From One Extreme To The Other

 

With The Clunker?

 

While most commentary and interaction with The Unitary Plan (The Clunker) continues as May 31 approaches at a more civilised level, unfortunately extremes can crop up that skewer the debate. This can either be extreme commentary from a particular group or individual (which I will comment on below), the media being particularly lazy as they are and only covering one side of the debate which they are doing with The Clunker for the most part (that will be bringing me to my second part).

 

St Heliers and Eye on Auckland

 

This is the first point I am raising in regards to two more extreme ends that can crop up and skewer a debate. In this instance it is with The Clunker with the St Heliers NIBMY-ists on one side, and this more youth orientated blog on the other. To bring it into context with St Heliers situation which basically kicked this whole thing off; read my “ST HELIERS AND THE UNITARY PLAN” to get my response of the situation.

Now another blog called Eye On Auckland ran a two-part post series on St Heliers and NIMBY-ism that is popping up in the Unitary Plan debate. You can both parts by clicking on these respective links:

• WE HATE NIMBY’S

• WE HATE NIMBY’S #2

For the more specific Herald article where St Heliers got a Main Stream Media airing that has annoyed the youth of the city (amongst others that do support the Unitary Plan) can be found here: “Compact city rulebook hits wall”

 

Now with the “We Hate NIMBY’s” posts I had read them, considered them, and had a chat with some blog readers over the web on our perceived context of what the dual posts were trying to say. From my interpretation I can understand fully well that the MSM are pretty much hopeless and are in most parts only reporting one side – The St Helier’s style NIMBY-ism side (often what I call the Blue Rinse brigade . Very little if any reporting from the MSM has come from more pro-Unitary Plan supporters and our city youth (those under 35). This despite the youth jumping up and down wanting to give their story to the MSM on why they support The Clunker but their calls falling on death ears. In the end frustration will get pent-up to a degree where a post or posts like We Hate NIMBY’s will come up and the language is more extreme then what it might have been if they were first heard.

While the language was not as coarse from St Heliers in their “We don’t want change” NIMBYism calls, and it could be heard in the media rather loud and clear; their language was still strong for reasons I warned them on my respective post earlier this week.

I suppose as a comparison you can measure my response here at BR:AKL and Sydney’s response on the Eye On  Auckland post in the way we are trying to convey our views across. One thing that can be drawn as an automatic comparison is that I will not go on personal attacks that Eye On Auckland did. St Heliers went on pretty much implied personal attacks against the Deputy Mayor and the Council with the draft Unitary Plan. Sydney pretty much returned fired against St Heliers and the NZ Herald which gives rise to my second point.

 

MSM Slack Reporting

 

I have noticed the Herald running five separate articles or opinion pieces this morning on Auckland’s growth, the rural decline, and something about the Harbour Bridge (again) from Matt McCarten. Most of the points all five articles are legitimate points Auckland and the rest of the nation has to face as the city grows and other areas decline. The Herald also pointed out social costs (as well as physical costs) that will impact Auckland significantly as we continue to grow. I will cover those five Herald articles later but it brings around to the point I am raising.

The MSM have been extremely slack in reporting all sides of the social coin in regards to the Unitary Plan. We have heard constantly from the Blue Rinse Brigade and their often NIBMY-ism approach to this. I do not mean to be rude must most of that Blue Rinse lot with either be beyond this Earth or in their senior years relying on the then youth (the youth of today) to prop them up in all things welfare (regardless if they had a private pension scheme or not). It will be the youth (those under 35 including me at 27) who carry the can in 30 years from the decisions made today about The Clunker. And this is where the MSM are failing to do their duty which gives both rise to Eye On Auckland’s piece, as well as me running BR:AKL flat tact. Blogs providing our voices about the Unitary Plan where the MSM fails to do so (no wonder why the Herald’s readership continues to decline).

I know this blog is having further and further reach from the emails and social media feedback I get in regards to the Clunker (and also means I need to reply to a few emails to boot – my apologies there). But the fact remains that I have to jump up and down going blue in the face to catch the MSM’s attention to put at least one youth perspective across – all to no avail. This leads to utter frustration and I can see why Sydney and her blog piece would have reacted in a way that most youth would have reacted after being shunned for this long.

 

Conclusion

 

All this brings me to the conclusion which seems inevitable in this Clunker debate. The two extremes facing off and firing broadsides against each other which will polarise the debate and entrench views. This action goes and buggers up the middle ground from both sides (those pro-sprawl, and those pro-intensification) who are actively working together and working a compromise in bringing this city forward for the next thirty years. The extremes are trying to force either change or no change, while the middle favours more progression. Progression and change are two very different things and have very different consequences to people and the city.

 

I just ran these words through a thesaurus to get the synonyms that we can more relate too:

• Change: transformation, revolution (which then implies upheaval), conversion
• Progress and Progression: development, evolution, growth, advancement, improvement

 

Now look at those words and think to yourself which basically scare the living daylights out of you. Those that are NIBMY-ists don’t bother answering as I am rather not interested in hermits or fossils (one which is a relic of a by-gone era) as nothing is static in this universe. For me I am more inclined towards Progress and Progression over “Change” even though I am a social liberal and can tolerate some “change” as defined above.

But look at the language of the Unitary Plan (and Auckland Plan) and you see the language I classed under the ‘Change’ department (especially transformational). I admittedly have parroted that same language although that has been scaled back in more recent submissions as I swing more to progression rather than transformational. Then again you often have to speak the language of the council (so transformational) to get them paying attention (oops there goes a secret of mine). The language Council is using in the Unitary and Auckland Plans through “change” is pretty much enough to go make most people (even those progressive) rather hesitant in what is being pushed forward. Probably won’t help matters is when Council goes and bollocks up the communications process and people really do start running around clueless through no fault of their own (although communications with the Unitary Plan has been “basic” but not flash).

 

So where to next?

Well I expect nothing from the MSM in reporting both sides of the coin in a more balanced manner so blogging continues and my main outlet. But moving the language from change to progression will be more the theme as I continue and sell my alternative to The Clunker. A story is being told, this is my story on our city!

 

BR:AKL:  Bring Well Managed Progress

The Unitary Plan: Bringing Change 

Auckland: 2013 – OUR CITY, OUR CALL