Decision to ditch residents’ forum is’ disgusting and shameful ‘

Plans to create a residents’ forum to help overturn the Christchurch City Council’s scathing approval rating have been abandoned in a move described as “anti-community.”

In a heated debate Thursday, some councilors said the forum was a waste of money and that it would not make any difference in solving problems residents have with the council.

But other councilors believed the council needed to do everything it could to better connect with residents and understand the issues.

Cr Mike Davidson harshly criticized councilors for not supporting the forum and accused them of being “too scared” to hear the result.

READ MORE:
* Road condition, chlorinated water drive in 13 years of resident satisfaction with Christchurch council
* Water charges in the pipeline to help plug the Covid-19 well in Christchurch’s budget
* New Resident Forum designed to improve Christchurch City Council’s dismal approval rating

He said the decision was “absolutely shameful” by a council that values ​​community opinions.

“You should be ashamed of yourselves. It’s absolutely disgusting, ”he told his fellow councilors.

The forum’s plan was rejected by 10 votes to five.

Crs Aaron Keown, Jake McLellan, Sam MacDonald, James Gough, Anne Galloway, Tim Scandrett, Catherine Chu, Pauline Cotter, Jimmy Chen and Yani Johanson voted against the forum.

Crs Davidson, James Daniels, Melanie Coker, Sara Templeton and Andrew Turner voted in favor. Mayor Lianne Dalziel, who was attending the unveiling of a plaque at Al Noor Mosque, and Cr Phil Mauger did not attend the meeting for the vote.

Davidson said the move was “anti-community and anti-town,” especially since councilors had unanimously decided earlier this year to have a residents’ forum because the public asked for it.

The forum, which was expected to cost between $ 10,000 and $ 15,000, had been proposed so that the council could better understand the residents’ point of view.

In May, the council released its annual resident survey, which shows that only half of the city’s residents were satisfied with the services it provided, up from 62 percent last year. They were not happy with the state of the city’s roads and the chlorine in the water.

About 23 percent of those surveyed were dissatisfied with the council’s performance, and 27 percent were neutral. It was the lowest result since 2007, when the question was first asked as part of the survey.

Gough said Thursday that the forum’s proposal would not make “one iota of difference.”

“Another group, panel or forum is not the answer that people are looking for. They constantly tell us what is bothering them and what they want.

“They are struggling to pay their fees. They want us to stop rate hikes, control spending, and get the basics right.

“Instead of trying to better sell sizzle or taking residents on a trip, just listen to what they’ve already said and stop wasting your money.”

Cr Pauline Cotter said the council should use its existing groups, including community councils and multicultural and youth councils, rather than creating a new group.

“You will never please all the people all the time, and they have every opportunity to interact with us, whether it is individually through elected members, face to face, online, they can call us and ultimately they can give us a message. clear every three years. “

Cr Sara Templeton said the council was spending a lot of time and money to improve its water supply, fix plumbing and remove chlorine, and the forum would have addressed how residents felt about their ability to interact with the council.

He said it was disappointing that some councilors did not want to hear from their communities in this case.

“Today it seems that we are going to incorporate the community’s dissatisfaction with the council by telling them in the annual plan that we are going to listen to them and today we decided not to.”