Today, we received communication from the Ruapehu District Council (RDC) regarding the costs associated with the Teitei Drive project, revealing a figure of $293,426 since 2020. However, the transparency of this number is questionable. Based on Official Information Act (OIA) requests, we know that Ree Anderson alone billed over $250,000 to the council—suggesting the actual cost is likely far higher, potentially exceeding $1 million.
Council was going to sell the 1.6 ha of Teitei Dr to Kainga Ora for $300k!
We offered them $1m (and the offer is still there) to purchase the land and donate it to Carrot Park. Still no response from Council.
Misleading Negotiations with Kāinga Ora
Included in the council's OIA response was a June 2024 email exchange between RDC's Chief Executive, Clive Manley, and Graeme Broderick, Regional Director of Kāinga Ora. The email reveals RDC requested Kāinga Ora to cover costs incurred during the planning and development of Teitei Drive. However, Mr. Broderick’s response made it clear that Kāinga Ora bore no liability and would not cover these expenses.
Interestingly, Kāinga Ora confirmed via OIA that no further negotiations or discussions occurred after this correspondence. Yet, for nearly 10 months, RDC refused to disclose project costs, citing "ongoing negotiations" as the reason. This lack of transparency directly impacted Long-Term Plan (LTP) discussions, during which the council pushed through budget increases and a controversial $5-10 million community project in Raetihi amidst a cost-of-living crisis. This decision was made despite widespread public opposition and growing concerns over rate hikes following the Winston Mill closure.
Coordinated Responses, Limited Accountability
A closer review of the OIA documents reveals a pattern of coordinated responses between RDC and Kāinga Ora. Much of the information provided appears to be copy-pasted across responses, further suggesting an attempt to control the narrative. This raises serious questions about the accountability and transparency of both organizations, particularly when considering the significant financial burden placed on the ratepayers.
We will continue to question the true figures and hold the council accountable for its actions. It's clear that the council has a habit of counting its eggs before they've hatched, making promises and committing to projects without delivering results that truly benefit ratepayers. Instead of focusing on unnecessary ventures and misguided priorities, the council needs to get back to doing what it’s supposed to do—and do it right. Ratepayers deserve transparency, sound fiscal management, and leadership that puts the community's best interests first.
Comments