Category: General

Everything else

First Critique of a Candidate

·

It Pays to do One’s Homework when “One” is Paying Attention

 

And yes I (and others as Twitter lights up) am paying attention at the moment thanks to Orsman’s Tweet yesterday on Palino and Transport.

And so Orsman has written his piece about mayoral candidate John Palino and his transport “ambitions” for Auckland. The back part was good as anyone with half a brain attached would know that the current Integrated Transport Program Mayor Len Brown pigeon holed Auckland and Auckland Transport into is an utter joke. How can someone spend $65 billion with a $12 billion funding gap on transport solutions that make congestion worse in 20-30 years? Not very intelligent stuff here – especially as Car Capital City Detroit just went bankrupt this morning.

As for the rest of the article? Well it might either show bad advice or plain laziness to go suss the situation out proper before dropping a comment in the NZ Herald.

The Herald article is somewhat a scatter gun here so I will try to make top and tail of it best I can.

From the NZ Herald

Candidate favours park-and-ride

By Bernard Orsman @BernardOrsman

John Palino wants to take pressure off transport network and make it easier for commuters to leave cars

Building park-and-ride facilities is the first transport priority for Auckland mayoral candidate John Palino, whose long-term solution is to build satellite centres where people can live, work and play.

 

Speaking ahead of his campaign launch tomorrow, Mr Palino told the Heraldthat Auckland must make the most out of rail electrification, saying park-and-ride facilities are the quickest, cheapest and most practical way to relieve pressure on the city’s transport network.

…

 

As I am debating with ATB’s resident socialist Patrick Reynolds, Park and Rides do have their uses. Typically in the outlying stations such as Papakura and Pukekohe where the stations serve a dispersed rural and urban population. While feeder buses and active transport can serve up to a 1.6km radius from the said station, the Park and Ride can serve a catchment 10x the distance which is what rural based commuters would do. So Park and Rides can have their uses.

As for cheapest method mentioned by Palino – err okay?

From the article again

“Let’s stop trying to get people out of their cars completely when it doesn’t suit them, and just make it easier for them to take public transport.

 

“I will subsidise parking where cost-benefit analysis shows park-and-rides provide a positive impact on the transport network.”

 

He said park-and-ride facilities might have to be multi-storey and cost between $20,000 and $40,000 per space.

…

That is some expensive parking. I would be inclined to charge Park and Ride users $2-$4 a day and have an option where you could use your AT-HOP card to “tag in and out” of the PnR.

As for making easier to get to the train station; AT is already ahead in that game as they prepare for the first time feeder buses into major stations and bus interchanges. Some new interchanges like Otahuhu are on the cards as well. So it will be easier to get public transport once the new interchanges and feeders are fully working.

 

“If we are ever to have the city rail project, we’re going to have to get the patronage required to justify spending ratepayer money,” he said.

 

That line suggests someone has not either done their homework or is in fact being lazy in obtaining the required information. How hard is it to send and email, make a phone call and have a coffee with people in the actual know behind the CRL and growth targets – the people being AT themselves. Oh and not reading the Prime Minister’s speech properly does not help either as he did lay down the challenge.

FFS doing my own reading and coffee sessions with those in the know I discovered that to bring the CRL forward all AT really need to do is show strong growth above a set percentage year in year out towards 2020. If Auckland Transport can do this then we might just see the first dirt sod turned around the 2017-18 mark.

And yes AT are putting in some strong initiatives from 2014 to make that growth happen to the point I can display confidence in them doing it.

 

And for this from Palino:

• Long term, build new satellite centres.

That is already on its way via the Unitary Plan through the Metropolitan Centres and twin Satellite Towns of Pukekohe and Warkworth. Although in saying that some polishing needs to occur first there before the Unitary Plan becomes operative.

As for Manukau, advances continued to be made there quietly behind the scenes as Auckland’s first Super Metropolitan Centre is drafted then brought into existence.

 

Coverage of the Local Government Elections 2013 will continue as development happen.

 

Related articles

 

Close Election?

·

Rudman Says No, Orsman Says “Could”

 

NOW the commentary starts ramping up on the Auckland Council Elections in the main stream media. This after I believe I started it quietly back in 2011 and ramping it up more recently.

We have heard some commentating writing off the elections already especially in the Auckland mayoral race with myself at this point in time giving Len an 85% chance of getting his re-election. As for Council Ward seats (those wanting to become a Councillor) this is proving to be more interesting (not that I don’t mind even with our shills).

Resident Unitary Plan writer Bernard Orsman thinks different to his counterpart Rudman and offered this insightful piece on the upcoming elections.

 

From the NZ Herald

Split vote could lead to close mayoral contest

By Bernard Orsman @BernardOrsman

As the race for the Auckland mayoralty begins, Bernard Orsman looks at the big issues for candidates and voters

…

And even if the mayor gets re-elected, he might find a different hue around the council table, one less friendly to the “inclusive” team he has come to rely upon.

The failure of the centre-right to unite around the Communities & Residents brand (with subsequent desertions from C&R this month) and the mixed bag of left-leaning councillors have worked in Mr Brown’s favour in his first term.

It would take only a handful of new, right-leaning faces to tip the balance and make life difficult for the mayor. Pro-Brown councillors Michael Goudie and Des Morrison are stepping down in the respective conservative wards of Albany and Franklin. The centre-right is also targeting Cathy Casey (Albert-Eden-Roskill), Ann Hartley (North Shore) and Richard Northey (Maungakiekie-Tamaki).

Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse has taken umbrage at a call from Herald columnist Brian Rudman for candidates to embrace the labels of National, Labour and the like.

She says this would see a return to the bad old days of the former Auckland City Council with secret caucus meetings, one-term councils and three-year planning horizons.

She has coined the term “Auckland Party” for people who want to focus on the city and building for the future.

But even minus the C&R tag, there are enough issues uniting centre-right candidates – such as a low uniform charge that leads to bigger rates for high-value home owners and debt levels – to potentially scupper the “Auckland Party”.

The looming election is already seeing changes made to the Unitary Plan, with word leaking out that height limits are being reduced in many town centres and “small-scale” apartment buildings banished from many residential areas.

Modifications to the draft Unitary Plan for formal notification in September is a political test for Mr Brown and his inner circle of Ms Hulse, Ms Hartley, Penny Webster and Mr Northey. Get it wrong and the Unitary Plan – the new planning rulebook that affects every Aucklander and every property – will become a big election issue.

…

I did leave the first half out as it was covering the mayoral stuff.

 

Orsman does have a legitimate point (if not a slight slant due to perceived bias against the Unitary Plan and Deputy Mayor (Bernard have you asked me yet for those secret papers – I do have all 7,000 pages of them sitting here)) though that Council could change its make up (regardless of who is Mayor).

Right now to get a true Centre-Right “dominance” around the Council table you would need a swing of 6 to 7 seats from the Centre Left or pro-Brown supporters in the election. That is one heck of an ask and would need pretty much a city-wide revolt for that to happen. I do not see such a revolt towards the Councillors let alone the mayor at the moment.

But, what makes this more uncertain is what kind of Centre-Right person could land a spot at the table and what they might actually do.

I’ll give an example using me in contrast to a shill. While I have no intention of running for a Local Board or Council seat until 2016 if I did decide to run this could happen.

I am a Social Liberal which naturally puts me Centre-Left on the Political Compass tests. However, I am perceived to be a “young Tory” that would hark back to Golden Era of National from 1936 to 1972. This means I would be cast as a Centre-Right candidate. In saying that unlike the Right Wing shills out there (just look at their stance on the Unitary Plan), I would be more inclined to work with the Deputy Mayor and push through the concessions for my area and the wider city. This is already occurring and I am not even a Councillor nor running this round.

Effectively rather than sit, their arms crossed and looking like a permanent sour-puss grumpy going “No, no, no” and not put any non NIMBY alternative forward (enter the Shill), I would work with the hand I got dealt with and make something useful out of it. So far working with that I have has worked as an advocate and consultant in gaining concessions for a Better Auckland through a better Unitary Plan – all while I am Centre Right.

So in Orsman’s case being Centre Right might not upset the cart per-se in Council business. Sure the sharper edges of the Mayor’s policy might be sanded back but no whole scale change that having a bunch of Right Wingers would foster (and damage the city due to instability – yes I am pointing to you C&R)!

Speaking of C&R – what on earth happened? Never mind!

 

Now what about this Auckland Party concept the Deputy Mayor brought up? Orsman said the concept would not work if the Council make up swung to the Centre-Right. I would correct him and say the Auckland Party would not work if the Council got dominated by Right Wingers for which in any case the City would be royally buggered.

I would say that the Auckland Party would be made up of both Centre Left and Centre Right Councillors who can work in a Grand Coalition sort of manner and advance the interests of the Auckland region. Rather than have factional politics and a divisive Council that marred the Isthmus for the last 50-60 years.

Lets see how this pans out as we draw closer to October 12 – Election Day

 

Related articles

 

Happens When you Pigeon Hole a Debate

·

Why the CBG Failed at a cost of $1.5m of your money

 

[Note: CBG figure moved from $1.1m to $1.5m]

I already posted today on my consensus of No Confidence against the Consensus Building Group’s Final report based on a failed Integrated Transport Program. You can see that commentary here: No Consensus in Funding the Integrated Transport Program

In that commentary I did mention how the Mayor through the Auckland Plan and his brief to the CBG pigeon holed the debate into looking at basically one option: TAX! Whether that be an increase in rates (which is a property tax), petrol tax or road pricing (crude congestion charging). Left out were asset sell downs, a lottery, departure and bed taxes, and a regional sales tax.

Problem? The Government as widely expected blasted down what the Consensus Building Group “came to” with the opposition effectively doing the same although for different reasons (Julie Ann Genter’s piece for example).

In saying that the Government rather than looking at a regional fuel tax as part of suite of options, it has decided on a nation-wide petrol tax increase as a sole option which besides many other things will rightfully annoy the rest of the country!

 

By the looks of things as well the Government could “hint” at Council moving on its existing asset base to help pay for some the transport projects. But, again we have a problem. We have no idea on how the city truly feels towards the asset question nor the to lotteries (and other options) because the Mayor denied our democratic right to have an effective say via a submission – if the CBG were allowed to look at such a scope.

The Mayor’s ideology is to me irrelevant and can be kept at home. What I want is vision dosed with pragmatism and all options on the table for OUR consideration free of the mayor’s ideology.

One thing would have been for certain; if via the submissions to the CBG we overwhelmingly rejected the assets question then it could have been further ammo against Brownlee. However, we will never know that answer thanks again to the piegon holing by the Mayor.

And so we are stuck with really no options at all to the point it is the Worst of All worlds. Effective taxed out of existence…

Vancouver looks mighty fine at the moment…

Note: Answering a question from another article; The Consensus Building Group was stacked with effective lobbyists rather than professional consultants, civil engineers and Geographers (who look at the Physical and Human environments and consequences of our actions)

 

TALKING AUCKLAND

Talking Auckland: Blog of TotaRim Consultancy Limited

TotaRim Consultancy
Bringing Well Managed Progress to Auckland and in support of a #movingauckland

Auckland: 2013 – YOUR CITY, YOUR CALL

Related articles

 

So Which Form of Mediocrity Would You Like Today?

· 9 Comments ·

Not Really Options for Transport as Purported by The Mayor

 

So with Mayor incumbent Len Brown kicking off his campaign the issue of transport got dragged up straight away. In other words how to pay for the 2012 Integrated Transport Plan that has caused a lot of teeth gnashing from all sides of the coin.

From The NZ Herald

Auckland drivers face off-ramp toll

By Mathew Dearnaley

 

Drivers may be tolled at Auckland motorway exit ramps to ease pressure on ratepayers over a $12 billion transport funding gap, according to a high-level report due out today.

 

The report, from a 17-member think-tank appointed by Mayor Len Brown, will give Auckland Council and the Government a clear timetable for when new revenue sources will be needed to raise an extra $400 million for each of 30 years.

 

The money will be for projects such as the City Rail Link and new roads, including another Waitemata Harbour crossing.

 

The plan is expected to include increases to fuel taxes and rates and possible charges for motorists to use existing roads from 2020, rather than just tolls now allowed on new government highways.

…

Well as already noted those going right through the city won’t be pinged so long as they stay on the motorway. As for the rest of us? The Great South Road and Mill Road sound better alternatives from Papakura to Manukau or Otahuhu that using State Highway one.

My point? This proposing on slugging the off ramps rather than certain points along the motorway and having an effective mass transit alternative is a case of the cart before the horse syndrome.

To make matters worse in Len pigeon holing the transport funding debate some options were eliminated from the scope in the feedback session by the Consensus Building Group (yeah an Oxymoron right there):

From the Herald again

That paper ruled out about 20 options such as assets sales, a regional sales tax and a lottery before leaving Aucklanders with a stark choice between hefty rates rises combined with fuel tax rises in one corner, and a combination of enhanced traditional funding sources and road charges in the other.

 

Although the Government is opposed to charging drivers to use existing motorways, it is understood the report will suggest tolls at the off-ramps to local roads, given that those are half-funded by ratepayers.

 

Long-distance travellers would be free to drive through the city without being charged, as long as they stayed on the motorways.

…

 

What was wrong having a good debate about those options in red? Probably not compatible with the Mayor’s ideology so he shuts them out of the debate entirely and pigeon hole’s into the more unsustainable options I could think of.

 

Least our transport workhorse (one of two) Councillor Mike Lee hits the nail on the head:

Council transport chairman Mike Lee said he believed Aucklanders were “more than paying their way” and he didn’t think trying to find more cash from them “is on right now”.

 

So a rejig of the transport priorities and funding allocations might be needed here first folks. Not much of chance that happening while the Local Government Elections now formally under way…

 

Related articles

 

C&R Cluster?

·

Is it a split or just jockeying

 

I had heard Communities and Residents (C&R)(the Auckland Local Government Centre Right main ticket) were not very well but seeing Orsman’s piece this morning AND hearing what Councillor George Wood pulled (good on him) has me wondering.

How bad are things for the Centre Right in the coming Local Government elections with the formal campaign period (12 weeks before October 12) effectively under way.

From the NZ Herald and our favourite reporter Bernard Orsman

C&R splits as members eye election spots

Deputy leader quits centre-right ticket, leader in quarrel over ward running mate

 

George Wood has set up a new ticket on the North shore to contest October's local body elections. Photo / Natalie Slade

 Photo / Natalie Slade / NZ Herald
George Wood has set up a new ticket on the North shore to contest October’s local body elections. Photo / Natalie Slade

The deputy leader of Communities and Residents, George Wood, has abandoned the centre-right ticket and set up a new ticket on the North Shore to contest October’s local body elections.

 

And in the Albert-Eden-Roskill ward C&R leader and councillor Christine Fletcher has indicated she does not want C&R’s Mark Thomas as her running mate for two seats on council.

 

Mr Wood told the Herald he was still a C&R member but running for the two North Shore seats with Devonport-Takapuna Local Board member Joseph Bergin under the banner Fair Deal, For Shore.

 

Mr Wood, a 66-year-old former North Shore Mayor, said he and Mr Bergin, 21, who is not a member of C&R, wanted to focus on the high rates burden for North Shore residents.

 

In Albert-Eden-Roskill, a plan by Orakei Local Board member Mr Thomas to stand with Mrs Fletcher has not gone down well.

 

Before leaving for the United States last Friday, Mrs Fletcher said on Facebook that she hoped an Albert-Eden-Roskill team member would be her running mate, “hopefully an enthusiastic Nigel Turnbull campaigning beside me

…

You can read more over at the Herald

 

The last thing the Centre Right need with a very galvanised Mayor (after the massive transport announcement), the Centre Left incumbents at the moment pretty safe in their seats (this includes Penny Hulse and Richard Northey who will face stiff opposition from Centre Right candidates) and Len Brown on a odds of taking the Mayorship at around 85% currently.

Do I personally think there is going to be any massive change in the Governing Body make up post October 12 this year? Apart from maybe a couple of changes owing to retirements (and I stand corrected Councillor Fletcher is NOT retiring) the make up won’t change much. This means status quo from the last three years continuing for the next three years.

Is this a good thing? On the finances side no it is not. But, both sides can have equal blame laid at their feet for a less than desirable Long Term Plan followed by tacking on projects like money for a church and the White Water Rafting project.

With the Unitary Plan and Transport issues at hand, stability in the Mayoral and Governing Body make up would be a good thing as these two mega projects grind their way through the political processes.

With concessions being gained in the Unitary Plan for all moderate sides of the debate (if Councillor Northey, Auckland 2040 and myself (and there will be countless others) can pull off Unitary Plan concessions in benefit for the city while showing 😀 faces then something must be going right), the last thing the city needs is destabilisation of the Unitary Plan process. Something that candidate Ms Krum who is contesting Northey’s seat could very well do after her Shilling exercise at her launch. Heck even ATB picked up on it and was not flattering towards her at that point in time.

As the Deputy Mayor said last week, we don’t need re-litigation of the Unitary Plan which Councillor Brewer effectively did last week. That did seriously annoy a lot people and even had three media outlets effectively bagging him for it. Based on Ms Krum’s first campaign release (first impressions count and that one was the worst I have seen thus far in the campaign) all we would see is an increase in re-litigation on the Unitary Plan over the next three years that gets the city NO WHERE!

Also any increased destabilisation in the Unitary Plan while concessions are being gained (and powerful economists are in general support of the Unitary Plan ( Get real with city plan ) could be lost. That would annoy the wider city to no great amount due to petty politicking! Oh this is a challenge to Ms Krum to lay out her comprehensive alternative to the Unitary Plan rather quickly. A guest post can be set aside for her if need be. 

 

As the Mayor formally launches his campaign for re-election in Sunday the race will be on for the chains and the council ward seats. Effectively here come the theatrics folks – groan!

 

Related articles

 

Auckland Updates

·

All Quiet (on the Western Front) at the Moment

 

All is quiet at the moment in regards to the Unitary Plan and transport issues in Auckland after some recent fanfare in both departments recently. Needless to say there is still quite a bit of activity going on behind the scenes.

Unitary Plan

There is a workshop today around: Universal Design, GMO‘s and noise (wonder if we can file a noise complaint against grandstanding councillors wasting our time); with the RUB workshop held on Monday gone.

I have heard word that the Councillors and Local Boards now have access to ALL of our submissions ranging from pro-forma to 104 page monsters along with comments from the Planners in them (red pen anyone). Those submissions have not been released into the public domain as of yet.

Rather than idly speculator I have sent an enquiry back to Council on the updates in getting the submission released. Will know more as soon as it comes through.

Further updates or happenings with the UP

  • Still waiting on enquiry into the RUB workshop and interim direction setting given from it back to the Auckland Plan Committee (July 25)
  • Active consideration being given around Manukau
  • Active consideration in having two workshops open to the media (in some shape or form)

Transport

Pretty much quiet here too along this front. In saying that we do have the Auckland Transport consultation period under way for the Southern Auckland New Public Transport Network – which is pretty good.

At the same time all eyes are watching ATB’s launch of their Congestion Free Network which I commented on here: “ATB’s Congestion Free Network” yesterday.

This piece from Radio NZ‘s Morning report sums up the situation. Listen especially towards the end of Todd Nial’s piece on the hurdles ATB and Generation Zero face at this point in time with their proposal:

Alternative public transport plan proposes more for less

 

Again and still, all eyes front to see where this goes.

 

And as always anything else that comes my way I will publish up ASAP.

 

Related articles