Grey Power Submission
SUBMISSION ON THE REGIONAL SPORTS PARK PROPOSAL
This submission is on behalf of all Grey Power members.
We would like to group our arguments under these categories:
1. The future demographics of Hastings
2. The kind of activities older people undertake
3. The impact on rates
4. The lack of choice
5. The effort made by Council, and the expense involved, to sell this one Park idea.
6.Conclusion
We approve of the sentiments behind the sports park proposal.
Like the Council we are all concerned for the health, social and mental well being of our citizens: particularly our younger citizens. We would like to support this park proposal but find for our age group it is quite impractical, though we believe the Council would like to attract all age groups to this proposed park. We are therefore surprised that no alternative programme is on offer, not one. We find it difficult to believe that one park fits all sizes.
1. The future demographics of Hastings.
The demographics for the future of Hastings are that the number of resident young people will decline and the number of resident older people will increase.(Positive Aging Policy of the Hastings District Council – June 2007 – page eight)
9% of the population in 2001 is estimated to be in the 10-14 age bracket
and 3% of the population is estimated to be in the 65-69 age group.
In the year 2026 (18 years away) only
6% of the population is estimated to be in the 10-14 year age group
and 7% of the population will be in the 65-69age group. A trend toward an older age group does not support the support the Council seems to give to a sports park on the edge of town.
In view of the gloomy picture painted of the future on travel, costs, petrol and our unsustainable lifestyles, we respectfully suggest the encouragement of small parks and places of activities for all ages in each of our suburbs, simple places, free places where grandpa and grandma and the grandkids could spend an active morning while, perhaps the parents take a longer more strenuous bike ride on one of our well maintained cycle tracks. Small things on a small scale in small suburbs is an alternative not yet offered. Indeed, the proposed sports park would suggest the demise of what suburban facilities we do have.
2. The kind of activities older people undertake
Older residents fall roughly into three categories:
- Those totally constrained by the level of the pension income for whom any rates increase is unacceptable – especially for a facility they are unlikely to use. And for whom these factors below would preclude their full participation in a park on the edge of town:
- Lack of discretionary income and rates are already a burden on a finite income.
- Cost of transport
- Distance from park
- Disabilities
- Other interests which are not catered for and which do not attract much cost.
- Those who reside in retirement villages where most of their activities are catered for: pool tables, indoor heated swimming pools, safe walks, physiotherapy, organised exercise, tai chi and gymnastics
- Those who can afford to go skiing, follow the sunshine, tramping, organised adventures and who are beyond an age at which their activities are competitive.
None of these groups will be particularly interested in a sports park with few amenities for the elderly and which many of them cannot afford to support.
3. The impact on rates.
One of the hooks the Council used in the relocation of the facilities of Nelson Park was that the entire operation would be rates neutral. This is a mantra that has been repeated in the newspaper and by the Mayor at Grey Power meetings. Indeed this part was true. Where the story changes is when the re-location of the facilities from Nelson Park became a proposal for a regional park which was dreamed up without consultation with the public. All kinds of sports codes, Council employees, consultants and finananciers were consulted but not the general public.
Neither the Napier City Council nor the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council are in any way party to this proposal although they have been asked to contribute.
The Regional Council has reservations stated in this years’ Regional Council Draft Annual Plan page 5 under:
A final matter: While the (Regional Council) believes there is merit in the proposal {(for a proposed sports park) NB not a regional sports park )}……Council has not made any decisions and is interested in hearing community views through the annual plan consultation process, with a view to proposing an approach in the next LTCCP. In other words, the Regional Council is clearly not convinced by the rhetoric of the Hastings District Council that enough consultation has been done to come in behind this project. Napier can see its own Park Island sports ground being undermined. The already have a facility which we may all use. Ask the ratepayers if we need more.
And let us be mindful that the Shand report on the Rates Inquiry last year states on page 16, Item 4, THAT Councils review and reduce forecast rate increases where that is consistent with their longer term funding policies. This Council just increases our rates every year regardless of our pleas. Yet the Shand report leaves it clearly in the hands of Council and with the blessing of rate payers to put this recommendation. This sports park increases our rates bill.
The last I heard, at the public meeting held in the Opera House on the 19th of May was that the sports park will increase rates by $26.51. per household per annum. By Thursday the 22nd of May I heard that it will increase our rates by $28. At that rate of increase, $4 per week, the sum for the sports park will be roughly $130 per household per annum by the time our rates are struck next year.
Grey Power is asking you to consider the impact on rates. Is this really what the community wants.
Grey Power members do no think so.
4. The lack of choice has been obvious all along. There was no suggestion of a sports park, regional or other wise at the time of the relocation of the athletics track and grandstand. It was not an idea which welled up from public discussion and opinion. It arose solely from the Council. The current sports park does indeed smack of empire building on a fairly uncertain financial proposal and can hardly be considered a democratic decision. Yet no other feasibility plans have been put forward for the public to decide on. It is sports park or nothing.
So far this park is offering running, cycling, tennis, gymnastics, a café, a crèche, an expensive walkway, plaza, gateway feature and artworks, floodlights, an administration building, netball, gymsports, childrens’ playgrounds, retail, boulevards, carparks, roading and storm water mitigation. (Hastings Leader. Wednesday April 23rd 2008.
So far a lot of money has been spent persuading us that most of the sports park is
a) good for us
b) a fait accompli
c) has had full feasibility studies.
We have not had any other choices offered for discussion.
We find it ironic that, having had a park in the city centre sold for big box retail in an effort to prevent a greenfields shopping complex which we were told would kill the CBD of Hastings on to have the exact same principle applied to the aggregation of sporting activities in favour of a edge of town greenfields sports park. Surely as you argue that green fields shops will kill the town centre, so will a single greenfields sports park on the edge of town kill the small sports codes and activities that make our suburbs alive.
In conclusion Grey Power Hastings & Districts Association is against the extension of the Percival Rd sports facilitiy beyond the original athletics track and grandstand.
We oppose it on the grounds of democracy, costs in rates and lack of democratic choice.
Thank you for allowing us the opportunity of speaking to this proposal.
Comments
BEE-FRIEND BAYBUZZ
Baybuzz needs your support! Become a BayBuzz Friend and receive discounts from our local merchant supporters.
-
