Bruce Bisset: Democracy bites back in Napier

Bruce Bisset

Opinion

Democracy is clearly too good for Napier City and, if its mayor Bill Dalton had his way, would be dispensed with in favour of executive rule.

Or so one could be led to believe by the way Napier's citizens are treated by the mayor and his council in general: as a "small but very vociferous group" which it would prefer to ignore.

That description is how Dalton categorised opposition to the removal of the words "war memorial" from the title of the building on the foreshore which was built for precisely that purpose; he wanted it simply called a "conference centre" – its commercial function - and so it (briefly) became.

But the small vociferous group turned out, in my opinion, to comprise a majority of Napier's residents – and, as it eventually proved, a majority of its councillors as well, when against the mayor's wishes they formally changed the name this week to re-include "war memorial", and drop "conference".

The mayor offered an "unreserved" apology. But it wasn't, was it?

There was no apology with the velodrome.

Having spent half a million on a "business case" that purported to show a velodrome-cum-indoor-sports centre would work, the mayor clung desperately to the concept even after that expensive study was shown to be fundamentally flawed.

He even had the temerity to accuse Sport NZ of going back on its word and "stymying" the project, when that organisation – whose support was vital - had never committed to it.

Now it seems business cases are becoming the sole reason for doing anything – whether or not it's actually worthwhile.

Take two future works about to be enshrined in Napier's long term plan with support from their respective business cases: a $50 million makeover of the National Aquarium, and a new $41 million swimming complex.

Frankly the former seems as much a favoured vanity project as the velodrome it succeeds; it's difficult to believe that, as good as the aquarium is or may be, it will bring a horde of extra tourists sufficient to justify let alone repay that sized expenditure.

A new swimming pool on the other hand is badly needed. Napier residents know this; they "overwhelmingly" supported a new 50m pool in recent consultation.

But what they'll get is half that: a 25m pool, plus frilly bits, for not much less than the 50m version was estimated to cost.

Why? Because that's what the business case recommends. Bugger what the residents actually want.

The excuse is the regional sports park might get a new 50m pool, and the region doesn't need two. I disagree with that rationale, but regardless, as the sports park pool is only a suggestion at this stage, Napier can continue to lack one or grasp the chance and build one first.

Bottom line, all these instances are examples not of mismanagement but of executive management: those at the top deciding what they want is what must happen.
They're appointed or elected to advance the city's best interests.

They inherently have an obligation to ask their citizens – and take heed of what they say.

That's democracy. The little bit Napier saw this week after months of turmoil that arose from not asking shows it can be made to work; it's about time Dalton and co got out of the way, and let it.