Council community funding cuts hurt

[Christchurch local council elections candidate, Islay Mcleod, is an Independent and endorsed by The People's Choice 2021. She is standing for the Hagley Ferrymead Community Board in the upcoming October elections.]

Once upon a time but within living memory, the residents of Christchurch appeared, from the outside, to be immensely satisfied and well looked after by the Christchurch City Council. The Council had arteries into every area of the community and that suited the values of the people of Christchurch.

As the CEO of the Canterbury Employers' Chamber of Commerce once advised me, when I asked what it is about Christchurch that makes us so uniquely philanthropic, "Christchurch is a big small town." We live in a City community but still with small town values. And, as the Anglican City Missioner, Michael Gorman responded to the same question, "If the people of Christchurch see a need and they see that it's good, they will give."

That attitude is manifested in the Cholmondeley Children's Home – the only respite children's home in the country, the extensive Nurse Maude services, the South Island Ronald McDonald House is located here, 0800 HUNGRY and the only Charity Hospital in New Zealand ... even individuals like the man and his family who feed the homeless in Latimer Square every Sunday.

The current Council does not fit with the values of the Christchurch community.

The current Council spends up large on its offices and bails out developers on the spurious precept of preventing unsightly new buildings. (Change the Building Code?) And on the other hand imposes an outrageous rent increase on those in Council flats.

This Council whips out the cheque book for a Flower Show that residents have not only paid for but also have to pay to get into. And then cuts $1.5 million from Community Grants "to help keep rates down."

I worked for a community charity when the "Metropolitan Strengthening Communities Fund" went out for "public consultation" and it was clear to those attending the consulting meeting that the Council's mind was made up already. Sure enough, the oxymoronic title was illuminated when the final policy came out exactly as proposed. Funding has been progressively cut and with the additional handbrake of a Contract Document that, even by the staff's own admission, was unworkable in several areas but had to be signed anyway.

How dare this Council blitheringly continue with its 2010-2011 financial plan, especially in the face of a recession, when it should be able to see the extraordinary hardship being encountered by a good many residents, let alone the organisations that depend on Council funding. That their dependence is now to a lesser degree is Council-imposed and not theirs by choice.

The community-responsive arteries of this Council are now getting chronically clogged with the cholesterol of cold commercialism. It's a common expression that you can't go back but I doubt any resident of Christchurch would object to a Council that re-finds itself and its community values.