Letters to the Editor
Stokes Valley News - August 2002
You are welcome to write to Stokes Valley News about any issue. Letters will be published at the sole discretion of the editor. You can write to editor@svn.co.nz, or you can use the online form at the bottom of this page (disabled in archive).
Sir,
Re: The Dominion Post, Sat July 13, 2002 - “METRO”
The opening paragraph “The nigh cost of Hutt Valley’s new sewerage treatment
plant could see some of Lower Hutt’s poorest residents bearing the brunt again.”
Wellington Regional Councillor, Dick Werry, who bought the Pomare Court residential
complex in Northern Taita from the Hutt City Council for $720,000 is now seeking $2
million for the sale of the complex. “It’s time to sell” he said. Really?
The complex of 72 former council bed-sits and one bedroom flats, houses some of the
poorest of Lower Hutt’s citizens who will face further increases of $11.00 per week,
after increases two years ago from $70.00 up to $85.00 per week. Mr Werry blames the
so-called toilet tax of $150.00 for each extra toilet within a rateable property. His
company’s total rate bill reportedly increases from $125,300 to $520,000 per annum or
415%. By any measurement this is a huge increase. On the face of it, it does not seem very
fair to me!
Council flats were bought on the basis they would continue to be cheap and available for
those with limited means. In Taita that means the poorest and most vulnerable. Mr Werry
has been described by tenants as a good Landlord. Maybe and maybe not, when considering
increases in rents and his plans to sell. Any increases in welfare benefits wouldn’t
buy a loaf of bread, let alone help with increases in rents. Mr Werry’s company,
River Residential Ltd, is one of Lower Hutt’s biggest private Landlords, having 300
properties - I presume most are former council rental properties. The Council’s
privatisation policies are bringing the chickens home to roost. No more council flats
should be sold!
If the claims are true, it is scandalous!!
Firstly, it council is trying to cut its debt (through privatisation of council housing,
originally financed through low interest state loans) so it could (allegedly) afford the
$60 million being spent of the Seaview sewerage treatment plant. Such expenditure has
historically been paid for over 20 years or more spreading the debt over a couple of
generations of users. Secondly, if reports are true the profit to be gained by the sale of
Pomare Court (720,00 to $2 million) are nothing more than usary and the company should be
run out of the City. The owner would have been tarred and feathered in an earlier age. The
biggest losers will be the poor and vulnerable tenants and the credibility of the owners.
Somebody will be knee-deep in the proverbial! Taita is waiting in anticipation for Mayor
Terris and Mr Werry to front up and explain the facts of the matter - that is an example
of the leadership I have previously mentioned as been lacking.
Peter Peterson
Stokes Valley
Sir,
I am against the changes in standing orders Rule40.2 says sub judee that is what qualified
privilege is aout. Rule 40:2A Wellington City Council is flexible, you only have to ring
them. So the order papers do not explain this clearly.
One of the problems I see in making this standing order, it gives you less time to read
the agenda and order papers which the public are allowed to inspect before a meeting. Many
people only get their Agenda and Order papers before the Council meeting, and the time
which Council suggest 12pm the day before is ridiculous. It will really be 5pm because
this is the time the Council office closes.
This standing order creates barriers for:
1. Not having time to read Order papers and Agenda, which are the public right under the
Local Government Information and Meetings Act of 1987 and Amendment 1991, Chapter 7.
2. It will force people to come over to the office and fill out application form.
3. You won’t have time to post an application.
4. There is no standing order for people who cannot write.
I find 12pm the day before, unreasonable. It would have been more acceptable if the
standing order was in by 4pm by phone.
So I believe this standing order should be thrown out!
Rule 40:4, what could happen with this rule is that the person should be allowed to finish
their comment through the chair if there has been a defamatory comment, the person may ask
for an apology because you have a situation where one person has found someone guilty of
defamation which may be vexatious litigation and you have witch hunts.
There is no standing order to protect members of the public from defamatory comments. The
law gives agenda and order paper qualified privilege. If the behaviour is bad or language
abusive, you can be given the humpty dumpty under law Section 50. But what about a
standing order to protect members of the public from members and council staff, or will
member4s give there right of qualified privilege.
What must be realized is that qualified privilege only applies if things are said in good
faith.
No Co-Chairs but Deputy Chairs. Yes to consultation of this issue!
Mike Griggs
Wainuiomata
Please feel free to use this online form to write to the editor of the Stokes Valley News Online (disabled in archive). Name, suburb and e-mail address fields are all required. Your name and suburb will be included with your letter, if published. Your e-mail address will not be published unless you specifically request this.