What the city row is all about

If you believe the Corporation, Government is about to launch a legally questionable money motivated ‘hostile takeover’ of city government.

If you believe the talk from Government it is attempting to eliminate a privilege-based voting system that harks back to the days of institutionalized discrimination.

The debate over the future of the corporations has been clouded by acrimony and propaganda.

James Whittaker sifted through the rhetoric to establish what the proposed reforms actually mean and how they might affect you.

Is Government taking over the Corporation?

No. The Act changes the voting rights in city elections, reduces the Corporation’s right to collect taxes as well as docking fees and compels it to pay land tax on all of its properties.

There is nothing in the act to transfer any services to Government or to reduce the role of the mayor and councillors.

So why is the Corporation marching against it?

The Corporation has called the act a ‘hostile takeover’. They believe it is the first step in a process designed to reduce its role and ultimately absorb it into central government.

They say the transfer of $8 million annual revenue in wharfage fees (essentially rent charged to shipping companies for use of the docks) to Government will limit the Corporation’s ability to provide services and will result in the ‘death by financial strangulation’ of the city in the long-term.

Why do they see it as a takeover bid?

In the initial Request for Proposals for consultants to carry out a review of the municipalities, Walter Roban was quoted as saying: “Cabinet determined that the most practical efficient and effective reform would be to repeal the Municipalities Act and transition the operations of the Municipalities into the relevant Government Departments.”

Though that has not happened in this Act, the Corporation sees it as Government’s long-term goal.

So what did the consultants say?

We don’t know. The results of the $800,000 study commissioned by Government and carried out by U.S.-based McKenna, Long & Aldridge in partnership with local firm Attride-Stirling & Woloniecki have not been published.

It is understood that the consultants’ report formed the basis of the Act but the report itself has not been made available to the public.

What do the PLP say about all this?

The PLP has dismissed the ‘save our city’ rhetoric as a smoke and mirrors campaign designed to confuse the public.

They believe the corporation is deliberately distorting the issue to gain public sympathy.

What are the current voting rights in city elections?

Both sides accept that voting rights in the city are outdated. They disagree fundamentally on how they should be altered.

As it stands, the franchise is skewed in favour of business interests over those of the residents. Every business in the city gets one vote.

Some businesses do get two or more votes — but only if they have separately incorporated subsidiaries (eg: Gosling Brothers, which has several outlets in Hamilton, would only get one vote; HSBC which has two distinct companies HSBC Bank and HSBC Trust, would get two).

Residents currently are only entitled to one vote per household, with the exception of married couples who get a vote each.

Why is this a big issue?

Getting rid of the link between property ownership and voting rights is a fundamental issue for the PLP.

The ‘property vote’ was used for decades in general elections to prevent black people from voting. It also undermines the fundamental democratic principle of ‘one man, one vote’.

Its retention in city elections is viewed as a relic from an era of institutionalized discrimination.

So what changes?

The Act allows all residents over the age of 18 and living within city boundaries to vote, regardless of property ownership or family relationship.

Grown-up children now living at home get a vote as do unmarried couples or adult roommates who live together.

So what’s wrong with that?

Nothing. The Corporation says it supports reform of the  property vote and had suggested exactly those reforms in a memo to Government in 2008.

Where the two parties differ — and one of the main points of contention in this dispute — is over the business vote.

The Act entirely removes the right of business owners to vote in city elections, unless they also live in the city. The Corporation believe this is unfair. They say businesses have a vested interest in everything from parking and trash collection to security and taxation. They say businesses pay 98 per cent of city taxes and deserve a say in how it is run.

What do the businesses think?

They believe that as the principal taxpayers and the main users of services in the city they should get a vote.

The Chamber of Commerce said in a letter to members last night that it would like to see a wider discussion of different voting methods, including the possibility of a commuter vote for those who work in Hamilton.

They fear businesses will be hit with new taxes and less services as a result of the financial implications of the bill.

So how will this change the make-up of the city council?

Anyone on the Parliamentary register can still run for mayor or councilor under the new Act — even if they don’t live in the city.

They just can’t vote. Current mayor Charles Gosling could, in theory, run for re-election, but he wouldn’t be able to vote for himself.

The new voting pool will come entirely from residents within the city’s boundaries.

The Corporation claim their proposal would have increased the number of people entitled to vote in city elections from around 500 to almost 1,500 and made the elections more democratic.

It is 2010, why didn’t the Corporation get rid of the property vote years ago?

The Corporation cannot change the voting rights in city elections. A Government Act is required to do that.

The fact that the city council waited until 2008 to push for changes is seen by some as a sign of a half-hearted, late in the day commitment to change.

But the Corporation argues that Government could have opened the discussion years ago.

What is the issue with the docks?

The most fundamental change, legislated in the new Act, is the removal of the Corporation’s right to levy wharfage fees on Hamilton docks.

The Corporation currently gets $8 million of its $25 million annual budget from the docks. It is compelled by the Marine Board Act to manage and run the docks, a responsibility which it says costs it $1.7m annually.

The Corporation argues that it built and owns the docks and needs the funds to do the work.

It has warned that major projects like the new X-ray machine to scan shipping containers for drugs and guns could have to be shelved as a result of the change. It is likely that Government would cover the cost, though the Government has not commented on this.

The Government has said that Hamilton’s docks are a ‘lifeline’ for the country and should be controlled by central Government.

PLP activists argue that the Corporation was created by Government and as such can be amended by Government. They say the Corporation is an administrative body and cannot lay claim to ownership of the land.

How does all this affect me?

If you believe the Corporation’s ads, Christmas will be cancelled.

Corporation officials say even with increased taxes, parking charges and other fees, the changes will leave it with a $4million deficit.

The only way to balance the books will be to cut services. The latest advertisement, in yesterday’s Royal Gazette, highlighted the May 24 parade, Harbour Nights, Security X-Ray machines at the docks and CCTV security cameras on a list of 22 events or services that could be cancelled.

If the Act passes tomorrow, is the debate over?

The Corporation has taken legal advice and believes it would have a case to challenge this new law in the courts.

They hope their publicity campaign, culminating in a march on Parliament tomorrow, will persuade MPs to reconsider the bill.

But they say they are ready for a legal battle if the Act goes through. It is also possible that the Government could look to amend the Act further in future legislation.