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  ‹(•¿•)›

Urban Health and Drug Policy intersect at Lies Police tell.

Image via Wikipedia

The latest social (urban health) research suggests the Police complicity in 'creating crime' makes NZ's  BERL report on measureing drug harms  and subsequently the National Drug Intelligence Bureau, look like anus heads.


" legal interventions to disrupt the drug market may actually boost rates of drug-related violence"...



see http://uhri.cfenet.ubc.ca/images/Documents/violence_summary-eng.pdf

(full report at http://uhri.cfenet.ubc.ca/images/Documents/violence-eng.pdf )
 
This of course is not the only supporting evidence that drug policy is skewed. New Zealands appearance in the 'murder rate' runoff should be no surprise.
 
And as for Greg O'Conner's dismisal of the United Nations reports on TASERS, "look at yourselves, Greg." When you lie and cheat in court and out, dont expect the public to fawn at your feet. They hate you and yours for your double dealing ways.... Get honest with drug policy in particular alcohol and cannabis and redeem yourselves.  Bad policy causes dead cops.

Would Len Snee be alive or dead today if cannabis was a regulated and controlled 'class D' drug...

Instead we get "D" for not thinking about it... D for Dead.

Related articles by Zemanta

• UHRI Report: More enforcement leads to more violence (cssdp.org)
• UC Panel Discussion on review of the Misuse of Drugs Act. (mildgreens.blogspot.com)
• Shapelle Corby on LawFuel (mildgreens.blogspot.com)
• Ignorance, A Licence To Kill. (mildgreens.blogspot.com)
• Amanda Feilding: Cannabis Policy: Moving Beyond Stalemate (huffingtonpost.com)

Canine Aggression and Community Safety

Breed specific legislation [BSL] is no answer to this apparent and ill-defined problem. BSL comes about from asking the wrong question. If a 'pit-bull' (insert dog of the moment) caused a problem, then (why not) ban them. Problem solved. The 'here and now' problem is best addressed by asking 'has what we are doing solved the problem or are we getting increased incidences?'. The research and thus 'answer' is instructive. The problem is, that research has not been carried out. Despite collecting tens of millions in dog fees no concrete research budget for social policy formulation is currently allocated. This is socially irresponsible. It is also poor administration and leads to the policy by panic to largely satiate the public thirst for simple and populist solutions.

We must commence any inquiry from first principles... What "do" we know? And a good place to start might be to first acknowledge that (1) Dogs provide a valuable role in society and (2) 600,000 dogs in New Zealand never bit anyone today.

That is why I asked Local Government Minister Hon Rodney Hide to consider an appropriate research budget at the New Zealand Companion Animal Conference in Auckland last year. There cannot be any good management without good measure.

To fail to do the hard stuff, we will be left to have policy made up on the fly as touted by those puppy-killing Invercargill City administrators and the balance of 'noisy' local government grifters who utterly depend on dog fees for their jobs.

As a both handler/trainer (http://nakeddog.co.nz) and social policy wonk, it has been my experience that the higher we build our fences and the shorter we keep dogs on lead the more we generate the very problem we set out to solve. As few as one in five dogs in New Zealand get their required daily walk (Massey, Palmerston North).

And we thought micro-chipping was going to help?

I would commend those 'tough on pit-bull' folk to consider this issue carefully. If they wish to get some good advice from a man with experience in such issues, World renowned behaviour expert and vet, Dr Ian Dunbar (http://dogstar.doglinks.co.nz) is addressing canine 'aggression' during his visit to Auckland and Christchurch this month.

One can only hope that he will attract the media attention that pit-bulls do.

--
Blair Anderson  ‹(•¿•)›

School fo the Naked Dog

50 Wainoni Road, Christchurch

ph nz  (643) 389 4065   nz cell 027 265 7219

Bono Goes Mild Green on Climate!

Image by Oxfam America via Flickr

An Equal Right to Pollute (and the Polluter-Pays Principle)

http://www.globaldashboard.org/2010/01/04/the-best-news-on-climate-change-for-months-maybe/

"In the recent climate talks in Copenhagen, it was no surprise that developing countries objected to taking their feet off the pedal of their own carbon-paced growth; after all, they played little part in building the congested eight-lane highway of a problem that the world faces now.
One smart suggestion I’ve heard, sort of a riff on cap-and-trade, is that each person has an equal right to pollute and that there might somehow be a way to monetize this. By this accounting, your average Ethiopian can sell her underpolluting ways (people in Ethiopia emit about 0.1 ton of carbon a year) to the average American (about 20 tons a year) and use the proceeds to deal with the effects of climate change (like drought), educate her kids and send them to university. (Trust in capitalism — we’ll find a way.) As a mild green, I like the idea, though it’s controversial in militant, khaki-green quarters. And yes, real economists would prefer to tax carbon at the source, but so far the political will is not there. If it were me, I’d close the deal before the rising nations want it backdated."  -  BONO

heads up to Aubrey Meyer,
GCI.ORG.UK
57 Howard Road
LONDON E17 4SH
Ph 0208 520 4742

Related articles by Zemanta

• Bono: 10 Ways to Improve the New Decade (spin.com)
• Steven Cohen: The Real Climate Choice Before Congress: Cap and Trade or Command and Control? (huffingtonpost.com)

Seattle Mayor Thinks It's Time To Talk, Christchurch's Doesnt.

Seattle Mayor-elect supports marijuana legalization

Seattle Mayor-elect Mike McGinn as quoted in a recent radio interview on NPR:   "If every elected official who ever smoked marijuana voted to legalize it would probably be legalized in an instant. We recognize that, like alcohol, it's something that should be regulated not treated as a criminal activity and I think that's where the citizens of Seattle want us to go." 

Perhaps he should invite Mayor Bob Parker to come over and see what a  'SAFER CITY'  really looks like.... 

Could there be an honest admission in the future of our incumbent?

/Blair

IMECHE C&C - implications for ChCh & NZ

The UK-based Institute of Mechanical Engineers [IMECHE] have just published a new report entitled: - CLIMATE CHANGE HAVE WE LOST THE BATTLE?

www.imeche.org/NR/rdonlyres/77CDE5E4-CE41-4F2C-A706-A630569EE486/0/IMechE_MAG_Report.PDF


In it they say: -

"The [UK] Government's targets and budgets have been set using a top-down approach based on the principle of contraction and convergence.

Effectively calling for a war-time economy,

IMECHE also say: -

"The Institution of Mechanical Engineers supports the principle of contraction and convergence."

From: Aubrey Meyer aubrey@gci.org.uk

 

Blair Anderson  ‹(•¿•)›
ph nz  (643) 389 4065   nz cell 027 265 7219
USA ph/cell/txt  213-3006861