Friday, July 30, 2010
Thursday, July 29, 2010
WATER IS THE ELECTION ISSUE
We have been given a wonderful opportunity with the Wellingtonian. We must now respond with letters about what happened with the vote to bring water management back into Council and out of the hands of the profit takers at Capacity.
THIS IS THE TOUCH STONE ON THE WATER ISSUE RAISED IN THE WELLINGTONIAN EDITORIAL TODAY:
The fact is Councillor Wade-Brown and the others who voted against bringing water management back in -house have no interest in public enterprise offering a service at cost, as is the case when services are delivered in house.
Celia voted to increase Capacity directors’ fees by fifty percent. Capacity contracts its water delivery and maintenance to the profit sector thereby adding extra cost to the consumer. Profit is an extra cost to the consumer. Water delivery in the hands of profit takers is privatising and adding extra cost. Water is a core service and should be delivered at cost in house. A board of directors is also an unnecessary extra cost to the ratepayers.
Cr Bryan Pepperell
Those opposing the new pay deal for directors of LATES and TRUSTS were Councillors Pannett, Pepperell, Ritchie and Goulden.
Those voting for the new pay deal for directors of LATES and TRUSTS at the beginning of the triennium were
Councillors Ahipene-Mercer, Best, Cook, Coughlan, Gill, McKinnon, Morrison, Wade-Brown, Wain and Mayor Prendergast.
MOST RECENT DECISION by those who support Capacity and the profit takers managing and servicing our water:
UPDATE – media release from Councillor Bryan Pepperell
day’s meeting of the council’s strategy and policy committee:
Report One – re Capacity
Water management for WCC and HCC
I put forward the following amendment
Recommend to Council that:
(a) it agree to consult under section 88 of the Local Government Act 2002 on a proposal to bring water management back in house and instead pursue joint venture with local authorities and Wellington Regional Council.
(b) it instruct officers to prepare the necessary consultation documentation for approval by the Strategy and Policy Committee
MOVED Cr Pepperell
SECONDED Cr Ritchie
Voting for the amendment were Councillors Cook, Pannett, Pepperell, Ritchie
Voting against were Councillors Ahipene-Mercer, Best, Coughlan, Gill, McKinnon, Morrison, Wade-Brown, Wain and Mayor Prendergast.
Abstaining was Cr Foster ( Capacity Board Member)
Absent Cr Goulden
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
BBRYAN PEPPERELL FOR MAYOR
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Monday, July 26, 2010
BRYAN PEPPERELL FOR MAYOR
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Friday, July 23, 2010
A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS FOR THE FISHHEASD MAGAZINE INTERVIEW
An interview with Mayoral candidate Bryan Pepperell
1.) How would you sum up the role of Mayor of Wellington?
The Mayor is the chair of the full council. As the head of Wellington, the Mayor must be available city-wide to the constituents, to ensure their views are equally represented. The Mayor is the custodian of democracy at the local level, something which has been forgotten in recent years. In addition, the title of Mayor also carries the same responsibilities as a Justice of The Peace.
2.) What will be the main messages of your campaign for the Mayoralty?
NO EXTRA CHARGE FOR WATER NO WATER METERS FOR HOMEOWNERS
A key focus of mine is retaining the status of water as a public benefit and by virtue of this, keeping it well away from the hands of profit takers. Another focus is making Wellington an affordable city during these uncertain times for both home owners and those who rent. An additional topic close to my heart is maintaining a wide screen focus on the whole community, as opposed to just one specific section with business interest objectives. I would also like to dedicate more parts of the city to pedestrian and car-free spaces.
3.) What do you think are the big issues facing Wellingtonians over the next term and what will you be doing about them if you become Mayor?
The present and very much pressing issue of leaky buildings is casting a dark cloud over our city. This issue has to be attended to before we move on to other things. Equally importantly, we need a city that puts people before profit and where benefits to the public and the concept of living sustainably within our means become key priorities.
4.) What is your view on the privatisation of Wellington’s water?
When the water management local authority trading enterprise Capacity was set up (like Capital Power that replaced the MED) the process of privatising began. Water management should be brought back in house and delivered at cost to the citizens and ratepayers. While it is delivered outside of council we carry the extra cost of a board of directors that are selected rather than elected and as such, water delivery is subject to the profit takers. This is quite wrong and will eventually go the same way as all council controlled trading entities that fall into the hands of profit takers. So far in, Capacity has failed to meet its key performance indicators (KPIs) and the savings objective that were the reason for its creation. Private profit is always an extra cost to the consumer.
5.) What is the best way forward to increase Wellington’s productivity, create jobs and increase wages?
There several ways to look at this question but striking a balance is also important. Liberate the work force, pay by productivity and allow people to work closer to home. As a result people will spend less time travelling by car or by public transport. However if we need to do a paradigm shift as many informed people are now arguing, then it could be that economic expansion and wage increases are not so realistic given the current global financial crisis. In that case, quality of life may be more important. It is also important to note that the leaky building scandal has stalled council's ability to contribute significantly to the local economy. Sometimes we need to face reality and stop dreaming.
6.) Do you think current council processes are transparent enough?
They would be more transparent if the media paid more of an interest in what is happening. Many council meetings take place with no media present. The main public watchdog should be the media.
7.) What are your views on the current rates policy?
I believe that there is a need for a better deal for home owners who are unable to deduct or pass on rates. The residential ratepayer is carrying too much of the rating burden with the switching of business rates onto the residents' rates bill. I also think visitor taxes should be a revenue option. Moving the rates from one sector to another does not deal with the serious problem of the city living beyond its means. One elderly resident talked about the Council's spending spree of rate and spend, borrow and spend, sell and spend. We must live within our means or we will sink with debt. Council's debt could easily exceed the 2009/10 LTCCP level of $325 million within the next two years by over $100 million. At a time of economic recession that spells disaster.
8.) Are you happy with the rate of development in Wellington and the standard of architecture?
The ever-present leaky building issue is bound up with amongst other things - design and architecture. We should have a stronger sense of natural and built heritage. Buildings are taking away sunlight and views, and this is not good. I also believe special attention needs to go into finishing the waterfront, as well as ensuring no more buildings and allowing more open space. We also need better consultation with, and a more attentive ear to, the opinions and aspirations of the community.
9.) In one paragraph explain what you, as Mayor will do for the city of Wellington:
Ultimately, Wellington needs to become self-reliant, affordable and sustainable as climate change and peak oil impinge on us. It is also equally important that we resist the privatisation of water. Additionally, there needs to be a greater focus on pedestrians and cyclists, as well as the implementation of more carless areas. Wellington is compact city, a city that values its quality of life and, by virtue of this, its intellectual life, art and culture above all else. Essentially, we must begin to move towards a paradigm shift where we live closer to work, grow food locally and are above all, less dependent on oil. Personally speaking, should I be elected as Mayor, I believe that we as a city can, beyond simply moving towards, actually accomplish all of the above - and more!
Monday, July 19, 2010
A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD
Part of the Save Capital Power Campaign.
Voted not to sell the parking buildings.
Voted to not sell the airport shares.
Formed the Clean Water campaign in the early 1980s.
Called for the peoples' bank which became Kiwi Bank.
Voted for the Embassy when it was going to be sold.
Voted for retaining city operations when Council wanted to sell.
Opposed the building of the fish zoo on Te Raekaihau Point.
Voted for better cycle ways.
Introduced lower speed limits around schools.
introduced the idea of public advocate.
Introduced Newtown alcohol ban to Council
Voted to not sell public land on the South coast.
Voted to stop business rates being switched onto home owners.
Introduced and voted for income related rents for social housing which resulted in a rental cap.
Introduced Council officers to Peak Oil presentation by Colin Campbell.
Moved Peak Oil onto Council's 40 year plan.
Voted against variation 17 and 11 on the waterfront .
Voted to bring waterfront management company back into Council.
Voted to bring Wellington's water management company back into Council.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
FLUORIDE IN WATER
Sarah FoxJuly 20, 2010 at 4:54am
Re: Fluoride in Water
In reply to your response to my query of your stand on the Fluoridation Issue..
You said "Fluoride is an issue for some people" In fact Bryan Fluoride is an issue not for some but for all people in fluoridated areas.
You said "My personal solution is a filter that I have used for many years" If it is a reverse osmosis filter for your drinking water then this is the only type that will take out fluoride, good on you for investing the money in one. It is a shame that not everyone can afford to do the same. However if the council continues to add fluoride to the water then you simply cannot avoid exposure to it. When you shower you are absorbing the equivalent fluoride if you had drunk a litre of water...If you are drinking the water at council everyday then I am sure theirs is not filtered by reverse osmosis. If you are eating processed foods/ drinks made in a fluoridated area then it will have fluoride. Fluoride based pesticides on fruit and vegetables are often used as well. You can see that the water suddenly doesn't become the only concern. I would go as far to say that we are all overdosed. When a baby drinks a bottle of formula mixed with fluoridated water and a grown man drinks the same amount of water they are both getting exactly the same dose... does this make good sense from a pharmacological point of view?Who is monitoring this exposure? No one.
The issue may not be seen as high importance right now though what is going on behind the scenes shows something different. The MOH have just put out an RFP for a PR/science group to represent the case to increase fluoridation and will probably be spending hundreds of thousands of dollars of tax payers money to spin the public propandaga.
The case against is strong enough even just with the acknowlegment of harm in the form of dental fluorosis in 30% of people in areas of fluoridation. These are their stats from their studies. The science is there and a strong case has been presented not only by fringe activists in the past but now with a growing body of professionals and scientists.
The far North has stood up and voted against it, Waipuk in October had a survey which showed that 60% of the people did not want it but their council kept it in anyway. Kapiti were divided down the middle in their vote and chose to stay with the status quo. They were threatened with a judicial review a week before voting. The shift in the last year has been enormous because people are actually starting to become aware that mass medication is against every persons basic rights to refuse a medicine.
Think of it like this Bryan... Would you be comfortable adding arsenic or lead in small doses to your peoples water for them to drink everyday? because as we all well know fluoride is as toxic.
Currently we are asking all candidates on their stand because we have thousands of members in various poison awareness groups all over the country who want to be know who to vote for in the upcoming elections in their various areas. If you were to vote for or against which would it be?
If you need any more information please do not hesitate to contact me.
Wellington Representative, Health Freedom New Zealand Trust
WELLINGTON'S RATES OUT OF CONTROL
Press Release – Bryan Pepperell Wellington City Councillour
Recently I asked for the compounding rate increase for residential property over the last five years from the city council´s CFO. My records from 1 July 2003 to 30 June to 2004 show my rates at $1275.69. They are now $2204.52.
That’s close enough to 73 percent and I pay for my own rubbish. The figure I was given by the CFO was 45 percent.
Now this is an incredible increase but it does include the shift in the differential rates. However it still has to be found in difficult times and, as was pointed out to me today, only people pay rates not businesses. Either people in business absorb the rates or they pass them on. That is not an option for residential ratepayers as they are the end user.
Many people come to the city during the day to work or visit; some stay overnight and others stay a little while longer. While they are here who do you suggest pays for the services they use?
On page 4 of the short version of the Your City Your Say of the LTCCP 2009-2019 it says we are reducing the amount that the commercial sector subsidises the resident. That is a politically loaded statement. It is not sectors but people who pay and they are individuals who either can pass on their rates or cannot. Given that it is not the business that pays rates but people, where does the notion of subsidy lie? The council document is subjective and political.