Waipa district residents have excelled in dobbing in their neighbours over the past three months. That's the view of Waipa district councillor Grahame Webber, who described his council's latest environmental services enforcement summary as "a pimping report"
for the quarter .These checks resulted in:* One abatement notice being issued,
* 10 warning letters,
* 49 signs being seized,
* 35 parking infringement notices,
* Four litter infringements notices,
* Eight warning letters on vehicles which were advertised illegally for sale on roads,
* Five warnings for bikes on footpaths,
* Six warnings for skateboards.
Council staff and contractors also responded to 220 noise complaints, 39 nuisance complaints, 19 fire and smoke complaints and 422 animal complaints.
Mr Webber was unimpressed with such "pimping", particularly given the number of instances where complaints were not upheld. He said it highlighted how people would far rather complain to council than talk to their neighbours if they had a problem. "It is a sad day when we prefer to pimp on someone. The country is going backwards." I sooooo agree. Read the editor's note!!!
The editor of this blog's note:
Well this report comes at a very good time because one of my neighbours complained about another neighbour's dog, and that neighbour thought it was us.
So they rang the Dog Control Guy on us and complained about some friendly dog barking while we were playing with the dogs in the backyard.
This is our city's policy... ANY ONE can complain ANONYMOUSLY and guess what happens?
I wrote a letter to Enforcement Unit in Christchurch, dated: Saturday, July 25, 2009
I was visited by your unit yesterday by a Dog Control Officer since he said that he received two complaints about dogs barking on my property. I explained that I was playing ball with young dogs in the backyard.
I would like to make you aware that we have recently been given a note placed in our letterbox by our neighbour who lives at (ADDRESS WITHHELD) Road , who recently moved in, and who recently has been visited by with the SPCA or by CCC Animal Control because someone complained about their dogs.
As you know, complainants are anonymous. We would like to point out the effect of this rule. Because our neighbour thinks it was us who complained it appears they retaliated by complaining about some playful barking and alerting that occurred over a very short period of time.
We want your unit to go to the person who complained about the neighbours at (ADDRESS WITHHELD)Road and explain the ramification of anonymous complaint. As a consequence we are now uncomfortable directly experiencing the flak of this. Also tell the person who complained that they should TALK directly to their neighbour instead of getting your Inspectors involved.
Here's the content of the written note delivered to our letterbox. It was addressed from (ADDRESS WITHHELD) Road and delivered July 21, 2009. I quote:We know that you complained about our dogs , (PARTNER'S NAME) said we are going to be here along time. You don't know anything about us. Don't come here again. Thanks.
I know you are just moaning about me because you have nothing else to do. We have had it before so nothing new. People causing trouble not needed.
We would like your Dog Control Unit to visit our neighbour at (ADDRESS WITHHELD) and assure them that it was not us who complained.
As I explained to your inspector, we are the type of neighbour who walks wandering/visiting dogs back home; we are the type of neighbour who takes the time to be neighborly and takes the time to get to know them. We are not the type of neighbour to get a third party involved in disputes. We would rather have a good talk and assist when ever possible. We wish to protect this healthy community reputation.
(keep watching this blog for the updates on this neighbour's PIMPING problems.)