Something is wrong when we are short of houses yet they are to be replaced by car parks
I thought Auckland especially Isthmus Auckland (central Auckland) had an acute housing shortage situation. So why is Auckland Council planning to “remove” 40 residents from Council owned housing only to replace it for 44 car parks – for a playground?
I thought we were meant to be The World’s Most Liveable City by encouraging activities like walking and cycling. Not driving to a playground which causes inherent dangers in itself (see: A City That Is Equitable to All our Citizens for context on a Child Friendly City).
So can someone in Council please explain this:
Kicked out of home for carparks
5:00 AM Sunday Apr 19, 2015 – Lynley BilbyCouncil plan amid shortage ‘disgraceful’About 40 residents of Auckland’s council-owned properties face being kicked out of their homes to make way for 44 carparks.
Residents of a quiet Royal Oak cul de sac in Auckland have been told their council-owned flats and houses backing Monte Cecilia Park could go, possibly by December.
Eight properties – including blocks of flats – will be cleared to make way for 44 carparks to access a new playground, shown on plans for the reserve. Currently park users have to rely on streetside parks.
Letters have been sent to residents in homes and flats in Korma Rd telling them their properties will feature on park maps.
“Inclusion of this property on the map does not imply the public has access to your property but as the land has been purchased by Auckland Council and will become part of the park in the future it has been included in the map,” said the letter.
“We don’t have a firm date for the house removals but it is likely to be at the end of 2015 or during 2016.”
Auckland Council sports and parks manager Mark Bowater said the council had bought homes in Korma Rd between 2006 and 2011 under a strategic plan to develop the park. He said it could be some of the properties would be needed for carparking and a new playground. All residents would receive formal notification from the council to move out either later this year or next year.But at least two residents who have lived in the modest brick-and-tile units for several years said they did not receive the letter.
————-
Source: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11434895
Again a please explain from Council is on order as no playground to be built should be needing car parks let alone 44 if it means replacing existing AND occupied housing stock. Someone has their planning wrong here…
Talking Southern Auckland 
Two quick updates:
1. Future land use of Korma Rd properties – I met with Auckland Council Properties Limited (ACPL) yesterday (a previously scheduled meeting about their 6 monthly update which is on the Board’s April agenda next week) and that was helpful. My understanding of the Public Finance Act has been that land purchased for purpose A has to be used for purpose A. However apparently if there is a determination that purpose A no longer applies, which may be the case after time has passed, then the next step is to consider if that land is able to be used for another legitimate public purpose by Council (if not it gets sold). Housing was added to the list for this in the last couple of years, however not social housing provision by Council itself. I’ll be adding that in to the Board’s discussion about the concept plan.
2. Specific notification to Korma Rd tenants – Again in yesterday’s discussion with ACPL, and in some email exchanges, I’ve been asking about how/why tenants were/weren’t told. ACPL’s practice is that they don’t tell tenants about demolition intentions unless it is absolutely definite and even then usually only 3 to 6 months ahead. In other discussions I’ve heard that there was an expectation from Parks (who have driven the concept plan work) that ACPL had already told tenants about the possibility of demolition, and that there were probably clauses about that in the tenancy agreements – I’m still clarifying if that’s the case.
Good work Julie. Turning houses into carparks is a disgrace and terrible low value land use. How about encouraging active travel and PT access AC.
This poor quality land use decision must be revisted.
I’m hearing that feedback pretty loudly and will be putting that into the process! Due to the location of these particular bits of land public transport use would be pretty hard to see – part of the overall concept plan discussion is a drop off point for buses in another place in the park.
Hi Ben,
Absolutely agree that a playground doesn’t need 44 carparks (or possibly even 4). There are a number of proposals for the new bits of land acquired around Monte Cecilia Park (there are quite a few in addition to these Korma Rd ones, in particular the land where Monte Cecilia School now sits) and the community consultation on this has just closed on 15th April. The Board held an open day on the concept plan, advertised it widely etc, so it will be interesting to see what the feedback is on these ideas, including whether that Korma Rd area should have carparks. The carparks would serve the park as a whole, which is over 11 hectares and houses a major art gallery and in future will also likely host a community arts centre and/or functions facility. Unfortunately I can’t send you a link to the concept plan stuff as the links I was using have disappeared now that the consultation has closed and my google fu has failed me in finding any other routes yet.
The history of this whole park site is quite fraught. I’ve been aware of it since 2010, in the run-up to the first Auckland Council elections. Cathy Casey and Sue Mulrennan (ex Mt Roskill Community Board at the time) fought pointless land acquisitions there from around 2000 I believe. David Hay in particular was instrumental in pushing through the very contentious acquisition of the school land, facing opposition from the community, the school, and many others, although not the Catholic Diocese and Bishop who owned the land. Other bits of land, including the Korma Rd properties, have been bought on a willing seller-willing buyer basis. None of it was Council housing.
When Roskill Community Voice was formed to contest the 2010 elections this was one of our key issues. We pursued it quite relentlessly after the election, but with only two of us on the board, and four C&R who broadly supported the expansion plans for the park, we were unable to stop the acquisitions. With Cathy Casey’s help we tried to get Governing Body (who ultimately have the decision for selling and purchasing land) to overturn the school purchase in particular, and worked with the Mayor’s office to try to find a way through that, with no success. This was back in 2010, 2011, 2012. I was angry about it then, and while I’m still angry (especially because it has blocked off acquisitions elsewhere that would have actually added value) I guess I’ve had a few years to process it, whereas many people are coming to this for the first time today, and in the context of a housing crisis that many weren’t aware of then.
The acquisitions were made, the contracts signed. The land must be used for the purpose for which it was purchased, ie relevant to the park. To that end housing is not a legal option, unfortunately. The majority on the Puketapapa Local Board has now changed, and were we making decisions about these acquisitions now I doubt they would be supported by the Local Board. The decisions we do have left to make are what to do now that the land is owned by Council. Hence the concept plan work.
I hope this helps illuminate the issue a bit more. Happy to answer questions, discuss further etc. We are working actively to save the existing social housing at Liston Villlage, on the other side of the park, where the legal situation is a bit different.
Thanks for the commentary there clarifying all matters on the project Julie 🙂
If that is the case, it is appalling that the council would rent out these properties, some just 10 weeks ago, to families with no warning when the lease is signed that the house may not exist in the next 12 months. This is a hard working family who made it clear when applying for the house that they wanted a long term rental as they want their children to have the stability of one school, to not be told when signing the lease is unethical and money hungry, shame on you.
Hi Sarah. I agree that shouldn’t have happened and I’m asking questions about what has gone wrong there. My understanding is that all the tenants have been told that they are on month by month leases, but obviously that hasn’t happened in at least one case so I’m seeking urgent information on that. This is not Council housing (like long standing council flats and so on) so wasn’t being administered by the usual social housing people, I think. As there is no social housing in the old Auckland City (Banks sold it all to the then Labour Government in the early 2000s) I’m not sure who will have been overseeing the tenancies so need to do some digging.