A pride advocate is calling a petition to stop a rainbow pedestrian crossing from being installed in Tauranga “nothing short of disgusting”.
Gordy Lockhart campaigned for six years to get a rainbow crossing in Tauranga and presented a petition to Tauranga City Council in April.
The crossing was approved by the council’s Community, Transparency and Engagement Committee last month.
Shortly after, an online petition was started calling for the crossing to be halted because of the $10,000 cost.
The black and white crossing, flanked progress pride flags will be installed in the city centre on Devonport Rd outside the library, He Puna Manawa.
The council planned to put a pedestrian crossing there so staff recommended adding the rainbow element to increase vibrancy in the area after receiving Lockhart’s petition.
The estimated cost of installing a standard pedestrian crossing is $5000 and the rainbow markings are $5000.
Pride advocate Gordy Lockhart said it was “horrifying” the petition was going to be presented. Photo / Mead Norton
Petition organiser Wayne Farrant said it did not aim to undermine the values of diversity and inclusion.
“It’s more to highlight the importance [of] how we’re allocating our city’s resources.”
Asked if it changed things given the standard pedestrian crossing was always going to be installed, Farrant replied: “Not really”.
“It’s a highly political statement. I think it will prove to be more divisive than what they are intending it to achieve.”
This was evident in other cities where rainbow crossings had been painted over, he said.
Rainbow crossings in Gisborne and Auckland were vandalised with paint earlier in the year.
“I think by painting this you’re going to divide the community a lot more,” Farrant said.
“I appreciate that they [LGBTQIA+] want to feel included and part of the community, but to be fair, I don’t think they’re excluded from the community at all.”
The rainbow crossing on Karangahape Rd in Auckland was painted over with white paint in March. Photo / John Nottage / Reddit
He was also concerned the community was not consulted or told the rainbow crossing was being considered by the council.
“I just don’t feel the community was consulted on it. It represents a significant expense.”
Farrant said there were other ways to celebrate diversity, such as a mural.
The options for the rainbow crossing were in the September 10 committee meeting agenda. Agendas are available at least two working days before the meeting.
Mayor Mahé Drysdale said the cost of the crossing was marginal and since the council was elected, they had already saved ratepayers money.
CBD business owners were consulted about the crossing, but the cost of community consultation would be greater than the crossing, he said.
Lockhart said in his view, the petition was “nothing short of disgusting”.
Lockhart, founder of the inclusivity charity You Be You, said the rainbow crossing originated as a symbol of gay civil rights and to remember the thousands of LGBTQIA+ people murdered over the years.
Pride advocate Gordy Lockhart after the September council meeting where the rainbow crossing was approved. Photo / Alisha Evans
“In 2024 it stands as a marker of our society’s diversity, and it’s there to represent all the colours of the human race.
“I have no idea how on earth an example of a diversity could be considered divisive.”
Farrant would present his petition with 2781 signatures to the council committee’s meeting on Tuesday.
Lockhart said it was “horrifying” the petition was going to be presented and he believed it did not have grounds to do so.
“In my view [the] council should simply have said no, we’re not even going to entertain that petition.
“It’s just repeating the same discussion.”
People had an opportunity to express their opinions at the September or April meetings, Lockhart said.
Committee chairman Kevin Schuler said the council was happy to receive the petition and looked forward to hearing the thinking behind it.
“We understand that there is concern about the allocation of city funds towards projects that might not directly benefit the community’s essential needs.
“It is felt that the crossing represents a significant expense, which could be better directed towards other areas.”
Schuler said the petition supported diversity being celebrated in ways that did not require substantial public money or alter city infrastructure in ways that could be seen as divisive or unnecessary.
Grounds for not accepting a petition included not being within the jurisdiction of the council, the petition being repetitious or similar to an already-considered petition, or containing malicious statements, defamatory information or unfounded allegations, the council’s website states.
Farrant will present his petition at the meeting on Tuesday.
LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.
43 comments
Hypocritical
Posted on 14-10-2024 16:18 | By Ruth Woodward
Shame that Tauranga promotes itself as a progressive city yet there remains an embedded regressive, non exclusive and nimbyist culture among its communities. Hoping the Council stands its ground on this one.
Majority Rules
Posted on 14-10-2024 16:30 | By Accountable
Surely. Democracy at work!
hmmm...
Posted on 14-10-2024 16:38 | By KiwiDerek
"It’s more to highlight the importance [of] how we’re allocating our city’s resources.” - given the other statements by this gentleman, this one would appear to not be entirely true.
Toxicity
Posted on 14-10-2024 16:45 | By Shadow9
Im glad im not going to live forever.
Even this country is beginning to be a stupid place
PC gone mad
Posted on 14-10-2024 16:46 | By nug
No no no... Why do we need a specifically painted Crossing for a certain gender ......don't force feed the majority with the needs of a minority.... Big thanks to whoever ends up painting over it 🙂
What rubbish
Posted on 14-10-2024 17:13 | By Saul
So Gordy Lockhart's petition is OK but the anti rainbow crossing isn't....
He and the Council can do one!!
The majority of Tauranga do not want this BS crossing!!!
Listen to the MAJORITY for a change
Hmmm
Posted on 14-10-2024 17:21 | By Let's get real
Once an installation is approved and sited it will likely never be removed. So we're not just talking about a one-off cost to ratepayers, just like any other council project, the ongoing costs of regular maintenance will fall to ratepayers.
At some point in time (if not currently the case) the costs of maintenance on council empire building projects will be the highest burden carried by current and future ratepayers.
This splash of paint isn't going to only cost $10,000 it will cost millions over time as will the other nonsense projects in the dead centre of town.
Murdered?
Posted on 14-10-2024 17:27 | By Saul
remember the thousands of LGBTQIA+ people murdered over the years???
How many then??
I don't recall any tbh!
I don’t think…
Posted on 14-10-2024 17:40 | By Shadow1
…this is about nimbyism or intolerance, rainbows can be painted anywhere, not just on a pedestrian crossing. How about a footpath, a blank wall, a roof, a gay person’s house or car.
Pedestrian crossings are white painted on roads. They are not raised because they are not speed humps. Drivers respect them because they’re highly visible and nobody wants to run over a pedestrian.
Come on council you seem to want to make a sideshow out of these crossings, they are very simple but effective things.
Shadow1
Be whatever gender/sexuality you wish but NO!!!
Posted on 14-10-2024 17:51 | By Bruja
No rainbow crossing because it has NOT been democratically voted on.
I personally want a purple crossing to reflect my spiritual beliefs but I would want this to be democratically voted for. No Gordy, no. Put it to a democratic vote Gordy otherwise no.
Progressive?
Posted on 14-10-2024 18:08 | By nug
How is pandering to the wants of the LGBTQ and whatever other letters community a good thing? Can a rugby club or a motorcycle club apply to have there colours or symbol be painted on public roads if they feel left out? It's not this generations job to make up for past wrong doings towards the homosexual community
Pointless
Posted on 14-10-2024 18:18 | By Jono_
I honestly have no idea why on earth we need to have a crossing to 'support' your sexuality.
I agree that it is a waste of money but its also a waste of time and effort to install and maintain, I'm surprised the council even acknowledged the petition in the first place and good on this guy for speaking up.
This is clearly a political motivated agenda across all aspects of life at the moment and it boggles my mind.
We don't need a virtue signaling sign painted on the road or anywhere else for that matter.
I want
Posted on 14-10-2024 18:44 | By nerak
a purty lil crossing, for all the short people. And while you're at it, how about another one for all the tall people, and maybe one for all the oldies, and a very jolly one for all the kids.......
Just so long as you're not gonna spend my money on them!
Sign here
Posted on 14-10-2024 19:15 | By bop-xer
Link to petition: https://www.change.org/p/halt-the-installation-of-a-rainbow-crossing-in-tauranga-s-cbd
Is Gordy Lockhart
Posted on 14-10-2024 19:30 | By R1Squid
Willing to pay? If so, I have no issue.
If Gordy is relying on the Public Purse, then he must find another source of funds!
Behave Yourselves
Posted on 15-10-2024 08:38 | By Thats Nice
Most people are quite accepting of people's different sexual orientation and preferences so please don't play the "diversity and inclusion" card. The majority simply don't want this stuff forced down our throats and, in our faces, everywhere we go and also have to pay for it. Pedestrian crossings are black and white - end of.
Purpose of pedestrian crossing
Posted on 15-10-2024 08:57 | By EK
Last time I checked the purpose of a pedestrian crossing is to provide a safe place to cross, not to make everyone feel inclusive - which I do not understand how a rainbow coloured pedestrian crossing would ??Pedestrian crossings are recognised worldwide for the black and white colouring and should not be messed with. Council also needs to take into consideration what has happened to some other rainbow crossings which have been painted over in protest and the unnecessary costs involved with repplacing it again….and maybe again and again. Rate payers are not a bottomless pit of money to pay for frivolous ideas. Stick to the basics.
Another council idiotic decision!
Posted on 15-10-2024 11:06 | By Ben Dover
What an absolute disgrace that more taxpayers money is being wasted on this farce! Not only is it unsightly,but could distract motorists and possibly cause accidents!
Just No
Posted on 15-10-2024 11:53 | By Resident1
I hope the Council have enough funds to cover the future desecration of the Rainbow Crossing! The Council haven’t thought this through. It is our (ratepayers) money - listen to the people! We don’t want our funds spent on colouring in a crossing.
We don't want it Gordy!
Posted on 15-10-2024 12:24 | By euanme3
Cant wait to do a burnout on this unwanted, divisive, costly desecration of our public roads. We don't want it!!
While $10,000 seems like
Posted on 15-10-2024 12:39 | By earlybird
a lot of money for a crossing, I think it's worth it just bring some much needed colour to a boring city. Currently Tauranga is a colourless city. No flowers anywhere, so a rainbow crossing will help to remedy that. A thumbs up from me.
No thanks..
Posted on 15-10-2024 12:51 | By Jonny62
We don't need to pander to this minority, do we?
It was bad enough that we had to put crossings in everywhere for the Zebras...
What a nuisance
Posted on 15-10-2024 13:00 | By Dee236
As a rate Payer I am against this stupidity. The world has gone insane that these people now rule the world with their hissy fits and privilege. Im glad we don't live forever. The world is turning in to trash bin.
and...
Posted on 15-10-2024 13:37 | By This Guy
This comments section shows just why we need something like this... a bunch of bigots using the cost as a shield to hide their hate - if you do the maths for how much this actually cost you, it's about 0.07 cents (HOW OUTRAGEOUS! /s - if it makes you feel better pretend I gave $10 and paid all your whingers share instead) - oh and Saul, just because you ignore the thousands of LGBT+ folks who've been murdered over the years, doesn't mean they don't exist...
The Master
Posted on 15-10-2024 13:38 | By Ian Stevenson
Logic says that there is no benefit to the wider community, to note colour or whatever has not meaningful value to the vast majority.
Lets not forget the real issue here, that Tauranga City of completely broke, debt for Africa and spending that is rampantly out of control...
Did anyone else here the message from the PM at the LGNZ meeting where it was time to Councils to focus on the essentials and do them well!!!
The Master
Posted on 15-10-2024 13:49 | By Ian Stevenson
According to the poll being run on this page, the public are clearly aware of the right answer here 72+% say no to the crossing.
Tat of course means that TCC knows best and will do it anyway... right?
Get a grip!
Posted on 15-10-2024 14:03 | By phoebe12
Where does it say in any official document that the recognised and approved specifications of a pedestrian crossing can now be painted any colour you like. Multicoloured is surely a DISTRACTION rather than an attraction! Do your own signage on private property at your own expense like everyone else if you want recognition of your cause.
Not changing
Posted on 15-10-2024 15:08 | By Informed
These comments are another example of a city that is stuck in the past. Where do you even start with the attitudes displayed here?
This was democratically voted on and the vote was yes. But of course, those stuck in the past now think that the views of a small block of voters (aka Sunlive readers) override democracy.
But good to see some people think a pole on a right-wing site equals democracy.
Pleasantly surprised...
Posted on 15-10-2024 17:19 | By morepork
... that SunLive are allowing comment on it. I stopped posting here because controversial posts or anything remotely "non-usual" was being blocked, and the Liberal free speech which attracted me here in the first place, seems to have been replaced by a new, more woke and anaemic Editorial policy. Given the comments evinced on the crossing, here's my response:
It is a sad community that cannot admit their homophobia and hide behind "unnecessary expense" and "having it pushed down our throats" (perhaps an unfortunate turn of phrase in this context...) The $5000 expense is an infinitesmal drop in the ocean of waste that is TCC. If you don't like the reality that some people are homosexual, you have the same rights that they have to your opinion. Don't pretend; tell the truth or remain silent. I think the crossing looks fantastic and will enhance Devonport Road.
Is this journalism?
Posted on 15-10-2024 19:43 | By Henry67
Why does sunlive insist on publishing the opinions of individuals like its news? And doesn't seek opinion of the community that this actually means something to. The way you jump on these divisive rhetorics is appalling and damaging to the progress of our city
Waste of money
Posted on 16-10-2024 08:08 | By an_alias
Spot on, amazing how way more people have signed than the original petition.
The council needs to reign back in the spending.
@Henry67
Posted on 16-10-2024 11:16 | By morepork
The opinions of individuals (and the chance to counter them) is the basis of what forms the News. I may have issues with Sun Live, but, at least on this occasion, they are supporting discussion on a controversial event. They also frequently run polls of the community which are also public. It is commendable, and your criticism is misplaced. I criticize them for NOT allowing "divisive rhetoric" and you criticize them for doing so. You and I could have an interesting conversation over a beer or two... :-) I believe that open discussion is NOT divisive; on the contrary, the ONLY way for divergent views to become unified is by understanding the other's position, instead of being inflamed or offended by it. Healthy discussion is a path to unity (or at least, understanding) and suppressing it because somebody could be offended is counter-productive, IMO.
@an_alias
Posted on 16-10-2024 11:24 | By morepork
I'm surprised at you; I usually find myself in agreement with your posts. Are you REALLY objecting to a drop-in-the-bucket spend on something that will brighten up Devonport Road and show support from the rest of us, for a fringe group which does no harm and are generally law-abiding. Or is your objection based on your personal belief system, which determines them to be anathema? You have a perfect right to be opposed either way, but your view would be more worthy of respect if it was honest.
@Dee236
Posted on 16-10-2024 11:36 | By morepork
"...hissy fits and privilege..."? You are obviously OK with a stereotyped last century perception of homosexuals. I have known people of that persuasion and I never saw one of them EVER throw a hissy fit. (I realize that doesn't mean that they never do, but that is not what's at issue here.) The Rainbow community is a part of our society, just as we welcome people of all colours and ethnicities. We (properly) pride ourselves on our diversity and Kiwi society is a good place to live because of it. Looking at the current world situation, I can understand your allusion to a trash can and your despondency. But Gay people are no more responsible for that than the rest of us. It won't be improved by promoting stupid stereotypes.
My Conclusion
Posted on 16-10-2024 11:56 | By morepork
We don't NEED to decorate a crossing, but it is a nod to a minority and "does no harm". The cost is not so outrageous as to be prohibitive, and there are a lot of people who will appreciate and enjoy the colour in Devonport Road.
And yet, there is fierce opposition.
Apart from a few posters who support the idea (I see them as being the future hope for us) there is a general consensus against the crossing. Having been a passionate Democrat all of my life, I would accept the decision to NOT do it, but It would sadden me. There is still a lot of growing to be done in Tauranga. Open discussion can support that.
@morepork
Posted on 16-10-2024 17:26 | By Let's get real
I am not anti-lbgtq, I am anti "nice to have" and all the wasteful time spent discussing this and other agenda items that are not focused on the core responsibilities of council... Physical health and well-being.
Are our current services running smoothly and anywhere near maintenance free... how old are our water and sewage systems..?
I'm also extremely anti-empire building.
As I suggested earlier, we can possibly overlook the initial cost as a mere trifle, without considering the ongoing costs for the maintenance and upkeep of a feelgood bit of paint.
If the rainbow community wishes to sign a legal document to fund the costs of installation and maintenance now and into the future of this extravagance that they are demanding ratepayers fund, have at it.
Look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves.
@ Let's get real
Posted on 16-10-2024 21:00 | By Yadick
Well said. I wholeheartedly agree with you.
... Also...
Posted on 16-10-2024 21:26 | By KTAll
I ABSOLUTELY love the idea... All this anti rainbows these days it's just stupidity... If it was going to be a rainbow crossing for little people at schools, kindergarten or daycare would there be such a stink being raised???... 🤔... I think NOT! x
Bottom line
Posted on 17-10-2024 07:55 | By The Sage
This is my third attempt to get a comment printed. My view is that Mahe Drysdale stated the cost of the crossing was marginal. That being the case he should consider if the money was coming out of his own pocket, would he still be paying for it? That is what is known as running the Council like a business. Secondly if it is so important to Gordy Lockhart, let him stump up with his own money for it. Thirdly what is the purpose of a pedestrian crossing? My understanding it is to help people cross the road safely.
It Is
Posted on 17-10-2024 09:16 | By Yadick
It is the legal black and white and so long as the legal size and markings, ie the warning diamond is still used then really there is absolutely nothing wrong with the design. I was against it at first because I thought the crossing itself was going to be multi coloured.
HOWEVER, it is only a nice to have and we cannot afford cream doughnuts at present. Council would be wasting valuable money on a not necessary nice to have. Perhaps later down the track but not now when technically our city is bankrupt and supposed to be cost cutting. We have much more greatly pressing needs.
By The Way
Posted on 17-10-2024 09:19 | By Yadick
An aerial view is exceedingly different in so many ways to what we see at ground level.
@Let's get real
Posted on 17-10-2024 10:02 | By morepork
Thanks for a reasoned and fair response. I don't disagree with anything you said and I believe you when you state your reasons for objection. Your point that the Rainbow ccommunity could contribute, is a fair one.
But you said yourself it is a "feelgood" bit of paint. Does that mean it should be dismissed? I'm a Ratepayer and it would make me "feel good" to see this go ahead, even though I am not remotely connected to the Gay community. With the world in the stae it is at the moment, I'd be inclined to support most things that will make ANY section of the community feel good. (As long as it does no harm to the rest of the community...) It is good to see civilized discussion occurring over this and we all win from that, at least.
@Yadick
Posted on 21-10-2024 17:36 | By morepork
Do you really think $5000 in the context of annnual Rates revenue of around $335 MILLION represents a "cream doughnut"? More like a single potato chip, I would say... If there was NO value in it, I'd agree, but there actually is a value here, and it would please a lot of people. I'm still hoping it goes ahead.
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to make a comment.