This will be due for consultation from June 19 Auckland Transport through the Council Transport Committee have released the “Auckland‘s New Network for Public Transport – Southern Network for … Continue reading Proposed Public Transport Network – Southern Auckland
I am no fan of the Much-Ado-About-Nothing (aka the Housing) Accord as it short cuts the Rural Urban Boundary processes we are going through right now, and it also impinges on Council Sovereignty. I have made mention of this last month while the Unitary Plan was open for the first round of discussion.
Auckland Council, some Local Boards and the Independent Maori Statutory Board have written draft submissions on the Accord which is due to go before Select Committee in Wellington.
I am still reading the submission Council has written myself and will comment on it on Monday. In the mean time some light reading for you and if you are inclined leave your thoughts in the comments below.
Judging by the Auckland Council‘s release there was 20,200 individual pieces of feedback to the first round of “consultation” for the Unitary Plan.
From Auckland Council
More than 20,200 Aucklanders have had their say on the draft Auckland Unitary Plan– the new planning rulebook that will help shape Auckland.
Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse says the level of interest during the 11-week informal public engagement period, which finished on 31 May, was phenomenal.
“Developing a plan that covers all eight previous council areas is a mammoth task and we are taking on board the feedback from our communities to ensure we get the best plan possible,” she says.
“It has been fantastic to see so many Aucklanders taking part in the engagement and sharing their ideas as we plan for the next 30 years of Auckland’s development.”
To ensure communities understand the proposed changes, local boards held around 250 events across the region, including drop-in sessions, meetings in libraries and community centres, and community walks.
Feedback will be considered in the development of the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan, which is due to be notified later this year.
On notification, the public will have a statutory right to make submissions and be heard by a hearings panel.
More information will be available at www.shapeauckland.co.nz and in future editions of OurAuckland.
———-
Of note the following developments have either occurred or being heard in the wind somewhere (but something to keep an eye on)
But, lets wait and see where things go with the UP and the review currently underway
To the Governor General of New Zealand
Representing our Sovereign and Head of State – Queen Elizabeth the Second.
For the integrity of the New Zealand House of Representatives, the citizens of New Zealand, and to allowed continued confidence of the Queen to our Parliament where there can be possibly none right now, I ask that you dissolve the current Parliament and order fresh elections in six weeks.
While leaks do happen from and within our Parliament and the State apparatus, leaks that come from the Government Communication Security Bureau that was had concerns to 88 New Zealand citizens being spied upon without their knowledge by the GCSB is a very serious situation.
For a Minister of the Crown (that operates in the name of the Queen) to leak such serious information where our citizens are affected is beyond reprehension. Beyond reprehension as it damages the very integrity of being a Minister of the Crown (operating in the name of the Queen) who we trust with our confidence in such sensitive matters like the GCSB affair. The breach by now former Minister Peter Dunne damages the confidence of the citizens towards the state apparatus and the Executive Wing of our Parliament – the highest authority in our land (as it can effectively over rule our courts). For Peter Dunne to remain as an MP in this parliament after such a reprehensible breach in my opinion brings the House now into disrepute.
Thus I would call on the Governor General to dissolve this Parliament and seek a fresh election. This fresh election would allow a new mandate and Parliament to occur. This would also allow the nation to put behind a very sorry mess that has occurred. To not call for a fresh mandate belittles our faith in the Parliament and would cause loss of confidence from the Sovereign against the Parliament as well.
——
Of note in that message above I have noticed a small number of National Party members through social media effectively lashing out and acting like near sycophants in this matter. The questions are quite simple:
——
This message was written as a concerned citizen seeing Parliament being effectively brought into disrepute and upsetting the governance of this country. Honesty and Transparency should be held at the utmost. Lets start afresh and get on with the job as the people want.
I noticed this morning (well actually yesterday) that the Council Strategy and Finance Committee approved on a vote of 10-6 to give $3m of our ratepayer’s money to the Holy Trinity Cathedral in Parnell so it can get an “upgrade.”
This is while Auckland Transport struggles to find $27m for a grade separation of the Walters Road rail crossing in Takanini and most likely the same amount for grade separating the Morningside Drive rail crossing that nearly killed a woman in a wheelchair earlier this year.
So would the councillors like to explain their logic in supporting $3m to the second biggest church in NZ (the biggest being the Catholic Church) that is exempt from most of our tax and human rights laws yet not give money to a death trap that nearly killed someone in Morningside where they had a human right for authorities to maintain a public crossing in such a way that the accident should have never happened.
And yes I know the crossing has Kiwi Rail responsibility to it as well but it is a shared responsibility with Auckland Transport thus Auckland Council. After the incident at Morningside, the council should have either stumped up the cash entirely or loaned Kiwi Rail a proportion of the money needed to remove the that death trap through a grade separation. But no it goes through the bureaucracy again and again and again and won’t be done for at least five years.
Yet at a drop of the hat Council approves money for a church (where we are meant to exercise absolute separation from Church and State) on the grounds of community facilities needs. Umm if it is for community facilities how about than dumping the money to Local Boards so they can maintain their own community facilities if the money won’t be going elsewhere.
Shame on the every single councillor who voted in giving money for the church while we have a live death trap still floating around (and a few more entering the category as we move to electrification and more frequent trains).
Shows where some have their priorities that need some readjusting in this upcoming election.
We have heard much about Auckland Transport cracking down on Fare Evasion on our rail system, with Veolia Ticket Inspectors hard out on the trail trying to enforce what can be only described as a hopeless situation. Hopeless because in my opinion Auckland Transport is inducing actual Fare Evasion due to it’s beyond lacklustre technical support systems for both AT-HOP and the Rail Ticket Machines.
This example in Papatoetoe today which I hear (the example) is quite common through feedback via Facebook and emails.
I caught the train from Papatoetoe and headed in to Britomart, repeating the exercise for the trip home. I have an AT-HOP card so I tag on and off and will top up either at home or a rail ticket machine if possible.
While waiting for the train at Papatoetoe I noticed people could not use any cash (even correct change) to get a paper ticket to head into town. The machine had no change and the coin slot was jammed meaning unless you had EFTPOS like I did (I topped up on the machine) you were pretty well stuffed in getting a ticket.
If you were getting off at Britomart or Newmarket you could still pay your fare, get off anywhere else and hello no ticket – a freebie for you.
So I sent a tweet to Auckland Transport alerting them to the machine basically down:
@AklTransport Rail ticket machine @ papatoetoe not accepting cash at all even correct change
That was sent about 10:10am today
I get back to Papatoetoe around 3:15pm today and the machine was still with no change and not taking coins. And no reply from AT either…
Come on Auckland Transport – where is your support services to keep these machines fully functional so good citizens can get their tickets? FIVE HOURS and no technician when the support for an “urgent” problem such as this is meant to be TWO HOURS in turn around (getting it fixed)!
Knowing my luck and I should go check it tomorrow the machine will still be down at 9:30am tomorrow morning after the morning peak!
So fare evasion? Yep – induced by Auckland Transport rather than the rail patrons themselves due to lack tech support services on the rail ticket machines.
Do people out there know of any other rail ticket machines constantly down and if so how long before they are back up again.
Leave your comments below (AT do keep an eye on this)…
Tuesday night I made my up to Mt Eden from Papakura to watch a recording of Russell Brown‘s Media3 program. The show was broadcast last night just after 11pm and can be found either online at TV3 or you can wait for the repeat on Saturday morning.
The main topic I was there for was Russell interviewing three journalists (or an editor in the case with Metro Magazine) over the media’s coverage of the Unitary Plan. The three journalists were:
The discussion trundled along and was covering the fact that Council did balls up the sales pitch of the Unitary Plan rather badly. I would tend to agree on that regard against the Council with having to run the blog hard in providing information more clearly than Council did or could. But, as Desley Simpson of Orakei Local Board; the Unitary Plan was written by planners for planners and 99% of the city are not planners. Well I am not a planner strictly by University qualification – I am a Geographer and Political “Scientist”. As a Geographer though I still understood the Unitary Plan and what it meant. Although the planning discipline could be argued it was born out of Geography and that Geographers dabble in the planning discipline quite a lot (go Geography as the mother of all sciences and arts with what it encompasses). That understanding would provide assistance to those in Auckland through the first round of Unitary Plan feedback
But I digress
And so Russell facilitated the debate on with the Main Stream Media covering the Unitary Plan and the panel of three journalists continued to make their points until…
Bernard Orsman of the NZ Herald basically having his backside served to him on a silver platter by Simon Wilson. If you have not watched the particular Media3 then I recommend doing so before continuing here.
While I have seen it in the States, having the Main Stream Media serve up one of their own in NZ is something not often seen here. And as I mentioned just earlier Orsman got served – on extremely biased coverage against the Unitary Plan that included blatant misinformation coming from some Right Wing quarters (which got heavily debunked here and in other blogs).
Orsman while looking shell-shocked at being served tried to justify himself through he providing “balanced coverage” and that others are entitled to opinions.
Cue from Russell his mention of myself and Auckland Transport Blog on our extensive, balanced and leading coverage on the Unitary Plan through our blogs. Coverage that would earn the praise of the Deputy Mayor even though some days I was harsh against the Council in some aspects of the UP!
Again Orsman said after the “cue” said “they are entitled to our opinion” after which I think there was silence from him. Soon after the debate session ended.
And so that was the Media3 recording on the Unitary Plan discussion to which it was time to mix and mingle.
I was joined by Ryan and Sudhvir of Generation Zero and were talking to Russell, Simon and Todd on a wide range of issues with the Unitary Plan including angles wanting to be covered but could not due to time limitations.
Orsman I think decided to snob us but not that I am particularly fussed.
Also I was talking to mayoral candidate John Palino who was watching the Media3 recording as well. A good discussion on all things Auckland
At the conclusion of the mix and mingle session was time to head back home. A good night and a good discussion on the Unitary Plan
Thanks Russell for the mention and I can say Tuesday night was a good night in watching the recording (with its serves) and the mix and mingle afterwards
Free Station? No Auckland Transport decides to go screw the scrum I noticed Papakura Courier’s Dubby Henry and Papakura Local Board member Brent Catchpole were around the Walters Road rail-crossing … Continue reading Auckland Transport Screws South Auckland (Again?)
In my “To the Local Elections 2013” post on June 1, I mentioned this about our Main Stream Media:
“Seems the Main Stream Media have been caught stumbling and hedging their “contracts” wrong with Williamson out of the race and them now scrambling to find out who John Palino is – #twits”
After watching The Nation on TV3 and Q&A on TV1 over the weekend, my quoted comment was only reinforced. Although putting a bit of a disclaimer here first; I have never watched either program despite the “hype” by junkies on Twitter. After watching both over Queen’s Birthday weekend though, I am not going to be watching them again any time soon. The interviewers for both shows were wooden, unimaginative and basically don’t know how to conduct an interview; while the Mayor just trotted out his PR lines twice in two days. At that rate I be better reading his PR fluff on the council website.
Wooden interviews and PR spin aside, what has me interested is the MSM still stumbling over themselves with Williamson no longer running for mayor.
The Nation made no mention of the mayoral race while Q&A’s panel might need to be a bit more clued up. A bit disturbing that a former lecturer of mine – Dr Raymond Miller made a comment that no one was challenging Len. For a very well-known NZ politics guru you might think Dr Miller was keeping an eye on the mayoral elections in Auckland.
Brian Rudman from the NZ Herald seems to be stepping up though. Before he went on his two-week holiday he did write a piece looking at money being an influence on running for Auckland mayor.
From Rudman and the NZH:
Money talks in race for mayoralty
Second term likely for Brown as cost of campaign makes removing the incumbent a rich person’s sport
Millionaire John Palino plans to run for mayor. Photo / APNMaurice Williamson‘s brief flirtation with fame is officially over. Dithering cost him his chance to become an international gay icon and common sense has persuaded him, and more to the point his financial backers, to abandon any bid for the Auckland mayoralty.
On Friday, the Minister for Statistics, Building and Construction issued a statement saying “after much thought and in-depth analysis, including looking at personal, political, funding and other circumstances, I have decided not to contest the mayoralty.” He wanted to “remain focused on serving his Pakuranga constituents and fulfilling ministerial responsibilities.”
It was a wise decision, though I’m surprised it took him much thought or analysis at all. Particularly if he’d caught up with the polling conducted by UMR Research on May 13.
Using its experimental online panel, which is carefully balanced to reflect the demographics of the Auckland electorate, potential voters were asked, “While it is still early days, would you be more likely to vote for Len Brown or Maurice Williamson in an Auckland Mayoral election?”
Incumbent Mayor Brown stormed in with 43 per cent of the vote. Mr Williamson scored just 17 per cent, while 13 per cent said “neither” and another 26 per cent were “unsure”.
Fair enough analysis from Rudman there – especially when one sees those kind of poll numbers. However, Rudman does fall down in the latter half of his piece:
Again from the NZH
Having seen off Mr Williamson without as much as a boo, Mr Brown seems set for an untroubled stroll into a second term as the Super City mayor. If the last election is any guide, already declared leftish gadflies like John Minto and Penny Bright will be struggling to stay afloat in a 22-strong field.
TV restaurateur and millionaire New York emigre John Palino is threatening to spend up to $1 million on a campaign centred on turning Manukau City into Auckland’s new, modern city centre. It’s a cheeky plunge into Mayor Brown’s home turf, but like rapid rail, canals across the isthmus and similar brainstorms from past mayoral hopefuls, seems a plan doomed to the footnotes of history.
On the fringes, the right wing collective of councillors, “Communities and Residents” – formerly known as Citrats – is warming up to fight against Mayor Brown’s Unitary Plan. After their poor showing in 2010, leader Christine Fletcher admitted her team had failed to connect with Aucklanders. She pledged “to address this”. But, without a mayoral candidate to coalesce behind, getting their message across, whatever that might be, will be tough.
Even if the polling for Mr Williamson had offered more hope, funding a campaign would have been a major hurdle. Mr Palino’s talk of needing a campaign fund of between $500,000 to $1 million is the reality of a Super City mayoral campaign.
Last September, Mayor Brown, who won the 2010 race with a $390,000 campaign chest, cheekily declared the $580,000 spending cap, set by law for Auckland mayoral candidates, was too high. He said it “could mean the election is … bought by a wealthy candidate”.
What he conveniently omitted was the enormous ratepayer-funded advantage he has as incumbent, with a staff of 23 and an annual budget of $3.2 million with which to promote his every word and deed.
Thanks to the presidential-style mayoralty imposed on Auckland by central government, removing the incumbent seems destined to be a rich person’s sport. A game for millionaires, or someone with millionaire backers. With the postage on a standard letter, 70 cents, a single letter alone to each potential voter will devour much of the permitted war chest.
The worry is that voter turn-out would plunge with a one-horse mayoral race.
In 2010, the novelty of the new city structure plus a keenly contested mayoralty had 51 per cent of eligible Aucklanders voting. Poor as that turn-out is, it was a great result compared with the 38 per cent average turn-out of the 2007 Auckland local government poll
Is Rudman being dismissive of the mayoral race already. If he is then he would be with the bulk of the MSM and some of the right-wing blogs (Whale Oil being one). This dismissive attitude is going to lead to a self-fulfilling prophesy of “The worry is that voter turn-out would plunge with a one-horse mayoral race.” We could very well see less than 37% of Auckland voting for mayor – and that does not give whoever becomes mayor for the 2014-2016 term much of a “mandate” per-se.
And IF what is highlighted in bold does happen in this year’s elections I would put the blame squarely back onto the MSM for failing in its 4th Estate duties. We have two quality candidates running – both credible (although that could be subjective depending which way one leans). On the left is Mayor Len Brown and on the “right” is John Palino.
Both have their respective visions, both have policy narratives to take to the people, both seem to have political will (for better or for worse), and both have a chance of the mayorship come post-elections.
In saying all this though I have been altered after my initial Elections 2013 post, the NBR have decided to do a Q&A with candidate John Palino I think tomorrow if not then next week. Whether that is because Chris Keall was paying attention to my Twitter account and decided to pull finger or they were going to do it anyhow and the rest is coincidence I will never know. But, after their initial fumbling around it seems some aspects of the MSM are starting to do some investigative journalism and find out what the mayoral race will actually shape up to be.
I have noted the cost of running a mayoral race in Auckland. A sad thing but to be expected in this professional day and age. For me personally providing we get good candidates I am not particularly fussed. Although if I was to run for Auckland Mayor it would be a 6-year campaign and fundraising drive before having a crack…
So are the MSM still fumbling around? Yep. Will they ever get round to proper coverage? Probably in September which is then too late…
The Fourth Estate failing again – nothing new here folks 😦
April would prove to be the busiest of months for me in regards to clocking up the kilometres across the city attending community meetings on the Unitary Plan. By the end of it I would have attended around 14 community Unitary Plan meetings and a Civic Forum right across the city (apart from West Auckland).
April would also prove to me a more “heartbreaking” month as a folly from Auckland Council led to anger and upset for residents down in Southern Auckland. The cause? A (which ended up being called “THAT”) bridge that spanned from Karaka to Weymouth over the Manukau Harbour. That bridge had shown up in the Unitary Plan – Rural Urban Boundary Addendum as a “possible option” needing to be built somewhere down the track.
The only catch was that the bridge showed up in all three southern RUB options and has not even been “vetted” by Auckland Transport and NZTA yet. When pressed and after a more heated meeting in Weymouth did the Deputy Mayor and Chief Planning Officer realise “oops” and got a new set of RUB maps out with the bridge removed. The only problem was that the horse had already bolted on the issue and was continued to be further fuelled by a group known as the Karaka Collective.
While the Collective would give a presentation in May on their options (and I have their literature as well), it was basically known that certain landowners were looking at having their land come under potential development options through the life of the Unitary Plan. It was also known that they were keen on the bridge to act as a short cut in skipping out State Highway One. However, the negative consequences to both the Karaka North and West development as well as the bridge would be deemed too high on existing Karaka and Weymouth residents. If the bridge was to be built it should have been done 70 years ago before Weymouth was truly established. But, now it is too late and alternatives must be found. In essence we await Council’s decisions on the southern RUB before formal notification on the Unitary Plan. Once known then the next stage of the “battle” begins…
While things were heated in Karaka and Weymouth over the Unitary Plan and THAT bridge, things were also running high in St Heliers.
It is of note that in these meetings I would usually sit quietly with my notebook and pen and take notes on the proceedings. These notes would form commentary here on the blog as well as any “battle plans” required in the Unitary Plan feedback round. After the meetings I would talk to people (ranging from the Deputy Mayor to planners, to Local Board members and councillors, to residents) in their thoughts and seeking out dialogue. This dialogue (especially in Weymouth and St Heliers) would form two battle-plans (or rather alternatives) that I later drew up. I would ask questions in the meetings later in the game but, were only done so at the Southern Auckland meetings.
The St Heliers experience was an interesting one. What would be deemed at first pretty much naked hostility towards to main Council and the planners became in fact a community giving a damn and trying to seek out a solution not only for their own place but also the wider city. What would give the initial reaction to St Heliers was a piece from Eye-On-Auckland on NIMBYism that would set the city off. It also woke the Main Stream Media up and set off some of the more shrill-aspects of opposition to the Unitary Plan. Those shrill-aspects would eventually lead to near daily debunking on not only my blog but, else where as well.
With the Weymouth and St Heliers experience though came two alternatives from here. The first was more widely publicised – the Special Character Zone, while the second in staving off THAT bridge was a more quiet and behind the scenes affair.
Both alternatives have landed in my feedback to the Unitary Plan with other people using the Special Character Zone concept as well. Again we await the council to point out what changes they have made to the Unitary Plan prior to formal notification to see what we essentially got.
While Weymouth, Karaka and St Heliers would be more “noisy” meetings I did attend the Civic Forum in Manukau which was a more tame affair. In saying that though the discussion was lively as the future of Southern Auckland through the Unitary Plan were debated at length. Four main aspects would come out of that forum which were:
While all four points would end up mentioned in my own feedback to the Unitary Plan, Manukau as the Second CBD would be an idea that was picked up and ran with all the way to the Auckland Plan Committee last month.
So was April a busy month? In the terms of clocking up those kilometres it sure was. But the final month of the Unitary Plan feedback would prove to be the actual busiest month for me. How? Find out in my next “Experience from the Unitary Plan” post.
Talking Southern Auckland 