Last Thursday’s consultation meeting at The Lost Spring was informative. I acknowledge the huge challenges our elected representatives are grappling with. They will always be open to criticism, no matter what they come up with.
The answer to not include a version of Option 4, splitting the Coromandel Peninsula into two, with East going East and West going West, was unconvincing. Still, it was noted that in the TCDC online (or paper) survey, you could add it as an alternative suggestion.
Afterwards, people approached me asking for my opinion on Community Boards, which, in my view, after the Accord’s adoption, are a waste of time unless they are given more budget and decision-making powers.
That’s where Option 4 comes into play. Its core idea is to reset the Thames bureaucracy, reducing its influence and creating focused Local Boards in Whitianga, Tairua/Pauanui, Whangamata, and possibly Coromandel/Colville, which would better serve local interests.
The rub is: local communities don’t get to choose, despite the current “engagement”.
As with the amalgamation of the Thames and Coromandel Counties some 37 years ago, when both Coromandel and the East Coast were passionately opposed, Thames, with its larger constituency, won the day, much to the chagrin of Coromandel County residents.
History now looks to be repeating itself. If Option 2 (WBOP/TCC) is chosen, which appears to be TCDC’s leaning, it will, by and large, maintain the status quo in Thames. Power will still be concentrated there, and money will keep flowing from East to West.
So, how to achieve Option 4 against these odds? Here is a possible pathway, keeping the option of not splitting TCDC in play:
Account for the separate engagement input from all 5 Community Board areas, including Thames. Still, with one simple proviso: if Thames were to choose, say, Option 2, it would be on the condition that it is reformed into a Local Board equal in status to the proposed East Coast Boards. If Thames chose Option 3, it could join Hauraki on its own or together with Coromandel, depending on its choice.
There is a minor risk that not all East Coast communities will favour Option 2 (or Option 4), but from what I hear, that risk is negligible.
With Local Boards in charge of a number of general responsibilities, where commonality and economies of scale weigh in, these responsibilities would migrate from Thames to Tauranga. This would help to keep the local Boards lean and mean. They would be funded from rates collected in the wards they represent, without cross-subsidisation.
At the meeting, a slide listed ‘maintaining the local voice’ as a high priority; it should have said ‘strengthen our local voices’. It indicated to me that voices would be heard, but did not convince me that the LOCAL voice would be listened to.
Option 4 will truly empower the local voice, and if implemented properly, will reduce bureaucracy and costs.
Option 4 is conditioned on the following principles:
- Ringfencing of debts and assets of the amalgamating Councils, meaning we don’t take on other Council’s debts and protect our assets.
- All participating Wards would be represented at the Unitary Authority level by empowered Boards with equal delegated authorities, funded by local rates.
- The rural voice will be protected via zoning-based representation. Environmental science and compliance migrate to the central government.
It has taken me some time to arrive at a preferred option, and that will be the case for many of us. The ‘engagement’ is scheduled to end tomorrow, Wednesday, the 15th. I urge our elected representatives to give Option 4 a fair chance by extending the feedback deadline until the Mayor returns. This will help residents feel their opinions are truly valued and respected.
◾️CHOOSE OPTION 4………POWER TO THE PEOPLE!
