E-Mail 'Conflict of interest - Transport chair withdraws from Basin flyover planning' To A Friend

Email a copy of 'Conflict of interest - Transport chair withdraws from Basin flyover planning' to a friend

* Required Field






Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 5 entries.



Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 5 entries.


E-Mail Image Verification

Loading ... Loading ...
 

8 comments:

  1. Michael Gibson, 25. December 2012, 15:33

    The same conflict-of-interest situation arises at the Council, e.g. with Cr Justin Lester voting as a Councillor for the commercial “betterment” of a company of which he is a paid director, Wellington Waterfront Ltd.
    It is tragic that his Committee Chair, Cr Andy Foster, has supported him in this seemingly because he needs the vote to get more buildings onto open space on the precious Wellington waterfront..
    It would have been good if they had had better or firmer legal advice about the conflict but they should be able to make up their own minds on this – after all they were voted in to do exactly that (i.e. make up their own minds when they were independent, that is!)

     
  2. Tim Jones, 27. December 2012, 16:26

    Wellington Scoop is doing a great job at exposing the cronyism that underlies so many of these projects. Chris Moller’s conflict of interest over the Basin Reserve flyover is, I suspect, only the tip of the iceberg. One wonders what Mr Moller’s future is as a board chair.

     
  3. Alana, 27. December 2012, 17:47

    Requiring Moller to step out of the room just isn’t enough to ensure that the Basin Reserve Cricket Ground is receiving protection from the NZTA’s determination to push a flyover. And NZTA is a government agency, not a government body itself, and it should receive instructions, not issue them.

     
  4. Liz S, 28. December 2012, 18:37

    Given NZTA’s belated recognition of Chris Moller’s conflict of interest, what actions are now needed to sort out the impact of his conflicted interests on basin flyover work so far?

    Removal prevents future harm, but what about harm already caused? What are NZTA’s plans to sort out this mess?

     
  5. Polly, 29. December 2012, 15:54

    I remind Cr Morrison of his comments in the DomPost on September 13, 2008 re an extra stand planned at the Basin. He said the stand would totally obscure the flyover (quoted then as costing $33million) and funding would come from the city council, the regional council and the NZTA. He is also quoted as saying that the stand would be lower than the top of the pohutakawa trees that ring the ground. However, in the last four years the growth of pohutakawas has been incredible and they may have to be trimmed or even removed if the the flyover is built. Finally he talked about the rickety gates being replaced with an eye catching entrance under the new stand, with access along a tree lined boulevard between Kent and Cambridge Terraces. He fails to say that this boulevard would be ruined by the flyover overhead, with noise and pollution, not to say graffiti.

     
  6. Effie, 30. December 2012, 8:54

    And the new entrance would be ruined because you would have to walk under the flyover to get to the Basin.

     
  7. Guy, 30. December 2012, 9:41

    Seems to me that Clr Morrison’s expectations and NZTA planned mitigation are very much miles apart, despite an alleged letter of intent. Councilor implies a guaranteed new grandstand, extending from the Vance stand right down to the corner, with new WCs to replace the soviet ablution block. Whereas NZTA plans for a new screen just at one end, above the entry gate. That’s quite different. You might think that Chris Moller would have been able to get that cleared up, seeing as he was on both boards, even if he was declaring a conflict at the time.

     
  8. traveller, 30. December 2012, 9:56

    A new screen would be just as dreadful as a new grandstand, in terms of destroying the viewshaft and the open ambience of the neighbourhood around the Basin. How twisted for the NZTA to be planning big structures to block the flyover from being seen by cricketers during occasional matches, when everyone else will be seeing the flyover 24 hours a day seven days a week, 365 days every year. (If it’s built…)

     

Write a comment: