Secondly, because local communities of interest deserve the power to determine their own future, and not have someone else's vision imposed on them.
But I am not so dyed-in-decentralisation as to fail to recognise there are some aspects of local governance that need a shake-up, and some good arguments as to why various bits should be put together.
And although the wheels have moved too reluctantly to date, on the evidence of the broad agreement displayed at the meeting one could expect a significant degree of change " through the increased implementation of shared services - even if amalgamation per se is rejected.
Which to my mind is the sort of approach the LGC should have followed, instead of lumping everything into one multi-tiered arrangement that on the one hand may give too much power to unelected persons and, on the other, no power at all to many who are elected.
That's a recipe for heightened parochialism with a bitter twist; it will exacerbate divisions, not heal them - particularly if local boards are not given substantive powers and a decent discretionary budget.
Talk-shops are useful, but if the talk can't be translated into action because the "boss upstairs" - the council itself - is deaf or divided, they're a frustrating waste of everyone's input.
Of equal concern is the "third-tier" regional planning committee - the faux-substitute for the regional council's environmental overview - and the corollary natural resources committee.
The democrat in me shudders at the thought of unelected members, no matter their calibre, deciding the weightiest matters: the best utilisation of our natural resources.
Half the planning committee will be hapu/iwi appointees; all six natural resources members may be appointees.
True, Maori are grossly underrepresented in local governance and, by right under Te Tiriti, deserve a place at the table. But I get the feeling iwi support this proposal more because they play the long game, where every small gain in representation is good, even if the present form is not.
Mind you, better than a business version which veers here, there and everywhere for the sake of a quick buck. But the potential lack of accountability of it bothers me.
However, if voting does back amalgamation, I'll hope the transition board and new council do empower local boards to perform a useful semi-independent set of functions.
And for iwi to make damn sure whoever they place on the committee is fully professional, not merely gifted a seat by status. That's a cultural challenge in itself.
But if the vote is against, there have been too many problems identified to lapse back into business as usual. Some changes are needed to make the region work together, and no one should be satisfied until they happen, either way.
Bruce Bisset is a freelance writer and poet.
