Archive:   Open Space Sell-off: Namnan Way

Last Updated  23/7/07

South Gisborne Residents Pressure Council Into NOT Selling Namnan Way Open Space

(29/5/07 - C)   Placards, kids and even a dog got the message across to 6 of our 9 Councillors

South Gisborne residents are pleased that Council, at its ordinary meeting in Romsey on 24 May, decided not to support selling open space/parkland at Namnan Way.  Residents put up a sustained fight to keep this acre of land, at the southern-most part of the Shire, in public use.  Along the way, they had to deal with the shenanigans of Council as it floundered to make sense of its own decision to create a special 'Section 223' committee to hear public submissions under the Local Government Act, including submissions on public land sales.  Not only did the committee (comprised of Crs. Helen Relph, Noel Harvey and Henry Bleeck) get off to a bad start by scheduling meetings for 3 in the afternoon (and found it then had to schedule an extra evening meeting anyway), it seems it did not produce the reportback to Council that was envisaged as part of the deal for agreeing to form the committee in the first place. 

Crs Noel Harvey (West ward), Geoff Neil (East) and Henry Bleeck (East) voted to sell the land.  Crs. Tom Gyorffy (West), John Letchford (South), Rob Guthrie (South), John Connor (West), Sandra McGregor (East) and in the end, Cr. Helen Relph (South) voted to keep it.

MRRA Says:

And a 'woof' to that... We understand the pooch had something to say as Cr. Geoff Neil argued to sell the land.  Cr. Neil interpreted the interruption as support for his view, but Cr. Tom Gyorffy suggested the dog's message was really 'sit down and shut up'.

Well done to residents, and the six supporting Councillors.  What still needs to be sorted out is how all residents can have more certainty about what will and won't happen with open space and public land, particularly with a Council where some members seem to see public land as little more than a static asset that can be flogged off at whim to feed pet projects and/or prop up over-spending in the budget.  That's not acceptable. 

It is perhaps timely, with an inquiry underway into governments' abuse of their stewardship of public land, to remind decision-makers that the PUBLIC in public land means that the land is actually owned by the public, and is to be used for the good of the PUBLIC interest - every time.  That's what the public expects, and it's what should be being delivered.