Open wide, Mr Ed
How strange. It seems some very odd people indeed have been visting LawsWatch and endeavouring to mislead the people of Wanganui. Some people have unkindly suggested that this may be the work of the Devil, sorry, Diva himself.
Surely not. Someone who who stooped to posting misleading comments in a blog would be the sort of person whose questionable financial practices and denials thereof, supplemented by the occasional bit of forgery, would lead to their ignominious downfall from public life. Certainly sounds nothing like our Diva.
Time to go to the horse's mouth. Since the Chron is chronically unable - or unwilling - to ask the obvious questions, we'll have a go. Which is not to say we'll get answers, of course. Macquarie, whose top five executives get paid $90 million between them, and one of whose former Directors went to jail, can't be bothered being accountable, but we'll keep asking.
So let's try some of the other players, shall we? LawsWatch has today asked the Port of Wanganui the following questions:
And for good measure, we've asked Westgate CEO Roy Weaver:
Alert readers will notice that, with the exception of part of the question to PoW about Mr Billington, these questions all relate to the process of negotiations, not the substance. While crying of "commercial confidentiality" has replaced patriotism as the last refuge of the scoundrel it's a little harder to justify when you're being asked about who you're meeting with rather than what's being discussed - so let's see what, if any, information these fine organisations choose to give the people.
Westgate boasts on every webpage of being "100% owned by the people of Taranaki" while Port of Wanganui promises to answer any question within 48 hours. We shall see...
Comments on this post are now closed.
82 comments:
Yes, it's going to be a bit difficult to argue commercial confidentiality applies when both entites involved are wholly in public hands.
Sadly LawsWatch is only viewed by 20 wankers.
Cruel. But true.
So I relied on what a mate told me y'day - what's the probs with that? He got things wrong, is that a crime O Perfect ONes?
As if I thought you cared you yobbo. You knew full well that what you wrote was BS and you knew it would upset those of us who are doing our best to save this beautiful city from a monster. It was simply irresponsible undergraduate behaviour.
Tsk tsk LawsWatch - the Chron is far too busy to ask questions about port issues. They have much more important stuff to write about e.g. Henry the rooster, Elvis the missing cat and free advertisements for the end of the shrimp cocktail.
Anonymous said...
Sadly LawsWatch is only viewed by 20 wankers.
Whereupon, conveniently but a minute later, another
Anonymous said...
Cruel. But true.
Are you boys sitting on one another's knees when you post these comments? If so, we have news for you... that isn't the Mayoral mace in his pocket, and he probably is pleased to see you.
We have had visitor tracking on this site almost since the outset, silly boys. Lots more people visit and read than post. It's a lot like talkback radio, where far more people listen than phone in. But then you wouldn't know anything about that, would you, "anonymous"?
Yeah I loved the story about the shrimp cocktail this morning. The most important council debate since the Sarjeant last year and the withdrawal of the Port backing gets p3. Oh well, Henry the Rooster IS safe and perhaps that wouldn't have happened without all their morbid squawking. Long lines at council today ... do people need to pay their rates as soon as they get notice? And if plus 6% is the average Castlecliff rise, can we get some feedback on what the above average ones are?
On whether the Mayor gets a decrease - I'm sure he does living on St John's Hill. Only one other councillor lives up there for your info - Clever sue Westwood.
Touche LawsWatch. Who IS the mysterious Mr Billington??
Re the shrimp cocktail and the missing cat: I'm sure the Massey journo students at the Chron this week will have gained invaluable experience for Identifying News Stories 101. At least they didn't get put onto those "news" items; the Chron saved them for the real reporters.
We seek him here, we seek him there, we seek him everywhere... apart from the internet apparantly.
He is either the Gerard Billington, University of idaho real estate officer or possibly the Gerard Billington linked with a WanganuiCompany.
Yes, we can Google with the best of them.
But until someone in the midst of this mess who holds public office wakes up to the fact that they are accountable to us, their employers (by which we mean the public in general and not LawsWatch in particular) we can only assume.
And as our mothers (no, not Your Mother) always say, "never assume - it makes an ass out of u and me".
Does anyone know which bits of land our Vision party are after?
Jane, why would you go to all the trouble of becoming a city councillor just to buy land? Why not just buy the land? It's a red herring.
We'd tend to agree. While at least one of us has experience of another mayor and council involving itself in all sorts of dodgy land dealing, the benefits to those involved were in the form of kickbacks, directorships and so on - as a reward for smoothing the way for others to buy land, usually at ridiculously undervalued prices.
As one of the anonymii keeps reminding us, "follow the money"... much easier to shift unnoticed than chunks of land.
http://www.wanganui.govt.nz/minutes/2005/5_May_05.pdf
For anyone interested much of the background to the port lease saga can be found in the section relating to the Harbour Committee on page 577.
What a shambles. This looks wide open for some pretty lucrative contracts to be assigned.
Here's another thing: Randhir and BB are in charge of Harbour as of the next meeting. They're not going to let anything obvious past. Assuming the Harbour Committee actually exists, that is ;)
Ross M-A's letter in the Chron struck a chord. Who remembers Dot's announcement back in February that...
"This week I am fronting the 'Heart of Wanganui' project. We have a once in a hundred year opportunity for Wanganui to really put itself on the map. Five eminent architects will be visiting Wanganui to provide Council with a brief on how we might best develop the Queens Park cultural facilities. Each one of the facilities has issues to address – the Library, Museum, Art Gallery, War Memorial Hall will all be under the spotlight.
This project was first mooted in 1995 in the Queens Park Study. Ten years later we are revisiting it – with help from a few very capable architects. "
So five architects are good to hear what the vision for Queens Park is, indeed to help create it, but not the residents who will no doubt be expected to bray and pay for it.
$130,000 and counting, and not one public consultation. C'mon guys, we really want to see it!
The last time RM-A exhibited that little installation, incidently, it was entitled: Vision Test: Jacks Jugs and a Jackanapes. The Chron story doesn't give it a title.
public information from the companies web site - search for directors billington''
TAPESTRY DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED
4. Directors
BILLINGTON, Gerard Paul
167 Tutere Street, Waikanae Beach
BILLINGTON, Rachel Marie
167 Tutere Street, Waikanae Beach
5. Share Parcels
Total Company Shares 1,200
1,200 BILLINGTON, Gerard Paul
167 Tutere Street, Waikanae Beach
BILLINGTON, Rachel Marie
167 Tutere Street, Waikanae Beach
DAVEY, Stephanie May
38 Durie Vale Road, Durie Hill, Wanganui
DAVEY, Lance
38 Durie Vale Road, Duire Hill, Wanganui
No, they've put $130 K into THIS year's annual plan for Heart of Wanganui - it hasn't been spent yet.
Whoa! Billington was mentioned as an investor in Tuffy Churton's POW, not Westgate or the council. If we want to know more about who billington (and now this Davey character are) shouldn't we ask Tuff, Vivienne or Wm Pearce?
See the mayoress with her breasts out in this morning's Comical?
It's good that a high profile chick like the mayoress comes out for breastfeeding. Check out those fishnets!
Question to LawsWatch.
You say you've asked all these questions, but how? Through this bog (in which case don't expect an any answers), formally by letter, or under the Official Info Act (which wouldn't apply to Westgate because its a commercial entity). Why are you trying to bullshit us that you have any influence at all?
It's a feedback loop: councillors and others feed me and others information which we then post here (or not as the cse may be). Note that the first accurate (if brief) report of Thursdays harbour meeting was posted here, and not anonymously, either.
As to The Watchers, I daresay they send email or make phonecalls the way any reporter would.
As to influence, imo it's not about influence, it's about information. Think about that informed electorate the Watchers keep on about...
The official information act sure as hell does apply to Westgate; it's a wholly publicly owned entity. Thankfully, that's Taranaki's problem, but then they don't appear to have a pack of venal jackals running New Plymouth.
Whatever else this mayor may be, he's not venal. He is one man not interested in money. Sex, drugs, rock-n-roll ... maybe. But as a political opponent from wayback, Laws has never been greedy or motivated by cash. Pity.
Then what the hell is the motivation for the destructive way he behaves, in your opinion?
Interesting thread ... I think most people in public life are motivated by the same things. It's part altrusim, part power trip, part busybody. I can't imagine that our mayor is any different in that respect. One shouldn't confuse tactics with motivation.
anon
"Then what the hell is the motivation for the destructive way he behaves, in your opinion?"
Check out the Hare Psychopathy Checklist
and/or
Jane Clifton's assessment: Pure, gratuitous and recreational trouble.
I'm not sure that your mayor doesn't reflect what his community
wants. As an interested observor, he latched onto the unpopularity of the Sarjeant Gallery project, clearly read the time for a change theme, targeted arts activists (who are never mainstream), said only what any pollie would say over POW (remember the whole council rejected POW, not just his Vision colleagues) and his nil rate increase is what all ratepayers want everywhere. It's called populist politics and it works everyewhere around the glove - from the USA to Russia, Spain to the UK. It's a DIFFERENT politics/philosophy to what WE want or appreciate, but it doesn't make it less valid. Take a longer view and you will get a perspective. I think some of the posters are too close to the action for their own good.
Certainly populism is not confined to Wanganui, There's more than one way to push this sort of agenda though. Perhaps I would buy your argument if Laws' malice were not so apparent.
Pop psychology is such a pointless excersize. The term "psychopath" no longer has any real meaning: these days they talk about hormonal balance and neuro-biology. Nonetheless, it is clear that Michael deserves our sympathy.
"what his community wants".
Oh bollocks; if he'd decided to say "the Sarjeant Extension must be properly marketed so that we gain the full benfit from it. The Arts community is too disorganised, too elitist, to be trusted with this important task." They would have bought that too.
"It's a DIFFERENT politics/philosophy to what WE want or appreciate, but it doesn't make it less valid."
What invalidates it is that it always results in either an economic trainwreck or a military junta. Populism is just the new name for National Socialism.
What a ridiculous assertion that populism is akin to Nazism - and its fundamentally dishonest too. Most western democracies are built upon populist principles which is based upon politicians and/or parties interpreting the public will. The best example would be this election - the major parties are seeking to meet the various strands of popular will and weave enough to win the government.
Like it or not, and it was my first point, your mayor does this. I well remember reading his anti-extension arguments in the Chronicle at the start of 2004 because I was here, at that time, for the Collegiate reunion. It was freely discussed at my table and one of my companions was very upset. She said much the same thing as you - that he was destroying the arts. I said the same thing at that time: he's simply reflecting his community. Wanganui didn't want the extension and he was simply the executor of that will. That's the way democracy works. We no longer live under Edmund Burke's homily that the masses can't think for themelves.
I agree with anon even if he's an ex-ringie by the sounds of things. If you're going to beat Laws and his Vision team at the next elections you're going to need the 3 'P's. Personalities, policies and a good dose of politics. You've got to say what you'd do different, how you'd do it, and why only you can do it. I voted in this last campaign for Chas Poynter. It was a sentimental effort on my part because of past connections. But he had only one challenger with an agenda and a bloody upfront one. I don't know if anyone went to the Chamber of Commerce breakfast at the Commercial Club but Laws went for the doctor in terms of his action plan. Put me right off my eggs (which were bloody horrible anyway) but he pointed out exactly what he was going to do, to whom, and when. And I got my rates demand on Friday. I'm paying $127 less than last year. If this is populsm, then give me more.
I equate populism with National Socialism because it has the same half-bright appeal to "common sense." We are constantly reminded by the world around us that our senses are inadequate, yet the populist continues to pretend that they are the only tools available to government. The National Socialist agenda does not consider the "common good", it simply relies on personality and perception. When I speak of National Socialism, by the way, I am not describing the petrified forest of nazism that is held up to public view - no - like all other political philosophies, National Socialism has evolved with the advent of the meeja. I do not consider it "evil" the way you do, and I believe it has a permanent place in the political landscape. It's better to understand it than not, but.
anon said:
one of my companions was very upset. She said much the same thing as you - that he was destroying the arts
the arts cannot be destroyed. They are invincible. Your friend was wrong, if that's really what she said.
Anon said (with the best will in the world I'm sure):
"Wanganui didn't want the extension "
How can you tell? Michael and the gang clearly don't believe you or "the extension" wouldn't be part of "the Heart of the City". (wouldn't it be nice if that could be the subject of more than rumour?).
So are you in favour of the 'Heart' project now, given that it is very much the creation of the mayor?
Alright. Someone wanted to know what our immediate strategy should be: I think we should look at the criteria for the questions to be included in referendumber (if that's the plural of referendumb). For example. If we're all about ascertaining priority for each individual citizen, surely the questions should read like:
"What is your priority for spending"
Then list the categories:
1: Sports facilities
2: Economic development
3: Michael's toilet at Council
4: Stormwater separation
5: Upper Avenue Upgrade
6: Getting rid of the grotesque generic "statue" knock-offs in the lower Avenue flower baskets
7: Putting the artists in their place.
Then prioritise spending according to the erm...priorities. Then leave everyone alone to further their field. Race you to success. Bet you us creatives win then give the rest of you lame-thinkers a helping hand.
In favour of the Heart. If I knew what it was I'd be able to answer the question. In principle absolutely, but each of the facilities there require investment. Each has separate needs. We own, love, cherish, and protect, a wonderful Art collection. If the Heart project cannot further the betterment of our assets it is simply an elaborate flim-flam.
Show me the plans.
I was at a community meeting when Michel Laws gave his vision of how the Heart project is to work. He said that the money this year was to develop 3-4 options including costings for public display & choice. I'm not sure if I have it 100% correct but here goes;
1. Davis Library into War Memorial Hall
2. Archives (currently in old Alexander Libruary)into current Davis Library
3. Sarjeant Extension is the Alexander linked by corridor
4. Museum gets new frontage to War Memorial forecourt
5. Forecourt becomes entertainment/recreation space with spruce up of Veteran Steps
6. Majestic Square gets bowled and provides walkway through to new Heart facilities
7. Visitor Info Centre goes up into forecourt.
There may be more - he also said another option was to put the VIC down at Moutoa but parling was an issue.
I wrote it down at the time, so that's my best effort. Hope its OK.
"his vision".
So in other words, he told you about one of the options. Laws has been pushing the "Sarjeant Extension is the Alexander linked by corridor" "option" since he attacked the Gallery and destroyed the Trust Board.
He never points out that it was considered as late as last year and dismissed as "unviable". It's the dumbest option of the lot.
And from hints dropped by Tony van Raat, the Architects are treating Laws' wishes with the contempt they deserve.
He'll spin you into believing that what he says will go, though, if he can.
It wasn't dismissed as unviable - and having attended a van raat meeting it was their PREFERRED option.
Actually its the sanest option and probably the most cost effective.
Anonymous said...
It wasn't dismissed as unviable - and having attended a van raat meeting it was their PREFERRED option.
9:26 AM
Minutes of Council meeting August 2004:
C) Relocate the Alexander Library and use the building to supplement the existing
Sarjeant Gallery – This option leaves the Sarjeant Gallery as a stand-alone
exhibition with the current but limited inadequate storage space in the basement,
with the staff work areas contained in the Library building. The Alexander Library
has a footprint of only 750 square metres so it cannot deliver on all the outcomes
required in the 1998 design brief which includes lecture room, café, increased
Gallery space etc. If this option is pursued a decision needs to be made as to what are
the priorities and the effects on the service. The cost of this option has not been
explored in depth, as it is not considered to be a viable option, but it would be in the
region of $1,850,000.
The risks associated with this option include:
• The final cost will not be known until tenders have been called.
• The operational costs will be more expensive due to the doubling up of
services, infrastructure and staff required to manage two independent
buildings.
• External offers of funding may not be available for this solution and the full
cost may fall on the Council.
• Degradation of the Gallery’s ‘flag ship’ status.
• No additional gallery display space to facilitate community related events.
• No improvement in the collection storage conditions and capacity.
• Reduction in the number of people using Queens Park and possibly the
Gallery.
• Additional cost of relocating and the set-up costs of moving the Alexander
Library to a new location.
• Library will be negatively affected, as the two facilities will lose all the
benefits of their close proximity.
• Not a viable option.
• Two building operation.
The benefits associated with this option include:
• Possible reuse for an existing building adjacent to the Sarjeant Gallery if the
Alexander Library is relocated elsewhere.
• Improved staff welfare and work areas.
• No irreversible impact on the Queens Park landscape and roading.
D) Relocate the District Library and use the Alexander and Davis Library
buildings to supplement the existing Sarjeant Gallery – This option leaves the
Sarjeant Gallery as a stand-alone exhibition space with the staff work areas and
storage contained in the two library buildings. Given the floor space available it is
theoretically possible to address the space requirements of the design brief with there
being a similar floor area as in the proposed new Gallery building. However, as the
operation has increased its needs since 1998 and the operation will be spread across
three buildings there will a loss of service and doubling up of services in each
building resulting in a loss of functionality and degradation of the ‘flag ship’ value of
the Sarjeant Gallery as well as increased operational costs. This option requires the
conversion and upgrading of the buildings as well as the requisite fitting out. The
cost of this option is estimated to be $3,461,000 excluding the relocation cost of the
library.
The risks associated with this option include:
• The final cost will not be known until tenders have been called.
• The operational costs will be more expensive due to the doubling up of
services, infrastructure and staff required to manage three independent
buildings.
• External offers of funding may not be available for this solution and the full
cost may fall on the Council.
Sorry to post such a long doc, but I thought it was time for the FACTS.
So it was dismissed as unviable, for the reasons given. Spin out of that one.
Also note that, as well as describing Michael's preferred option as "unviable", the report notes that there would be: "No improvement in the collection storage conditions and capacity"
So basically this is a recipe for the destruction of the Sarjeant collection. Just as predicted. Vision vandals.
Anon 7:57
All sounds good to me...
I suggested a tunnel to the Davis to Bill Milbank years ago :)
Corridor lined with art to the Alexander is even better...
The proposed Sarjeant addition was pig ugly.
Thanks for that. But its first para gives it away. It says that it doesnt meet the 1998 design brief. That would be right - an extension doesnt need a cafe & a lecture theatre. So the Alexander DOES fit after all!! which is what van raat & his architects said.
ANYTHING that went to the last council is automatically suspect. They said we could afford it too. yeah right.
the corridor could be 'thickened' to include classroom, display and storage...
use a curving ramp instead of steps ala Guggenheim ...
raise the dome for the Cafe..
call it Leos Nipple
I also had aesthetic difficulties with the Warren Mahoney design, but the problem was the brief: it required that the extension not "compete" with the existing architecture. An impossible request when you think about it. An extension remains the best solution, as also outlined in the same meeting minutes. It's all on Council's website.
"All sounds good to me..." you say. If you're including the continued degradation of our Artworks in that statement I'd ask you if you treat your own property so badly? If so you're hardly a good person to set priorities for the gallery.
The last council also said that until all the funding was in place no work would be done. The Trust Board was in place to continue fundraising - much easier to do when a project has the green light.
I believe that Dr, Robin Congreve would have made good on his estimation, too.
The collection needs a modern storage facility that enables proper care. Until such an archive is in place we're just failing in our duties.
Good point 10:13 :)
Oh I thought they had the Archives and stack room going to the Mem hall...
OK I would stick the Archives in the MH with the rest of the library and use the Davis for storage...
and a tunnel for Bill :)
I like the bit about buldozzing M square...that urinal has to go
Anon said:
"ANYTHING that went to the last council is automatically suspect. They said we could afford it too. yeah right."
This report was prepared by council officers who still hold their positions and I daresay, stand by their work on this document. What are you saying? That they were misleading our elected officials?
I like the pedestrian quality of that area of town, but I also hope we can change that pissoir. Don't let the cars back through, though.
If that's Laws' idea for the Heart project, then I like it. it's a clever use of existing resources - the Warrewn/Mahoney design was truly dreadful and it didnt need a cafe and lecture theatre. its an art gallery not a multiplex.
I think the cafe idea is important and that it would be well-patronised, especially if linked to the library. Good coffee and the best vistas in town would be an important part of the visitor experience and the ability to lease out the management would help bring in additional revenues. Also, any gallery worth its salt has an attractive shop and that should be attached to or integrated with the cafe.
Not paid for by the ratepayer.
Not in competition with existing cafes.
Anon said (well out of his depth)
"it didnt need a cafe and lecture theatre. its an art gallery not a multiplex."
Which would be why every Gallery in the world has a cafe & shop. We're trying to make the Sarjeant even better, remember, not degrade the collection so Michael's mates can buy it.
Get real. we want a gallery Wangas can afford!
Which is why making the Gallery a bit more self-supporting (with a cafe & shop) is a good idea. Get real.
It works everywhere else, so I daresay you'll consider it a stupid idea. How can we put the artists in their place when they're so goddamn successful, eh?
If they were, they wouldn't need the ratepayer/taxpayer to subsidise them!
The ratepayer is being asked to fund the care and storage of artworks, not subsidise artists. Get your facts right.
You clearly see no value in this, which is your loss. It will not be Wanganui's.
In return, the ratepayer gets awesome exhibitions from all over the world (the Sarjeant punches well above it's weight in touring exhibitions), and the international prestige they bring. The Sarjeant puts Wanganui on the map in a way that nothing else here ever will.
We (the ratepayers) also enjoy the amazing power of art to inspire creative thinking, and tap into the immense wealth available thereby. The money we invest in expanding the Sarjeant will be returned with interest, by enhancing the cultural life and profile of Wanganui, as well as directly by means of the extra creative talent it will attract, and the almighty tourist dollar. Cultural tourists spend more than any other group, I believe.
Laws groupie RW Thornton tells us in this morning's Chron Letters that he was favourably impressed by the Diva's performance at the St John's Hill get together - then says "an examination of assets available for sale is going to be undertaken in order to maintain a nil increase in rates policy".
My understanding is that as a general rule assets can only be sold in order to invest the proceeds in other assets and that there are tight controls on, say, Harbour endowment land that mean proceeds can only go back into harbour-related stuff.
Of course, Laws has no problem with the idea of pumping money into the Splash Centre but I'd be surprised if even he was claiming he'll use the profits from land sales (Sarjeant collection?) etc to maintain the nil-rates fantasy - except insofar as it won't actually be the ratepayers forking out for his pet projects.
Good letter from Stephen Palmer, don't ya think?
Laws made it clear ages ago that he understands only prices, not value. Don't worry, he can try as hard as he likes to rape the Gallery: he'll fail.
Yes, Stephen Palmer neatly points out the selfishness inherent in Vision "policy".
And still Winston doesn't trust us with his precious list. Mind you, if Laws is on the list, the inevitable further plummet in support for Winston would mean he'd need to leave releasing it 'til the last minute.
Yesterday's launch sure looked like the Winston Solo Show - no room for Mickey on the back of the Harley or even frolicking on the seashore. Has anyone heard when he'll pull his little rabbits out of the hat?
Sorry, kiddies. You really should go to more meetings. I've been to 2 where ML has said that he isn't interested in party politics at this time & his only interest, like it or not, is getting wangavegas on the right track. Both versions of that word, I suspect.
Not the same Stephen Palmer that
a) knew about the missing million
but didnt bother to tell his council colleagues;
b) knew the forestry investment was crap but didnt tell them (or Wanganui) that either
c) polled 16th in the urban ward last October and was beaten by such luminaries as Graham Adams, Mike Green, Joan Street, David Day, etc etc etc ...
not THAT Stephen Palmer??
Sorry, kiddies. You really should go to more meetings..
Sorry but YOU should do your meeting maths:
More meetings = more lies
Anon said:
...the missing million...
here we go again. The same old lie trotted out. Do you seriously expect us to believe that Dr. Robin Congreve would not have made good his estimation?
Hey ! Stop pickin on Stevie...
he helped Chas to power on several occassions
There has been no announcement yet about the New Zealand First Candidates.
The only places confirmed are those of the existing New Zealand First Caucus.
The last nomination day for both list and electorate candidates is not until 23 August 2005. I would expect that an announcement will be made sometime around that date.
Yours sincerely
Carmen Hansen
Adviser/Researcher
Rt Hon Winston Peters’ Office
Well that settles that.
Post a Comment