Month: May 2013

Blog Undergoing Changes

·

Some Changes You Might Notice

 

My apologies if you get a sudden fright from the change in looks of the blog. Ben Ross : Auckland is busy going through the changes as mentioned in the “To a Professional Era” post recently. This includes the name change to “Talking Auckland” and other changes to aspects like Twitter and Facebook they get rolled out.

 

The full suite of changes will be complete by May 31

 

Thank you for your patience as the blog undergoes the change over

 

Ben

Admin to Talking Auckland
(Formally BR:AKL)

Managing Director
TotaRim Consultancy Limited

 

 

Those Secret Papers are Back Again

·

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

 

 

 

The Karaka Collective Presentation

·

Musings on the presentation

 

I have been meaning to get this piece up onto the blog for a while about the Karaka Collective presentation recently. I have not got the Physical Powerpoint presentation on me but, will chase it down from the Collective and upload it to the blog ASAP.

 

On May 13 at Karaka Hall, Peter Fuller representing the Karaka Collective gave a presentation of the Collective’s “submission” and vision for Karaka West and Karaka North. This also included the Weymouth-Karaka Bridge which seems to be causing enough upset from both sides of the harbour.

I have been asked for comments on the meeting as I was there. These are my thoughts and some responses to queries I got asked which covered both the physical presentation and the subject matter at hand:

 

The meeting in itself was civil and hats off to residents knowing the issue is both passionate and a sore issue (for both Karaka and Weymouth).
For the presentation it was too long and should have only be at maximum 10 minutes for the matter presented. Anything beyond a 20 minute mark in presentations and you lose the audience. I nodded off at the 20 minute mark to which I decided to go over and start talking to Councillors Fletcher and Penrose on the matter at hand.

I would have recommended to follow what is called a split presentation when giving a talk on material that can be quite heavy or quite extensive.

The split presentation format I used for the Auckland Plan Committee last week in my Manukau Presentation ( https://voakl.net/2013/05/15/the-manukau-presentation/ ) had both a short power point presentation covering the main points and a “booklet” with all the information at hand.

Both the presentation and the booklet is sent to the committee in advance for advanced reading leaving me to go over briefly the main points of my argument. The committee with the booklet in hand then asks questions they might have. It was a useful technique and allowed maximum time for the main purpose; questions or what I like to call dialogue if executed properly.

Peter Fuller should have split the presentation with both a short 10 minute brief covering the main points, followed by a booklet with all the finer details for further reading – and had it released a week in advance. Bloggers like myself would have picked up on this and both republished the information and ran commentary on it.

Although in saying that there is a risk of preempting the Collective’s presentation of information and allowing the residents to form questions before hand. Or allow bloggers like myself to take control of a debate and frame the argument. Risks but risks the Collective will have to take if they want their plan to progress. Also something a particular Herald journalist and elected representatives on the North Shore find out too when they get debunked for utter misrepresentation of information. So the remedy is simple; tell the truth from the beginning and you have nothing to fear. Tell a porker and don’t expect much forgiveness from people nor bloggers in return. The Collective were being honest and their ambitions known.

While the material in Fuller’s presentation was too long and too heavy with the presentation too full of planning and officialdom jargon. It could also be taken that the information presented in a way that was talking down to everyone in the room. So a patronising effect that will chill residents and elected representatives

As for the questions they were pretty good, as for the answers they were not. Fuller was okay with the answering but the other two that were land owners I had real issue with. Their answers were put in a way of both putting down the room and issuing a challenge to the room to “meet them” in the Environment Court which is likely where this issue will end up. I have taken note from Brigid her comment which was (it is public):

“I was at that meeting and there seemed to be a difference between how Bruce Wallace envisioned a Weymouth-Karaka link and what Peter Fuller showed in his presentation. Bruce Wallace seemed to be wanting de facto motorway that would get him quicker to and from the airport and lower congestion on SH1 so he could get to work in under 20mins. However Don McKenzie the traffic expert on the Collective team said any Weymouth-Karaka link would not lessen congestion. And Peter Fuller spoke of a 60-80k Te Irirangi Drive/Te Rakau Drive equivalent. ”

 

This folks is what you call an effective “Buggers Muddle” – that is a pile of different answers that basically contradict each other to the point oxymoron becomes the norm. Three different answers that would have three very different consequences on that particular bridge. Not entirely confidence material nor helpful for both Auckland Transport and NZTA if they ever decided to run with the project. So lets look at the points individually:

 

  • Bruce Wallace seemed to be wanting de facto motorway that would get him quicker to and from the airport and lower congestion on SH1 so he could get to work in under 20mins.

Umm no and won’t happen. Auckland Transport and NZTA would have to overcome hell and high water from Southern Auckland to get a de-facto motorway put in and the bridge built. The Benefit Cost Ratio would be below 1.0 owing to the massive environment (physical and social) consequences (mainly negative) to the entire area of the de-facto motorway proposal. The “motorway” would not lower the congestion on State Highway One especially when the Greenfield areas get built up. The only way to bet congestion on State Highway One is to 6-lane the motorway all the way to Drury interchange, get the rail service more effective and efficient, and development some large employment centres close to home (Manukau, Wiri and Drury). If one wants a quick trip to the airport then may I suggest throwing your support and money behind the Airport Line from Manukau Station to the airport. Coupled with the EMU’s you could be there in well 30 minutes without the traffic crap on the roads…

 

  • However Don McKenzie the traffic expert on the Collective team said any Weymouth-Karaka link would not lessen congestion.

Excuse the language but No Crap Sherlock. It will not lessen congestion any where. All that bridge will do is cause rat running through an established community causing misery and literal hell. Yes I see Weymouth has the strip to allow a 4-lane road but it is now too late for the road. That road and bridge should of been built 50 years ago to 4-lane specifications before Weymouth took firm settlement. The settlement could of then be built around the road and bridge rather than the community now being built around the road. As I said the only way to lessen congestion is what I mentioned above. Through in a proper Regional Public Transport Plan and I would say you could remove all together 33% of the cars off the road at a minimum while still allowing transit choice

 

  • And Peter Fuller spoke of a 60-80k Te Irirangi Drive/Te Rakau Drive equivalent. “

So an expressway option. Last I looked that the communities around Te Irirangi Drive were built in a way that they were mitigated from the most serious aspects of that road. That is the road was built around the community with green shelter belts and lane ways to access the houses (that is no house has a direct driveway access to Te Irirgani Drive in the new sections of that road). The older sections at the Manukau end of the road and along Te Rakau Drive which do have direct driveway access to the road show the implications of planning not done properly. What we see in the older sections of Te Irirangi Drive with direct driveway access rather than green belts and lane ways off the road is what we would get in Weymouth. Not fun for the residents nor particular safe for an 80km expressway either… It is of note that the Manukau end of Te Irirangi is at 60km/h while the new Botany sections are at 80km/h. That 80km/h section has the greenbelt and lane ways shielding the houses from the road. I wonder if the Collective would be willing to stump the cash up to retrofit Weymouth Road with those lane way shields if they want their bridge built. Probably not, so I wouldn’t want a 80km/h expressway either without the proper mitigation in position FIRST.

In regards to Bruce Wallace (seem to remember him rather well for some odd reason), I don’t particularly care if one has had issues with the old Councils. Most of us would have had crap from the legacy Councils so we know what it is like (Manukau Station being a pet peeve for me with the old Manukau City Council that I am still trying to fix up with the current Council). But what I do care is them short circuiting the RUB process and apparently trying to buy their way into outcomes favouring them via the Unitary Plan.

I did ask the final question for the night regards to the Collective supporting existing and new infrastructure projects before backing the Weymouth Bridge. Those projects include Glenora Road Station, Spartan Road Station, the Manukau Rail South Link, the RPTP with the bus routes and so on. While they said they would and might have done so (meaning I need to dig up submissions), I highly doubt it unless they prove me wrong over the next 7 years.
In saying that I am working on my submission to stave off that bridge as long as possible through a formation of a new regional park on the Karaka side. This has been mentioned before in this blog before

The submission will go up on my blog as soon as its finished.

Otherwise the meeting was handled well by the residents from a group short circuiting the processes the rest of us have to go through via claiming it is for the good of Auckland.

 

 

Those were my thoughts in the presentation. As I point out to the Collective, those ARE MY THOUGHTS AND INTERPRETATIONS of that presentation. If the Collective differs to my interpretations they are free to share a guest post – that is less than 2500 words and in plain English. Graphics help and can be facilitated easy into the blog.

 

In the mean time people do not forget your submission to the Unitary Plan in before May 31 – 5pm

 

 

 

From Dr Lester Levy

· 1 Comment ·

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 😉

 

Lessons from British Columbia in Electoral Races

·

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.