Category Archives: News

A News Post on something that has happened

Press Release From Auckland Council

Posted on by
Reply

Need More Gin

 

Okay I am getting press releases from Auckland Council personally now as they get sent out into the public domain and press offices. Took me by surprise a bit…

Ah well might as well copy paste it into here:

From Auckland Council

Media release
23 May 2013
One week to feedback on draft Unitary Plan
Aucklanders have one week to feedback on the draft Auckland Unitary Plan and Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse is urging people to make sure they have had their say.
 
“We are undertaking the largest planning process in New Zealand’s history, creating a rulebook that will guide Auckland and how it grows over the next 30 years.
 
“I never expected anything less than robust debate and passionate views on this plan and it is great to be getting so much feedback. This is exactly why it was released as a draft – so everyone would have the chance to be involved before the more formal step of notification.  We wanted to consult and listen and change the plan to ensure we develop the best plan possible. 
 
“With a week left to go in this period of informal engagement, I want to remind Aucklanders that the purpose of engaging on a “draft” draft plan is so we can change and adjust things according to feedback. We have always said we will reshape the plan and we will,” said the Deputy Mayor.
So far about 3,000 individual pieces of feedback have been received, 11,000 people have attended the Unitary Plan events, and more than 70,000 people have visited the council’s Unitary Plan website,shapeauckland.co.nz.
 
“The plan is large and deals with some complex issues. A lot of people have never gone through a district plan before and are not aware of what the current rules say.
 
“If people have specific questions or need help using the plan, please call Council on 09 3010101 so our team can help. There is misinformation out there so we encourage you to contact us if you have queries on rules, overlays, zones or using the maps.
 
“I have attended many events since the launch and have heard from thousands of Aucklanders, passionate about where they live and about the future of their communities and their city. I have reassured Aucklanders that we can hear their concerns and will listen.
 
“We will be going through all of the feedback in June and July to see where changes need to be made.”
 
To find out about the remaining community events and how to submit feedback by going to shapeauckland.co.nz. Feedback closes 31 May.
How to have your say
  • It’s easy to give your feedback and we want to hear all views
  • Leave a comment on on one of our blogposts – it can be short, detailed, in support, what you would change, tweak etc
  • You can fill out a Unitary Plan feedback form
  • Comment on our facebook page, or tweet @aklcouncil using the hashtag #shapeauckland
 
Feedback based on facts
 

Apparently looking at the Shape Auckland webpage it has been release under the Deputy Mayor’s name.

I think I need another Gin

Ah well – stranger things have happened

Those Secret Papers are Back Again

Posted on by
Reply

Slow News Day?

 

I see Orsman is banging on about secret papers again with the Unitary Plan:

Mayor to decide release of secret housing zone papers

By Bernard Orsman

 

Auckland Mayor Len Brown is sitting on secret documents about controversial plans which would make up to three-storey apartments possible in half of residential Auckland.

The Herald asked Mr Brown on Tuesday to release documents used to draw up the mixed housing and terraced housing and apartment zones in the new planning rulebook, or Unitary Plan.

The request was made under the emergency provisions of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act so they could be made public before feedback on the draft plan closes on May 31. Last night, a spokesman for Mr Brown said the mayor’s office was working through the request and would provide a response shortly.

The documents were the basis for a political working party to develop heights and controls for the two zones that have a profound effect on more than half of residential Auckland. The working party, which meets behind closed doors, makes recommendations to the Auckland Plan committee which discusses issues in public.

A member of the political working party said officers provided no in-depth analysis on the two zones and had belatedly revealed the three-storey height limit in the mixed housing zone.

 

I was sure I have covered this before so I went for a look and found this:

THOSE SECRET PAPERS

Posted by BR:AKL_Admin01 on April 30, 2013 · Leave a Comment(Edit)

Where’s Wally?

 

…

You can go read the piece by clicking the respective hyperlink.

 

After digging that post up I went digging through the emails again as I remember a conversation about those papers. Yep the emails are still there from April 29. The emails gave rise to my particular post on April 30 and seem to give rise to this post today.

 

Now this presents an interesting situation which has two possible paths:

  1. There is more to those papers than I got led to believe on April 29. This means the mayor and deputy mayor might need to come clean here if this the case. While I have respect for the Deputy Mayor that respect can be lost fast if I was led to believe one thing when the opposite occurred. Trust and confidence applies here
  2. Orsman is full of crap again and rehashing a month old story. While that would be nothing particularly new I noted this remark “A member of the political working party said officers provided no in-depth analysis on the two zones and had belatedly revealed the three-storey height limit in the mixed housing zone” to which I can think of two Councillors who might say that. If that is the case then a leak perhaps to substantiate the claim. Otherwise the city is running around like headless chickens (cue the Julia Gillard headless chook experiment video which actually you should watch. Just replace Gillard with Len Brown and you should get the rest) to which Kevin Rudd‘s quip: “Everyone should take a very LONG cold shower” could very well apply to the Unitary Plan as it stands.

 

So what path we will all go down is now on apparently what the mayor is meant to release “shortly.”

 

The city waits

 

 

 

From Dr Lester Levy

Posted on by
1

Dr Levy writes in the NZ Herald

 

I caught this piece this morning (while debunking Orsman) from Dr Levy – head of Auckland Transport

 

Lester Levy: Restoring faith in Auckland’s transport system

Commuters can be assured public transport will be sorted and the service will be one everyone enjoys using.

 

Far too many Aucklanders have lost faith that there is an alternative to their private car. Photo / Brett Phibbs

EXPAND
Far too many Aucklanders have lost faith that there is an alternative to their private car. Photo / Brett Phibbs

When it comes to transport in Auckland the stakeholders are as many and varied as are the differing and divergent views.

I guess it has always been like this and over many decades ad hoc decisions, decisions half-made, questionable decisions and decisions deferred or never made have severely limited options.

Transport solutions in Auckland are well behind where they should be, but not where we have to stay.

I have been chairman of Auckland Transport for six months. What do I see? Public transport in Auckland is just not yet good enough. The trains do not run frequently enough and frequently they do not run on time. The bus real-time information does not seem real to many, because it is not, a lot of the time.

Peak times on trains and buses are often very crowded and it just seems like there are not enough of them – that is because often there are not. The new AT Hop card has had some issues – these have been very frustrating for passengers

…

 

You can read the rest over at the Herald site

 

I have made mention before of Dr Levy’s mission and drive for both Auckland Transport and Auckland’s Transport here at the blog:

While I can be harsh upon Auckland Transport (AT-HOP, Snapper and the Family Pass being the classics), in the same regard I can praise and work alongside them as well (The Regional Public Transport Plan which is back for consultation). Dr Levy though is right through Auckland losing faith in its public transport (as I covered with the fall off in patronage statistics with rail) and even AT itself. I do not particularly envy Dr Levy’s formidable task in turning AT and the public transport system around but I do praise him to take the task head and hands on. Having seen Dr Levy turn around Auckland Hospital I can have faith he can do it again with Auckland Transport :)

 

In saying that though while I have faith in Dr Levy, I am apprehensive about the Auckland Transport Executive Team headed by CEO David Warburton. I am allowed to feel apprehensive as a human is I have concerns from the executive team not pulling its weight enough to get the changes we need through. The disdain executive members can have for the Auckland Council Transport Committee don’t help me allay that apprehension and I wonder if all the changes required can be pulled off by 2020-2025.

 

The apprehension against the executive is my private ponderings although I have mentioned them here as I know they will pick up on this.

 

Still; full praise to Dr Levy and his mission.

 

If the RPTP can be pulled off right (so far it has (and I have been involved in it through submissions and hearings) then that should be a big boost for AT and the transport system in Auckland. In saying that I better brush up and prepare my submission for the RPTP southern sector feedback AT is asking after. Need to get those bus routes right you know ;)

 

Debunking Orsman – Again and Again

Posted on by
4

And Don’t Pick a Misrepresented Image of my Home Either

 

When an email lands in your box at 6am in the morning alerting to you a Unitary Plan article by a particular “journalist,” you know you have to go and look. Go figure it was from our particular journalist and here we go with the debunking again…

 

Right lets see what we get out of Orsman’s latest…

 

The article concerned is:

Potential conflicts loom on road ahead

By Bernard Orsman @BernardOrsman

5:30 AM Wednesday May 22, 2013

 

 

I will go through the article section by section and debunk the bits in blue text

Papakura's Selwyn Chapel what would be possible under the new rules. The council says the image fails to meet form and design quality rules. Photo / Supplied

Papakura‘s Selwyn Chapel what would be possible under the new rules. The council says the image fails to meet form and design quality rules. Photo / Supplied

 

So why was the 18 Storey tower even Photoshopped into the image of Papakura Town Centre. The buildings would automatically fail the urban design and resource consent controls set out in the Unitary Plan, Auckland Design Manual and even the Resource Management Act 1991. Yes at the moment Papakura is up for Metropolitan Centre placement which gives way to 18 storey towers being built in set areas of the current town centre. Yes I am seeking in Papakura a downgrade to what would be known as a Large Town Centre where 12 storeys would be the maximum. But, in the same regard those of us who have read up Sections Three and Four of the Unitary Plan know two truths:

  1. You need the economic demand to get those high-rise towers. With Manukau up for some heavy urban renewal and Takanini Town Centre rather close by, I can not see 18 storey towers in Papakura for at least 20 years.
  2. By the time the developer has jumped through all the hoops I can think of only two places to build a tower that would survive both those rules and basic economics; Papakura Rail Station and along East Street that flanks the west of town centre currently. The picture Orsman has here is of the Great South Road at the north end of town centre where 6-8 storeys would more likely be the norm…

 

Grr, makes me annoyed and quite a few people in Southern Auckland annoyed as well. Showing a picture representing what CAN NOT happen is one way to annoy the locals to no ends…  So there is Orsman being debunked – part one.

 

Part Two in debunking Orsman

Heights
Height is at the top of many people’s minds with the Unitary Plan. Whether it’s walls of apartments on the ridges overlooking Browns Bay or 18-storey high rises in Newmarket, the council is facing a chorus of complaints.

Buildings in central Auckland will have no height restriction, and 10 metro centres such as Takapuna, Henderson, Botany and Newmarket will have an 18-storey limit. In another 37 town centres, the limit will be eight, six and four storeys, and in local centres, such as Mt Eden, it will be three or four storeys. To prevent a canyon effect, any buildings of four storeys or more will have to be set back from the street and require resource consent.

After nine weeks of saying the maximum height of “small scale apartment buildings” in the residential “mixed housing” zone was two storeys, it emerged last week that the height limit is three storeys.

 

I am going through the Resource Management Act 1991 and it seems restrictions on height outside of things like flight paths are pretty hard to regulate AGAINST. So apart from Manukau, all other height limits imposed on the Metropolitan and Town Centres could be on shaky ground if someone was to test it in the Environment Court – ouch. 

At least Orsman got the middle bit of the quoted section right. If he paid attention to that actual section then he would of realised how his Papakura picture depicted something that could not happen… 

With the heights in the centres any how, it is up for consultation and feedback. I am submitting on the centres and heights calling for some raising and lowering depending on location of that said centre. My Housing Mix Simulator also gave a crude narrative of what I would be proposing for the centres.

 

Now for the last bit in regards to three storey blocks. Time to dig up the links again after that got debunked three times here and now twice over at Auckland Transport Blog. Here are the links:

 

To put further measure into this I might go around the city today and get some shots of three storey houses and Walk-Up apartments that are already allowed under the legacy District Plans.

 

Residential zones/density
Moving out of the metro, town and local centres into residential areas, the council has created two zones for intensification – terrace housing and apartments; and mixed housing. There are two zones with no change – single house and large lots on the fringes.

The terraced housing and apartment zone will generally be within 250m of metro, town and local centres, and will fill 7 per cent of the city’s urban area. The mixed housing zone (49 per cent of the urban area) allows for one house per 300sq m with no density limits when developers landbank more than 1200sq m and have a minimum 20m street frontage.

The single housing zone (35 per cent) permits one house per 500sq m, and the single lot zone (9 per cent) covers large lots, mostly on the urban fringe.

Writing in the Herald, David Gibbs, director of the architectural firm Construkt that has worked on plans for Hobsonville Pt, Long Bay and Glen Innes, said sections of 300sq m were still too big for a good-size three- or four-bedroom home when more households were becoming single person or couples without children.

Section sizes of 170-180sq m were ample, he said, citing well-designed two-bedroom homes at Hobsonville Pt on 190sq m.

The days of “shoebox” apartments are back with plans to reduce the minimum apartment size from 35sq m to 30sq m, plus a minimum balcony space of 8sq m.

 

Right who ever from Construkt wrote to the Herald also wrote to Auckland Transport Blog in the bottom link from the bullet points above. Go figure?

As for the rest of the section I am wondering did Orsman write it or someone from Council write it. Language took a interesting change there. I do have a fact sheet from Council on the building stuff which can be seen here:

 

So no debunking Orsman in that piece when the fact sheet provided above backs up what was mentioned in that particular section of the article.

 

The next sections in Orsman’s piece are straight forward with no debunking needed there. It is not until I get to the Young vs Old bit that debunking is required. Still I am wondering if he did write those sections or someone else did. Who knows and not particularly fussed at the moment.

 

However, we get to here and a way go again

Young vs old
Michael Goudie, a 28-year-old councillor, was picked by Mayor Len Brown and Penny Hulse to fire up young people to counter the views of generally older “Nimbys” – Not in My Backyard.

But instead of a legitimate campaign to get teens and 20-somethings to jump on social media with their views, Brown and Hulse turned a blind eye when Goudie promoted an anonymous blog labelling the elderly as “selfish, arrogant and narrow-minded” who should “just hurry up and die”.

More constructive has been a campaign by Generation Zero, a group of young people supporting the compact city model of medium density “done well” with affordable housing and better public transport.

 

So he is still going on about this after being implied as an Ageist Old Fart… Talk about forgive and forget here. Orsman seeming you never showed up to a Youth Event run by Generation Zero or the Manurewa Local Board, might have it been a good idea that you WERE there so you know what the under 35′s concerns were? Ironically the youth have similar concerns to our elders of the city in the regards that if the UP is executed poorly – we are all buggered here and beyond. 

But yes Generation Zero have down well and after being at their event last week to which I did comment on; least the city will be in good hands with our best and brightest coming up. Whether they have to fix a mess from our parents though is another question entirely…

 

Not so sure on the noise stuff. Like Significant Ecological Areas I will need to read up on the stuff before commenting.

 

As for this:

In focus: Mixed housing zone
The mixed housing zone, probably the most controversial in the Unitary Plan, covers 49 per cent of the residential land area in urban Auckland.

The zone allows for one house per 300sq m. But where a developer has more than 1200sq m of land and a 20m street frontage, the developer can build to 8m (two storeys) with no density rules.

A developer can apply apply to build to 10m (three storeys) as a “non-notified restricted discretionary activity”. Non-notified means the decision will be made by council officers with no public input. Restricted discretionary means the council can only consider specified matters and no others. For the mixed housing zone the matters to be considered are:

*Development design
*Dwelling design
*Neighbourhood character
*Height in relation to boundary
*Sunlight and daylight access
*Building interface with the public realm
*Design of carparking, access and servicing

Matters excluded from consideration:

*Intensity and scale
*Noise
*Traffic
*Wastewater capacity

Developers can apply and be granted concessions outside the zone’s controls if they show the effects on the environment are “less than minor”

 

GROAN why could that not be mentioned at the top of the article as well as on May 9 when the Mixed Housing Zone documents were released. Would of saved a lot of damned grief being caused at the moment and a pile of time debunking everything else.

So as I have mentioned in this post, who wrote parts of that article. The language does not seem Orsman language but, rather Council language in some aspects… 

 

This concludes this debunking round. I am off to the dairy to go and get a paper copy of the Herald so I can see the graphics depicted in this article: Vision of fear for city’s heritage; By Bernard Orsman @BernardOrsman

Something tells me another round of debunking is on the way.

 

And before people get themselves upset that I have debunked Orsman for the now sixth time with number seven coming up shortly ask yourself this:

The Unitary Plan has been out since March 16. The planners and Local Board members have been taking questions and seeking answers in plain English since March 16 for you. This blog and Auckland Transport Blog have been running and still are running commentary on the Unitary Plan and the sections of high interest. Questions we get asked are either answered or sent to planners for answers. I have been in constant contact with Councillors and Planners on the UP seeking clarification on issues that are perplexing. I have also been to meetings to gauge people’s views that allowed the Special Character Zone work to be drawn up as it is.

Why am I seeing apparent alarm now and why are people still believing what Orsman is writing after he gets debunked day in day out by at least two different blogs. The Fourth Estate has long left behind true investigative journalism and will go for sensationalist material for readership. Heck even Whaleoil goes on constantly about that and he is no fan of the Herald nor the Unitary Plan…

 

If you want to know why I debunk Orsman day in day out ; it is because I will not allow the Main Stream Media to get away with misrepresentation’s and utter crap. That graphic purporting on Papakura was a classic example of deliberate misrepresentation on something that could never occur. What was more insulting of that misrepresentation was that is was of my home Papakura – where I live and shop. While I live in a Mixed Housing Zone and will look at a three storey house in the future in the area once the UP is operative, I am also 100 metres north of the Papakura Metropolitan Centre and know extremely well what I am in for through to 2040. And what Orsman used as a representation for Papakura that is false is insulting and scaremongering to the residents and businesses down here. I am also to believe that Orsman was handed the graphic by the Character Coalition which will irk me even further. Irk number one for Orsman not checking a graphic that is a misrepresentation which was subsequently placed in the paper, irk number two for the Character Coalition obtaining (again failing to check) or drawing up a wrong graphic knowing that kind of building can not be done in Papakura.

 

 

Commentary will continue on the Unitary Plan as well as full debunking until the end

Oh and the picture of yesterday’s storm was chosen to represent me being moody this morning after reading the Herald… :P

 

BEN ROSS : AUCKLAND

BR:AKL: Bring Well Managed Progress

The Unitary Plan: Bringing Change

Auckland: 2013 – OUR CITY, OUR CALL

 

Lessons from British Columbia in Electoral Races

Posted on by
Reply

Lessons too with The Unitary Plan

 

This particular article was given to me via Facebook and has some very poignant lessons on elections, and “selling” the Unitary Plan:

B.C. election offers lessons for politicians everywhere

From advertising strategies to mobilizing young voters, politicians have a lot to learn.
By: Michael Byers Published on Thu May 16 2013

 

The main thrust of the article was going on about an incumbent long thought to lose only to win and cause a large shock that even caught the premier out. Tactics and some sober reminders were also pointed out which I should go through point by point in regards to the UP but, touching on the mayoral race as well.

 

From The Star.com

Christy Clark’s re-election was a political shocker of seismic proportions. Nobody saw the victory coming: neither the pollsters, nor the pundits, not even the premier herself.

Across Canada, across the electoral spectrum, politicians and their advisers are scrambling to understand what occurred. Here’s an initial assessment, from my vantage point close to the front lines.

 

  • Positive campaigning is about demeanour, not substance. It’s about conveying optimism and empathy, about connecting with potential voters and inspiring them to turn out. Christy Clark did this well; Adrian Dix did not. And you never, ever, say that you’re running a positive campaign. Just do it!

Speaks for itself with a mayoral campaign. As for the Unitary Plan it is one of the things I try to do when running balanced commentary on this vast document. Yes I will go into attack mode (as Orsman and some conservatives find out quickly) but, that is going to be covered in another point in this post. Yes The Clunker can reign confusion and anxiety but the idea is not to go cause a self-fulfilling prophesy and fuel those negative emotions. Empathy for those that have anxiety (which is legitimate) and optimism for that despite a lousy hand from the Unitary Plan as it stands now, things CAN get better. I suppose empathy and boundless optimism with the Unitary Plan is what is keeping me from going off the deep end for this long as it stands. At the same time real alternatives are being crafted and presented for which all are being received favourably by most sides of the spectrum (you can never impress a NIMBY if you push change or even progress (so some battles you can never win)). All from running a positive campaign approach

 

 

  • Incumbents have to be held to account. Barack Obama’s “yes we can” campaign was leveraged explicitly on eight years of Bush administration failures. The B.C. NDP should have campaigned hard against the major scandals from the B.C. Liberals’ 12 years of power, including the deceptive introduction and shamefaced retraction of the HST. They should have campaigned against British Columbia having the highest child poverty rate in Canada, and against Clark’s personal proximity to the scandal-ridden sale of B.C. Rail.

Again this speaks for itself if one wishes to run against Len. As for me with the Unitary Plan and holding those to account; well the Penny’s (Hulse and Perrit) will get me asking questions if I am lost or don’t like something in particular with the Unitary Plan. Pretty much standard “operations” with a civic body and a planning document. Depending on how such questions are answered will influence whether I go positive or on the attack. Thus far I have not needed to go on the attack against the Penny’s. However holding Local Board Members and Councillors’ feet to the fire is something I will do more readily in regards to the UP. Those like Angela Dalton and Desley Simpson seem to be the exception rather than rule in not having to hold their feet to the fire. Why? Because they do their job and display empathy to all despite the UP being not the easiest document out there. And because both Angela and Desley do their job properly (and extended to Calum Penrose, Mike Lee, Sharon Stewart and Chris Fletcher) I get along with them well when sorting out the crap hand dealt to all of us with the Unitary Plan. We might not all agree but that is democracy and makes for healthy debate and stronger resolutions.

However with the good comes the bad. And there are those I will be holding their feet to the fire over the Unitary Plan. I do not tolerate scaremongering or deliberate misrepresentation from elected members on aspects of the Unitary Plan. The Three Storey House and Walk Up Apartment issue is the most recent case where I have (and rather sadly) gone on an attack path against some of the elected members (which ironically is our more conservative members who have an infamous name that has the word blue in it). This attack has happened because of their deliberate misrepresentation over the three storey housing issue which the subject matter has always been in the Unitary Plan. It would have helped if those particular members actually read their own legacy District Plans which formed the new rules  in regards to three storey buildings in the Unitary Plan

So people will be held to account where required – pure and simple with no apologies for it…

 

 

  • Attack ads work, at least if they are directed against real weaknesses. Adrian Dix did change his position on the Kinder Morgan pipeline halfway through the election campaign. He did wrongly backdate a “memo-to-file” while serving as chief of staff to an NDP premier in 1999.

Attack ads don’t work in NZ too well. Whale Oil and David Farrar would be the better people for opinions on this. But yes to me they do work when executed right and as part of a multi-prong campaign. Especially when an opponent has real actual weaknesses. This also applies with the UP when I go on the attack.

 

 

  • Never show up at a shootout with a Nerf Gun. Attacks have to be countered, and strongly, before they cause lasting damage. This can require launching a retaliatory attack — ideally, again, one that is directed against a real weakness.

Well no ahem Sherlock. Anyone with half a brain should know that. It is also like taking a knife into a gun fight – you will not win… Speaking of which I am listening to a Morning Report piece on the Unitary Plan where this bullet point I am commenting on comes into effect. If a journalist is on to it which they were in this piece, showing up to a shoot out with a Nerf Gun is only going to hurt and it did. As for the bullet point in itself, something that needs to be learned in NZ. Although I measure I will try to use if I get caught in a shootout (to varying degrees of success)

 

 

  • Most people, rather than voting on detailed policies, make their choice on the basis of some broader narrative. The economy matters, but detailed solutions — like Adrian Dix’s beloved “skills training” — do not. The people who are hurting most in tough economic times are also those who, because of a lack of time, education or civil engagement, may be most receptive to simple messaging.

Yep as I learned that in Political Marketing at the University of Auckland. It is also the reason why I get friends to assist me to simplify my documents on the Unitary Plan so that is not only easy to read but encompasses a broader narrative for the readers out there.

 

 

  • Progressive parties need to address the felt desire of many progressive voters for cross-party electoral co-operation. A clear commitment to introducing proportional representation immediately upon being elected could help to draw third party supporters toward any progressive party with a real chance of winning. Unfortunately, the B.C. NDP believed it could win successive elections within the “first past the post” system. Federal Liberals and New Democrats please take note!

Take note those seriously running for office. Failure to do will get you buried. I wonder if this particular bullet point rings out why the Centre Right, Local Government lot in Auckland have been failing with the Super City. It could very well be a lesson for them to take note before the Centre Left increases its majority further.

 

 

  • Pollsters have trouble accounting for lower turnout among some parts of the population. Young people are still not voting, and inspiring them to do so is the single greatest challenge facing progressive political parties today. Twitter and Facebook are no replacement for face-to-face relationship-building. Christy Clark lost her own seat because of a young and energetic B.C. NDP candidate who forged thousands of personal connections the hard way.
A pet problem in getting sections of the population to vote. Still Len managed to pull it off and might very well do so again in these elections with nothing impossible in this stage of the game. As for the Unitary Plan and face to face relationship building; it is the main reason why I headed out across the city to listen to the UP community meetings and gauge people’s views on it. The jetsetting around the city meeting different people has helped frame commentary on the Unitary Plan. The relationship building is also helping when drawing up those alternatives and then putting them out there for people’s thoughts. I supposed the measured successes of the Special Character Zone, and the Manukau as The Second CBD of Auckland work has resulted in the face-to-face relationship building. Seeing faces is often best compared to seeing “Facebook.”

 

  • There are no second chances. The key organizers of the B.C. NDP campaign were the same people who lost the 2009 provincial election. The campaign manager was Brian Topp, who was the early front-runner in the 2011-2012 federal NDP leadership race. With all due respect to Dix, who would have made a remarkably good premier, politicians who want to win cannot allow friendships to shape their choice of campaign teams.

Hmm Banks got a second but not a third chance however, with the UP there is no second chance once it goes into full operation. The bullet point makes a sober reminder when assembling teams to advance any project. Surrounding yourself with Yes-Men that pander to your ego and maybe Small Man Syndrome is going to be the fastest way to be both attacked by all sides and fail at the same time. You always need strong teams and teams that have people who will either go outside the square in thinking or disagree with you if something is utter crap. These kind of teams are winners and serve a reminder to both those with the Unitary Plan and those running for office the stakes in getting this aspect oh so wrong.

 

So we have sobering lessons from Canada that apply here in Auckland. I recommend having a deep thought session about this while I go debunk a piece said on Radio NZ this morning.