeless and most of the work ends up being done again within 18 months if not sooner. This is at least as important as how much they actually spend.

They are also wasting $6 million on a new 'community centre'. My advice to the mayor when she asked me what I thought they should do (the old one is not earthquake code compliant) was "bulldoze it and sell the site as it is not worth spending money on something used only for a few AmDram productions and a couple of concerts in a year." but no - we need a new, expensive one with a lovely Maori name....a HUGE waste of money IMV.

Our rates bill exceeds $3500 now and we get precisely SFA for that really - they do not even empty our bins. No doubt they will expect us to pay more for the pointless community centre as well.

$3500 is alot for Wairarapa, tell me how would you feel if your council suddenly decided it was going to increase rates 5.6% compounding yearly for the next ten years. Which effectively means 70% increase in rates?

I'd feel even more annoyed than I do now.

Aside from roads, we get very little from our council and they cannot even do that properly. I'd prefer the roads to come under the MOT and the council to be disbanded. As far as I can see, we have one because we always have, not because we actually need one. Privatise the water and sewage (works fine that way in Europe - and we get neither at our address in any case) and after that, what are they for?

I believe currently you are rated on your land value, as your council is one of the few that still rate this way. But if/when there is a super city, I believe they will probably change to the RV for rating, as most Wellington councils rate on the RV and not the LV. Not sure if that will change it much in your situation, but if you have a high value house, it could increase rates by a lot. But they will probably bring in some form of differential rating to protect against this, as my local council did this when they moved from LV to RV ratings.. Currently people in your area pay the same in rates regardless if they have an empty section, or a house on that section where people are living. 3k + ish seems quite normal for the wairarapa due to the smaller pool of rate payers, even though you get less in services than say Wellington city, which has great public facilities and transport.

If they are borrowing a lot of money to build a community centre, if it becomes part of a super city, won't that cost be absorbed into the main supercity council, so all ratepayers across the region end up paying for it?

UncleArthur

197 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 65

#1261918 18-Mar-2015 19:42

To answer the original question:
Q: "Should Waiheke Island De-Amalgamated from Auckland Council?"
A: Everybody should de-amalgamate from Auckland Council - even Auckland.

Homer: "Son, you tried and you failed....the lesson is...never try"

old3eyes

9158 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1364

Subscriber

#1262122 19-Mar-2015 09:04

UncleArthur: To answer the original question:
Q: "Should Waiheke Island De-Amalgamated from Auckland Council?"
A: Everybody should de-amalgamate from Auckland Council - even Auckland.

Support that 100%

Regards,

Old3eyes

trig42

5889 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2094

ID Verified

#1262141 19-Mar-2015 09:34

I'm not really sure why this is a Geekzone topic, but it is Off Topic I suppose.

I have lived on Waiheke for 40 years. I work in Auckland. I use the (unsubidised) ferry every day, and then Aucklands roads and some infrastructure. I am proud to be an Aucklander.

I cannot see any benefit to Waiheke de-amalgamating from Auckland. We cannot run the island on our own - nothing would ever get done (for those that don't live in a small, reasonably isolated community, everything that happens on Waiheke is whinged and moaned about by someone - it is usually a tiny majority, but sometimes they can be very squeaky wheels - Countdown yesterday announced a new supermarket for the Island, and I have already seen people complaining about it saying Waiheke shouldn't have such things, they would prefer a general store where you asked the ~~man~~ person behind the counter to fetch your items from the shelves behind them and have them delivered by horse and cart). Waiheke also attracts people that think it should be their form of utopia and try to change it. Imagine trying to build a new Library (which the Council just did on Waiheke), or a sports park pavilion, or even a boat ramp (let's not mention Marinas). Auckland Council seems a massive, inefficient behemoth, but we (like everyone else lucky enough to live in Auckland) are stuck with it. Rates are going up, and it sucks, but the flip side is that being where we are, property values are also going up (by more than the rates percentage too). Some districts in NZ (most districts probably) have an annual rates increase greater than the capital value increase of their dwelling.

As mentioned above, Waiheke ratepayers could not afford a major expense (like if the already too small wastewater treatment plant we have for the main business district needed replacing), and I believe costs associated with de-amalgamation would be too much to bear and any district/county council would be in debt up to its eyeballs before there was even an election to elect a 'Mayor' (which would be hijacked by a quite unpleasant and sometimes bullying group of people on Facebook). What is an IT system worth for a small council? How many staff? Vehicles, Plant, parks equipment....

The OP maybe also should disclose that his wife is an elected member of the Waiheke Local Board. She campaigned on a promise to build a community pool on Waiheke (which isn't going to happen without significant council monies) - would a de-amalgamated Waiheke council be able to afford to build and run a pool? Doubtful. Probably not hugely relevant, but should maybe be disclosed.

HP

Shop now for HP laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1262163 19-Mar-2015 10:09

mattwnz:
Geektastic:
mattwnz:
KiwiNZ: This is a tricky one, in the Wellington Region we are going through the debate as to should we have a super city. There is a case for and a case against and both camps have some merit. Personally I am opposed to super cities. I also don't have a lot of faith in Local Government, I would rather see it dealt with by central Government.
As for Waiheke Island I am not sure that their funding requirements could be met by the residents alone.

I agree in the sense that it should be handled centrally these days, as there are effiencies doing it that way, and costs are shared across a large pool of people. But I am for a supercity because it is better than the current system where you have many tiny councils with so much duplication.

That is certainly true in the Wairarapa, where what should be one county council is handled by 3 disparate councils no bigger or more effective than a parish council.

I believe the wairarapa have some big potential costs coming up such as a sewage treatment plant, and flood protection systems that need to be built, and they have big roading infrastructures to manage. So in terms of costs I think they would benefit from being part of a big supercity. I think the super citys benefit the smaller areas, than the larger areas, and the super citys don't want to be accused of ignoring the smaller areas.

I agree they'd benefit but the parochial backwoods folk round here can't see that - they oppose the idea mightily!

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1262165 19-Mar-2015 10:11

mattwnz:
Geektastic:
cyberhub:
Geektastic: I think it shows very little of use: you cannot tell how well they spend the money, just how much.

For example, SWDC road maintenance is appalling - their contractors verge on incompetent, the management of the contracts is hopeless and most of the work ends up being done again within 18 months if not sooner. This is at least as important as how much they actually spend.

They are also wasting $6 million on a new 'community centre'. My advice to the mayor when she asked me what I thought they should do (the old one is not earthquake code compliant) was "bulldoze it and sell the site as it is not worth spending money on something used only for a few AmDram productions and a couple of concerts in a year." but no - we need a new, expensive one with a lovely Maori name....a HUGE waste of money IMV.

Our rates bill exceeds $3500 now and we get precisely SFA for that really - they do not even empty our bins. No doubt they will expect us to pay more for the pointless community centre as well.

$3500 is alot for Wairarapa, tell me how would you feel if your council suddenly decided it was going to increase rates 5.6% compounding yearly for the next ten years. Which effectively means 70% increase in rates?

I'd feel even more annoyed than I do now.

Aside from roads, we get very little from our council and they cannot even do that properly. I'd prefer the roads to come under the MOT and the council to be disbanded. As far as I can see, we have one because we always have, not because we actually need one. Privatise the water and sewage (works fine that way in Europe - and we get neither at our address in any case) and after that, what are they for?

I believe currently you are rated on your land value, as your council is one of the few that still rate this way. But if/when there is a super city, I believe they will probably change to the RV for rating, as most Wellington councils rate on the RV and not the LV. Not sure if that will change it much in your situation, but if you have a high value house, it could increase rates by a lot. But they will probably bring in some form of differential rating to protect against this, as my local council did this when they moved from LV to RV ratings.. Currently people in your area pay the same in rates regardless if they have an empty section, or a house on that section where people are living. 3k + ish seems quite normal for the wairarapa due to the smaller pool of rate payers, even though you get less in services than say Wellington city, which has great public facilities and transport.

If they are borrowing a lot of money to build a community centre, if it becomes part of a super city, won't that cost be absorbed into the main supercity council, so all ratepayers across the region end up paying for it?

No idea, but we have to pay rates for the Cake Tin so it would only be fair..!

sxz

761 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 194

#1262242 19-Mar-2015 11:18

No. Should Three Kings? Should Remuera?

Isn't Waiheke pretty much a suburb of Auckland? I'd like to see the infographic show what proportion of Waihehe residents regularly go into and rely on Auckland for work, food, entertainment etc. I lived in Auckland for a few years and met many, many people who live in Waiheke and commute each day. Others who work on the island still rely on the facilities of Auckland (just less often), which their rates contribute to.

I can understand why you might consider this, if you live on Waiheke and almost never leave, however, I do not see how this is different from someone who lives and works in Thee Kings (and almost never leaves). Should they also form their own council?

Also - who else was surprised at the infrastructure of Gore?

cyberhub

224 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 22

#1262280 19-Mar-2015 11:48

trig42: I'm not really sure why this is a Geekzone topic, but it is Off Topic I suppose.

I have lived on Waiheke for 40 years. I work in Auckland. I use the (unsubidised) ferry every day, and then Aucklands roads and some infrastructure. I am proud to be an Aucklander.

I cannot see any benefit to Waiheke de-amalgamating from Auckland. We cannot run the island on our own - nothing would ever get done (for those that don't live in a small, reasonably isolated community, everything that happens on Waiheke is whinged and moaned about by someone - it is usually a tiny majority, but sometimes they can be very squeaky wheels - Countdown yesterday announced a new supermarket for the Island, and I have already seen people complaining about it saying Waiheke shouldn't have such things, they would prefer a general store where you asked the ~~man~~ person behind the counter to fetch your items from the shelves behind them and have them delivered by horse and cart). Waiheke also attracts people that think it should be their form of utopia and try to change it. Imagine trying to build a new Library (which the Council just did on Waiheke), or a sports park pavilion, or even a boat ramp (let's not mention Marinas). Auckland Council seems a massive, inefficient behemoth, but we (like everyone else lucky enough to live in Auckland) are stuck with it. Rates are going up, and it sucks, but the flip side is that being where we are, property values are also going up (by more than the rates percentage too). Some districts in NZ (most districts probably) have an annual rates increase greater than the capital value increase of their dwelling.

As mentioned above, Waiheke ratepayers could not afford a major expense (like if the already too small wastewater treatment plant we have for the main business district needed replacing), and I believe costs associated with de-amalgamation would be too much to bear and any district/county council would be in debt up to its eyeballs before there was even an election to elect a 'Mayor' (which would be hijacked by a quite unpleasant and sometimes bullying group of people on Facebook). What is an IT system worth for a small council? How many staff? Vehicles, Plant, parks equipment....

The OP maybe also should disclose that his wife is an elected member of the Waiheke Local Board. She campaigned on a promise to build a community pool on Waiheke (which isn't going to happen without significant council monies) - would a de-amalgamated Waiheke council be able to afford to build and run a pool? Doubtful. Probably not hugely relevant, but should maybe be disclosed.

You bring up great points trig42. Something I have noticed people have commented on a few times is that Waiheke can't afford to separate. Please have a look at the infographic. You can see it here http://www.ourwaiheke.co.nz/council-comparison/ What you will notice is that firstly we don't have the updated income figures and we don't have any expense figures. Why, well Auckland Council either refuse to give those figures or don't have easy access to them. So straight away there is a lack of transparency. What this means, for income some of the figures are from 2007, so are quite likely to be much higher now. Also for expenses we don't have any residential water costs or sewer costs. Yes there is a small waste water sewage plant.

You mentioned that Waiheke could not afford a major expense. Our outdated figures show that Waiheke gets at least 21.2 million in rates per year. Which is higher than any of the other Councils measured, tell me what major expense has Auckland Council invested into Waiheke in your 40 years? The only thing I can think of is the library which was budgeted at 5.1 million, and it has been 8 months since opening and we still don't have confirmed figures of what it cost - are you seeing a trend? Other than that I am not aware of any significant capital expenditure. Do you know of any others?

Of course there will always be those that oppose something, it is just the nature of things. I think most people on Waiheke will agree that a new shopping center on Waiheke is well overdue.

You have lived here for 40 years, excellent. Have you lived in the same location? If so, would you mind sharing what your rates were in 1989 when Waiheke had it's own County Council and had no debt at all and what they are now. I will quickly do a quick calculation for you how much your rates are going to increase based on those figures and the proposed rates increase over the next 10 years that Auckland Council has proposed.

In regards to what a Waiheke Council will look like. The Our Waiheke working group is putting that information together, if you have not already done so make sure you like our Facebook group as we will let you know figures as they become available. https://www.facebook.com/groups/1416291922003192/

We are investigating IT system, staff numbers and other costs that will be associated with a Waiheke Council, if you are not a facebook person you can subscribe to our email newsletter to get this information. http://www.ourwaiheke.co.nz/volunteer/

Oh yes, I am Dan Ballard and I am on the Our Waiheke Working Group and my wife is a local board member. Also so you know, the Local Board did have a plan for a Waiheke Pool that was dashed to pieces when Auckland Council decided to pull all their funding for local boards which you can read about here http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/10630588/Browns-Auckland-masterplan-gets-21-gun-refute

Other communities around the country have gotten pools for under a million and then tend to cover them for another million making them year round. So if Waiheke was it's own Council I would be inclined to think we would get a pool. This can be practically demonstrated by the infographic. Every single Council that gets much less money than Waiheke has at least one pool.

Also, in regards to debt accumulation well that would be up to the Waiheke voters and who they vote in to represent them in the proposed Waiheke Council. Are you aware of how much debt Auckland City has accumulated? This article came out yesterday explaining it. http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6593849/Councils-debt-levels-slammed-by-agency

$7 billion or $7,000,000,000 ten year total debt. Do you want to be part of that?

CyberHub - Hosting Made Simple

cyberhub

224 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 22

#1262296 19-Mar-2015 12:02

sxz: No. Should Three Kings? Should Remuera?

Isn't Waiheke pretty much a suburb of Auckland? I'd like to see the infographic show what proportion of Waihehe residents regularly go into and rely on Auckland for work, food, entertainment etc. I lived in Auckland for a few years and met many, many people who live in Waiheke and commute each day. Others who work on the island still rely on the facilities of Auckland (just less often), which their rates contribute to.

I can understand why you might consider this, if you live on Waiheke and almost never leave, however, I do not see how this is different from someone who lives and works in Thee Kings (and almost never leaves). Should they also form their own council?

Also - who else was surprised at the infrastructure of Gore?

You bring up some good points. Waiheke unlike Three Kings or Remuera or pretty much any other land attached suburb of Auckland don't share any infrastructure. No pipe, cable, water or sewage treatment plant etc. Waiheke is completely separate physically and infrastructurally (I may of made up that word), all shared infrastructure is privately owned such as Chorus cables, Fullers and Sealink Ferry service etc.

In regards to people going to and fro, we estimate about 2,000 people commute every day to Auckland and there are about 1,000,000 (or roughly 2700 per day average) people visiting Waiheke from Auckland each year. These are rough figures, we are going to be doing some research so will have better figures in the future.

So just based on those rough figures they balance themselves out. Based on those rough figures a majority of Waihekians don't go to Auckland.

CyberHub - Hosting Made Simple

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

SaltyNZ

8865 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9543

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#1262341 19-Mar-2015 12:34

cyberhub: Also so you know, the Local Board did have a plan for a Waiheke Pool that was dashed to pieces when Auckland Council decided to pull all their funding for local boards which you can read about here http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/10630588/Browns-Auckland-masterplan-gets-21-gun-refute

Other communities around the country have gotten pools for under a million and then tend to cover them for another million making them year round. So if Waiheke was it's own Council I would be inclined to think we would get a pool. This can be practically demonstrated by the infographic. Every single Council that gets much less money than Waiheke has at least one pool.

I never really bought the argument for publicly funded pools. This is Auckland, not Alice Springs; if you want to swim for free, drive approximately ten minutes in any direction and you're at the beach. Five minutes if you're on Waiheke.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

cyberhub

224 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 22

#1262357 19-Mar-2015 12:46

SaltyNZ:
cyberhub: Also so you know, the Local Board did have a plan for a Waiheke Pool that was dashed to pieces when Auckland Council decided to pull all their funding for local boards which you can read about here http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/10630588/Browns-Auckland-masterplan-gets-21-gun-refute

Other communities around the country have gotten pools for under a million and then tend to cover them for another million making them year round. So if Waiheke was it's own Council I would be inclined to think we would get a pool. This can be practically demonstrated by the infographic. Every single Council that gets much less money than Waiheke has at least one pool.

I never really bought the argument for publicly funded pools. This is Auckland, not Alice Springs; if you want to swim for free, drive approximately ten minutes in any direction and you're at the beach. Five minutes if you're on Waiheke.

SaltyNZ - ok you are not a big fan of publicly funded pools, that is fair enough. However on Waiheke we don't have the choice, sure the beach is fine for Summer but is not good for learning to swim in the shoulder seasons and Winter.

But that is not really the point. Other communities pay far less in rates and have fair more in services and infrastructure than Waiheke.

CyberHub - Hosting Made Simple

trig42

5889 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2094

ID Verified

#1262418 19-Mar-2015 13:56

... snip
So just based on those rough figures they balance themselves out. Based on those rough figures a majority of Waihekians don't go to Auckland.

What??

Find me someone who lives on Waiheke that does not go to Auckland. There may be a couple of hermits, but I'd say a vast majority do regularly go into the city and beyond. Those over 65 even more so since it costs them nothing to do so (and doesn't AT pay some of the Gold Card fares? - I thought they covered the after 5pm fares, or the evening rush hour ones).

Remember, there are Statistics, Damn Statistics and Lies. Your infographic means nothing to me without the source of the underlying data - it is just a pretty picture. THings cost more to do on Waiheke - you can't just drive things in (like roading machines) to do it. We know that when we move here (I didn't, I was only 2, but my parents, who are still there, did).

trig42

5889 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2094

ID Verified

#1262428 19-Mar-2015 14:07

cyberhub:
trig42: I'm not really sure why this is a Geekzone topic, but it is Off Topic I suppose.

I have lived on Waiheke for 40 years. I work in Auckland. I use the (unsubidised) ferry every day, and then Aucklands roads and some infrastructure. I am proud to be an Aucklander.

I cannot see any benefit to Waiheke de-amalgamating from Auckland. We cannot run the island on our own - nothing would ever get done (for those that don't live in a small, reasonably isolated community, everything that happens on Waiheke is whinged and moaned about by someone - it is usually a tiny majority, but sometimes they can be very squeaky wheels - Countdown yesterday announced a new supermarket for the Island, and I have already seen people complaining about it saying Waiheke shouldn't have such things, they would prefer a general store where you asked the ~~man~~ person behind the counter to fetch your items from the shelves behind them and have them delivered by horse and cart). Waiheke also attracts people that think it should be their form of utopia and try to change it. Imagine trying to build a new Library (which the Council just did on Waiheke), or a sports park pavilion, or even a boat ramp (let's not mention Marinas). Auckland Council seems a massive, inefficient behemoth, but we (like everyone else lucky enough to live in Auckland) are stuck with it. Rates are going up, and it sucks, but the flip side is that being where we are, property values are also going up (by more than the rates percentage too). Some districts in NZ (most districts probably) have an annual rates increase greater than the capital value increase of their dwelling.

As mentioned above, Waiheke ratepayers could not afford a major expense (like if the already too small wastewater treatment plant we have for the main business district needed replacing), and I believe costs associated with de-amalgamation would be too much to bear and any district/county council would be in debt up to its eyeballs before there was even an election to elect a 'Mayor' (which would be hijacked by a quite unpleasant and sometimes bullying group of people on Facebook). What is an IT system worth for a small council? How many staff? Vehicles, Plant, parks equipment....

The OP maybe also should disclose that his wife is an elected member of the Waiheke Local Board. She campaigned on a promise to build a community pool on Waiheke (which isn't going to happen without significant council monies) - would a de-amalgamated Waiheke council be able to afford to build and run a pool? Doubtful. Probably not hugely relevant, but should maybe be disclosed.

You bring up great points trig42. Something I have noticed people have commented on a few times is that Waiheke can't afford to separate. Please have a look at the infographic. You can see it here http://www.ourwaiheke.co.nz/council-comparison/ What you will notice is that firstly we don't have the updated income figures and we don't have any expense figures. Why, well Auckland Council either refuse to give those figures or don't have easy access to them. So straight away there is a lack of transparency. What this means, for income some of the figures are from 2007, so are quite likely to be much higher now. Also for expenses we don't have any residential water costs or sewer costs. Yes there is a small waste water sewage plant.

You mentioned that Waiheke could not afford a major expense. Our outdated figures show that Waiheke gets at least 21.2 million in rates per year. Which is higher than any of the other Councils measured, tell me what major expense has Auckland Council invested into Waiheke in your 40 years? The only thing I can think of is the library which was budgeted at 5.1 million, and it has been 8 months since opening and we still don't have confirmed figures of what it cost - are you seeing a trend? Other than that I am not aware of any significant capital expenditure. Do you know of any others?

Off the top of my head (and I'm sure there are lots more):

New Matiatia Wharf
Major Improvements to the KP Wharf
Onetangi Sports Park
Improvements to parks at beaches (Little O springs to mind)
Rec Centre

None of which (bar the Little O park) are cheap. Didn't the current local board defer spending on further projects this year, then have the Council tighten it's belt and lose the funding altogether? I wouldn't trust any of them with all of my rates money.

Of course there will always be those that oppose something, it is just the nature of things. I think most people on Waiheke will agree that a new shopping center on Waiheke is well overdue.

Agreed, but mark my words - some idiot will climb a tree, or some group will pop up that slows it down - even though ALL consents I believe have been granted for it.

You have lived here for 40 years, excellent. Have you lived in the same location? If so, would you mind sharing what your rates were in 1989 when Waiheke had it's own County Council and had no debt at all and what they are now. I will quickly do a quick calculation for you how much your rates are going to increase based on those figures and the proposed rates increase over the next 10 years that Auckland Council has proposed.

Didn't own property here in the 80s (wish I did). Can't remember our rates bills from the 90s, but we bought a house in about 96 for $170k, it would be worth over $550k now (we don't live in that one any more, but I keep an eye on values)

In regards to what a Waiheke Council will look like. The Our Waiheke working group is putting that information together, if you have not already done so make sure you like our Facebook group as we will let you know figures as they become available. https://www.facebook.com/groups/1416291922003192/

We are investigating IT system, staff numbers and other costs that will be associated with a Waiheke Council, if you are not a facebook person you can subscribe to our email newsletter to get this information. http://www.ourwaiheke.co.nz/volunteer/

Oh yes, I am Dan Ballard and I am on the Our Waiheke Working Group and my wife is a local board member. Also so you know, the Local Board did have a plan for a Waiheke Pool that was dashed to pieces when Auckland Council decided to pull all their funding for local boards which you can read about here http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/10630588/Browns-Auckland-masterplan-gets-21-gun-refute

Other communities around the country have gotten pools for under a million and then tend to cover them for another million making them year round. So if Waiheke was it's own Council I would be inclined to think we would get a pool. This can be practically demonstrated by the infographic. Every single Council that gets much less money than Waiheke has at least one pool.

Also, in regards to debt accumulation well that would be up to the Waiheke voters and who they vote in to represent them in the proposed Waiheke Council. Are you aware of how much debt Auckland City has accumulated? This article came out yesterday explaining it. http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6593849/Councils-debt-levels-slammed-by-agency

$7 billion or $7,000,000,000 ten year total debt. Do you want to be part of that?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5