Progress … At Great Cost
In the current Tauranga City Council election campaign, a narrative around ‘progress’ is being pushed by the Urban Task Force and their supporters. As Tenby Powell put it in a recent candidate meeting in Otumoetai, “70%+ of candidates are here to stop progress”.
Putting aside the lack of evidence for that number, that comment reflects the narrative put forward by candidates across our city who want to continue with the direction set by the Commissioners. They tell voters not to elect candidates who want significant changes to the Commissioners’ 2024 Long Term Plan.
What they don’t tell you is that their ‘progress’ will come on the backs of Tauranga’s ratepayers.
There’ll be a more than five-fold increase in debt from when Commissioners arrived in early 2021 through to June 2034. And a four-fold increase in the rates take over that same period, from $190M to $769M.
Yep, while inflation is projected to increase only 1.5 times (equivalent to rates increasing from $190M to $285M), rates will increase 4 times – and that’s excluding additional “IFF levies“!
For a household living in an average value property and paying $3750 rates now, they’ll be paying at least $8500 by 2034 under the Commissioners’ plan, and probably more than $10,000. Add in extra Water Rates and Regional Council Rates and their rates bill will total over $200 per week! These rates rises will force some people out of their homes.
If you think any of that’s ‘spin’, just look at the numbers in the Long Term Plan! This is not business-as-usual. Tauranga’s plan is out of step with every other NZ city.
In that context, many candidates accused of trying “to stop progress” are actually tying to stop a financial train-wreck from happening.
Equally worrying, what have we actually got from the Commissioners’ spend-up? There’s been plenty of talk, but unlike councils in previous years, they’ve not been responsible any new water or wastewater plant, and no new community library or sports facilities have been built in their term. What’s more, none of the high-priority TCC transport projects were even started – they only delivered the first leg of the Cameron Rd project and closure of Links Ave!
The narrative around ‘progess’ has been intentionally rolled out by developers and their supporters to paint a polarised picture of Tauranga’s council candidates and divert attention from the real issue, which is that Tauranga needs to move forward with a financially sustainable plan.
A more accurate characterisation is that candidates have (as always) a range of views, including different perspectives on the best ways for Tauranga to develop. It’s possible someone may want to stop progress of any kind, but I haven’t met anyone who fits that description.
What do we even mean by Progress?
A dictionary definition of “progress” is “forward movement towards a destination”. Most people find this a favourable image, because no-one likes to think they’re heading backwards in their life. But a key word here is “destination”.
So what is the preferred destination of the good people of Tauranga? The developers’ candidates don’t talk much about that. Progress itself seems to be enough for them – just keep the growth gravy train rolling…
However making progress is relatively easy when you don’t care where you’re heading – especially using someone else’s credit card. The real issue is whether we end up where need to get to.
Some candidates state they want a continuation of the Commissioners’ plan – which includes “25,000 to 30,000 new dwellings in Tauriko” Western Corridor “in the next 20 to 30 years”, about $1 billion+ of investment into the central city between 2022-2034, and cuts to key transport projects. Their version of ‘progress’ requires an increase in debt to $3 billion by 2034 and those huge rates increases.
Because of that, some candidates want to cut spending and reduce rates increases. The response from the Commissioners, Urban Task Force, and candidates who support them has been to push a simplistic, binary, black and white view that you’re either for ‘progress’ or you’re against everything in the plan.
I Want a More Sustainable Plan
Which leaves people like me. I don’t support the Council’s 2024 Long Term Plan. I want to amend that plan ASAP. It is unsustainable: financially, socially, and environmentally. To me, changing the Commissioners’ plan is progress towards a better outcome!
What’s more, the 2024-34 Plan never underwent proper public consultation – the consultation took place on a vastly different plan that was immediately changed to add $billions of extra spending over the next decade, and to cut transport spending by one-quarter.
But I’m not against everything in the plan. And I’m not against progress. Unlike the people wanting ‘progress’ at any cost, I don’t see the world in black and white, and the people I’ve talked to in Matua-Otumoetai don’t either. We not only see shades of grey, but some of us see a technicolour future, with the goal being a genuinely sustainable and prosperous city.
To do that, we first need to change this plan, listen to what local people really want for our city, and then deliver a more affordable plan that ensures we get far better bang from every ratepayer buck.
For instance, like me, many Otumoetai people want our local swimming pool upgraded – not “decommissioned” as the Commissioners’ wanted. Is destroying a local pool in exchange for a $123 million aquatic centre really ‘progress’? I don’t think so. I think providing safe places to exercise and learn to swim in local communities would be a far better outcome.
Secondly, a number of people have strongly backed my plan for another transfer station on our side of the city – either reopening Maleme St or a new location – something that is not in the Commissioners’ current plan. Wouldn’t that be progress, compared to everyone around here driving all the way to Te Maunga and queuing up for an hour, as the Commissioners made us do?
Thirdly, I’ve also had strong support for my calls for less money to be spent on trying to resuscitate the CBD, and more to be spent on key transport projects. Sorting out the Hewletts Rd-Totara St area, alleviating congestion along Turret Rd, and creating a better public transport system will have huge beneficial impacts on tens of thousands of people’s daily lives. Surely that is progress?
What’s more, government transport subsidies mean that for every ratepayer $1 we spend on transport projects like those, we’ll get back $2 worth of infrastructure.
By contrast, spending hundreds of $millions of public money on an international exhibition centre and Domain Stadium in the CBD will benefit far fewer local people, far less often. So why do the big-spending candidates call that ‘progress’?
Don’t buy into the developers’ narrative this election. Don’t worry about whether a candidate will bring ‘progress’ or not. Instead, think about the outcomes you want and whether a candidate has the knowledge and commitment to make the required changes to get a more sustainable plan.
Ask candidates if they want the Commissioners’ plan, with its massive debt and rates increases, and ongoing developer subsidies? Do they support the plan making ratepayers fund the vast majority of growth infrastructure and CBD projects, and for those things to be prioritised ahead of key transport projects and local community facilities?
Or do they want a more sustainable plan, where land developers pay more towards growth and we keep debt and rates under control? And we invest in things that benefit local people and local communities, including investing in transport projects that make it easier to get around the city? That is my priority.
This election is not about progress v people holding the city back. This election is about whether Tauranga moves forward sustainably, with a democratically consulted and financially responsible plan.