Mission Street dual representation explored

The property of 11 Mission Street. Photo: Matt Shand/Stuff

Tauranga City Council has moved to gift or lease the land at 11 Mission Street to an entity which represents the interests of both the Elms Foundation and the Otamataha Trust.

The property at 11 Mission Street, located within the original Otamataha Pā site, had been subject to a decision on whether it be gifted to the Otamataha Trust on the basis of an ongoing lease agreement with the Elms Foundation – a decision Council revoked on Tuesday.

"Council will now work with the Elms Foundation and the Otamataha Trust to discuss the options around the gifting or leasing of the land as well as an appropriate entity to represent both parties’ interests," says a council spokesperson.

"A report will then be submitted to the newly elected Council to summarise those discussions and options.

"If an option were to be accepted, the newly formed Council would consider and ratify the details of that arrangement.

"Tauranga City Council looks forward to working with both the Elms Foundation and the Otamataha Trust."

More on SunLive...
You must be logged in to make a comment. Login Now

dumbkof2, giving to The Elms is illegal

Posted on 27-09-2019 22:57 | By Peter Dey

The Treaty of Waitangi Act and related High Court decisions require the Council to treat the Maori community fairly as partners. If they do not they are breaking the law. Councillors who voted against the Otamataha Trust broke the law. This law has no penalty if broken but councillors should not be wilfully breaking the law. Eventually the land will go to the Otamaha Trust because that is the only decision that is fair to Maori, which is what the law requires.

Elms v2

Posted on 27-09-2019 16:39 | By Tumeke Tauranga

Just give it to tangata whenua and be done with it

Passing the buck

Posted on 27-09-2019 10:21 | By Eric Bantona

This is hugely disappointing and a mess. I feel for the Otamataha Trust and the Elms. Why it even had to go to consultation is beyond me. Things change over time and if there is a better option then why not consider it? It would have had next to zero difference to the Elms that would still have been able to operate and use the land in perpetuity for a $1 a year. Instead those that voted against the proposal are now just passing the buck.


Posted on 26-09-2019 15:11 | By dumbkof2

just give it to the elms and stop all this gobble de gook codswallop


Posted on 25-09-2019 09:33 | By dumbkof2

just give it to the elms and be done with it