this post was submitted on 08 Jul 2025
10 points (100.0% liked)

Te Upoko o te Ika a Māui / Wellington

444 readers
1 users here now

Kia ora and welcome to !wellington, a place to share and discuss anything about Te Upoko o te Ika a Māui / Wellington in general.

Rules:

Banner image by Rob Suisted

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Dave@lemmy.nz
10
Spend on Wellingtons water infrastructure mapped over mayoral terms. (lemmy.nz)
submitted 1 week ago by aim_at_me@lemmy.nz to c/wellington@lemmy.nz
11 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Shamelessly stolen from our favourite wind bag column writer, Joel MacManus.

top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TagMeInSkipIGotThis@lemmy.nz 1 points 5 days ago

Any local government candidate claiming to be able to freeze rates rises, or cut rates has immediately lost my vote. Any national government candidate or party that is not arguing to overall increase the tax take will not gain my vote either.

Both local & national governments have claimed "surpluses" by running down infrastructure (apart from roads) and not investing in what used to be the future & what is now the present. And i'm sick of it.

Also; everybody moaning about rates rises now that voted to get rid of the 3 Waters solution to the problem, congratulations you donkeys!

[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 4 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Was it a political push from Whanau (seems to have started with the previous mayor) or is this just the point where everything was collapsing so we had no choice?

[–] BaconWrappedEnigma@lemmy.nz 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

It's been chronically underfunded. A few years ago, I read that the estimated cost to bring Wellington's sewage and water infrastructure up to snuff was around $12B. Wellington has recently had fountains of crap springing up around town.

I moved away and I'm not really in touch with local politics there anymore, but I would guess they are forced to spend on it. I heard that it's not politically popular to spend money on maintaining infrastructure. Short term limits mean it's always more convenient for local politicians to kick the can down the road.

[–] TagMeInSkipIGotThis@lemmy.nz 1 points 5 days ago

I moved from Wellington to Hastings which was in the middle of a massive pipe fix due to the fallout from the issues that impacted Havelock North's water supply. I've heard rumours (not bothered to dig into it because not my council) that Napier City Council has held rate rises low for years on the back of not investing in their 3 waters infrastructure as well. So its not an individual council problem as much as a systemic issue for the whole of NZ. If only we had some kind of national plan to resolve it.

[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yeah, we really need a long term strategy. When you want to get elected, you make promises. When you get elected, you need to fulfil (some of) those promises. When people promise new spending and keeping rates rises to a minimum, your only real option it to kick these cans down the road and cut funding for pre-emptive maintenance.

Despite all the controversy, something like Three Waters was really needed.

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemmy.nz 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Three Waters would have easily passed without the co-governance aspect, it wasn't 3w itself that was the problem.

[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The co-governance aspect was clearly a huge sticking point, and I agree Three Waters would have passed under the previous government without it. But this government has been very vocal about staying out of local government (except when they don't like something a council did...) so a reformulated Three Waters seems very unlikely to pass in the current climate even without a co-governance aspect.

There were also councils quite against Three Waters in general, which as far as I saw were the ones doing a good job on their own. Kind of like how only people in flood zones want flood insurance, I guess.

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemmy.nz 2 points 1 week ago

Yeah, there was a somewhat justified feeling that areas that had kept on top of their infrastructure would end up subsidising the fuckups, it was a major sticking point in the super city proposal falling through as well.

[–] Xcf456@lemmy.nz 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

To an extent. The Government cancelling three waters has forced massive rate rises across the country so yeah you might have seen this no matter who was in.

I think credit is still due for sticking to it though, especially when you have candidates pretending they can do this with no rate rises, and pay for billions of dollars of underinvestment by putting back a few carparks.

[–] TagMeInSkipIGotThis@lemmy.nz 2 points 5 days ago

The cynic in me assumes that this is a deliberate ploy in the hopes that it will force councils to privatise their 3 water infrastructure. National & Act's biggest problem with 3 Waters was that Iwi involvement was a major handbrake on further privatisation.

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemmy.nz 3 points 1 week ago

I very much think this wasn't by choice, infrastructure wasn't something I remember Whanau making much noise about prior to being elected.