First Come, STV and Water.

"It's a Central Government issue, Blair." Image via Wikipedia

(as commented on STUFF in reference to ECAN / Water debacle)

Some will recall the 'water' question at the 2007 Town Hall Mayoral debate. Few will recall one Mayoral candidate who pre-empted the most important issue for Canterbury backing in 'Save Our Water' for ECAN, but more importantly denounced the unseen flaw in water management - the historical legacy of the 'first come - first served' provision of the RMA. No matter who runs for and wins the golden chains or how many commissioners are at the behest of Ministerial whim, until that anomaly is fixed the resource is at grave risk.

As a third tilt Mayoral candidate  I shall continue to place reason and science before aspirational goals and misplaced ideology and hold any other candidate to a very high ethical standard by way of robust debate. Notably, in 2004 and 2007, neither Garry Moore nor Bob Parker would rise to debate 'this fellow' on any issue. Perhaps the public should be better informed and ASK media to give ALL candidates given a fair crack of the whip if only to improve the lackluster voter participation.

Single Transferable Vote would enable a this city to elect a real 'champion' with NO LESS THAN a 50% proportion of all votes cast. Such a Mayor would not treat the council of twelve with such fickle regard. And a council similarly elected under STV would be a council 'of proportional consensus' and divested of the political ideology manifest in FPP. Only by accurately reflecting the community in which it serves is a council able to deliver best practice and efficient governance.

Blair Anderson  ‹(•¿•)›

Social Ecologist 'at large'
http://blairformayor.blogspot.com/
ph nz  (643) 389 4065   nz cell 027 265 7219

Related articles by Zemanta

• Dead man elected as US mayor (telegraph.co.uk)

Transparency Required in Wall Debate

Image via Wikipedia

Councillors say, "build protective childproof fences around all brick walls. If it only saves one child it would have been worth it."
A small inconvenience but likely to be supported by public. (no need to go to consultation). The costs are 'just an investment in our youth'. Stiff compliance penalties to encourage support for the safety initiative is suggested. Unfenced walls are just premeditated 'child abuse'.
Urban Health Research Initiative commentator, Blair Anderson acknowledges "that these walls were originally built to protect kids from themselves, but the evidence shows it is the walls themselves that place kids at risk"
The experienced consultant in civic policy when pressed for comment said "A lot of folk think walls should not be solid, rather 'see through' to prevent stranger danger." Some citizens on talkback are pressing for Brick walls to be phased out if not banned altogether. "we wouldn't tolerate such 'obstruction' in a public space, why should the public have to put up with such barriers on private land. If they have nothing to hide they must be, at a very minimum, transparent".

Some city councillors supported a precautionary principal-led 'trial' forbidding climbing over brick walls. The danger 'in this tragedy' has been obvious for all to see.

Whereas public sentiment has been quiet, an unnamed CYPS psychologist has been reported saying that Children must be protected from illusionary 'otherside' thinking, ('grass is greener') as risk taking is associated with propensity to drug abuse, truancy and deviancy and when mixed with 'walls', even solid ones, to self harm, often [ even mistakenly] attributed to gravity.

The Commissioner for Children's spokesperson for quality parenting notes that the unforeseen and potentially tragic consequences have been known about for some time laying the blame at the feet of nieve parents and ignorant officials, noting "it all started with clearly immature young people making 'bad choices'.

The horse has bolted, we have to fence off these walls immediately."

--
Blair Anderson  ‹(•¿•)›