Category: General

Everything else

Money for a Church but No Money for a Death Trap

· 5 Comments ·

Council’s Funding Priorities Wrong Again

 

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.

 

The MSM Struggling with the Auckland Elections

·

What the MSM and I see as credible candidates for Auckland Mayor must be two different things

 

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 / APN

Millionaire John Palino plans to run for mayor. Photo / APN

Maurice 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 😦

Lets not Play Silly with the Unitary Plan

·

Work with what we have please

I saw this from the much respect Councillor Fletcher this morning in regards to the Unitary Plan (it also has comments on it as well as it comes from Facebook):

The Unitary Plan should be withdrawn and replaced with a carefully staged approach that takes into full account critical infrastructure and the cost of growth. I hope the Mayor and CEO of Auckland Council will be willing to consider this with submissions on the ill conceived plan closing today. It would be throwing good money after bad to keep fiddling with this fundamentally flawed document. Better to scrap it and start again.
  • Matt van Tuinen Hear hear
  • Ben Ross While I hear you Christine have you asked the respective Ministers back in Wellington if such an exercise can be done? You of all people know that the UP is a creature of the Local Government Act (Auckland Governance) 2010 and procedures must be followed set out in that Act (let alone the RMA).

    Yes we might want to restart the UP again but is it “legal” to do so
  • Sharon Stewart I agree with Christine Fletcher the information the public have been asked to submit on has so many mistakes.. The question that needs to be asked is it legal to ask the community to submit on something with so many mistakes. Cameron BrewerDick QuaxGeorge Wood
  • Ben Ross So anyone going to ask the Local Government Minister, the Minister for the Environment and the Attorney General for a legal opinion on all this?
  • Sharon Stewart I am sure this will happen
  • Ben Ross Let me know when it does please 
  • Sharon Stewart Needs to be done before we waste more rate payers money. This is so important for Auckland to get it right.
    • Ben Ross Please do so ASAP. I have a 110 page submission sitting here on the UP as well as Clients’ submissions. None of us want our time (and money wasted) under taking the work we have done only for it to be “pointless” due to a total rewrite ordered
    • Sharon Stewart Better to rewrite and get it right.
    • Ben Ross Waiting
  • Gayatri Jaduram Do we have a legal definition for “Draft, Draft” ! 

 

So a pile of umming and ooo-ing over the Unitary Plan as the 5pm deadline comes and goes today on this feedback round. Thus far the Councillors pushing a rewrite seem non-committal to actually doing what I stated and contacting the relevant Ministers if they seriously want rewrite.

As I said “Please do so (get a rewrite ordered) ASAP. I have a 110 page submission sitting here on the UP as well as Clients’ submissions. None of us want our time (and money wasted) under taking the work we have done only for it to be “pointless” due to a total rewrite ordered”

Having just got my own submission and and helped my clients get theirs in I think we would be rightfully annoyed if a total rewrite was to occur now.

Councillors if they wanted the rewrite should have asked for one on March 16 when the plan was released. Not on May 31 when the first round of feedback is about to close (as I write this).\

I have said the Councillors have been particularly slow in some aspects of the UP. I am wondering if this call for a rewrite is them being slow again.

Not good enough if it is and was…

I and my clients do not appreciate our time being wasted due to slowness from the Governing Body…

Legitimate Concerns with the Unitary Plan?

·

What Do you Think?

 

With the Unitary Plan feedback due to close on Friday, we are still getting rumblings on the Unitary Plan popping up in the media. This particular one came up in the Herald this morning – and was not written by Orsman (meaning I will pay attention):

Support for draft plan ‘fading fast’

By Wayne Thompson

Local boards urge mayor to slow things down as ‘enhanced engagement process’ causing confusion.

 

Mayor Len Brown was urged to slow down the process. Photo / NZPA

EXPAND
Mayor Len Brown was urged to slow down the process. Photo / NZPA

Support for the draft Unitary Plan is “melting faster than snow in sunshine” amid widespread anxiety over intensive housing proposals, say the leaders of three local boards from Orakei, Manurewa and Hibiscus & Bays.

In a joint statement, the leaders say the 11-week so-called “enhanced engagement process” for the pre-notified new rule book for growth has confused the public and lacks credible evidence of the effects of higher-density zoning.

Public comments on the draft plan will be accepted up to 5pm on Friday and so far 3000 individual comments have come in.

However, Orakei Local Board chairwoman Desley Simpson predicted a low response from the usually outspoken eastern suburbs people.

Most people were “in the dark” about the council’s disclosure, after nine weeks of presentations, that 70 per cent of the area was proposed for a mixed housing zone, with a maximum height of three storeys instead of two.

They would have wanted a say if they had known that was the case, she said, and urged Mayor Len Brown to slow down the process, which is scheduled to produce a final draft version for public consultation in September.

Manurewa Local Board chairwoman Angela Dalton called on the council to show its evidence in favour of planning for 7000 extra houses in the area. The board’s own market research – presented to the council – showed it was unlikely to happen.

…

You can read the rest of the article over at the Herald.

There are several messages cropping up here:

  1. Participation in the Unitary Plan process thus far
  2. Evidence on Council’s methodology behind aspects some zoning like Mixed Housing Zones and the Centres (especially in Town and Local Centres)
  3. The next round of engagement with the Unitary Plan

 

In the case the of participation, the best way to hear the rumblings is listen to this (it is free but you do need to register first) http://www.allaboutauckland.com/video/2253/cr-wood—unitary-plan-notification-delay/1

After that I would recommend reading my “Skewing of the Unitary Plan” in regard to the demographic skewering of Unitary Participation to see where we are at (and the imbalance as well)

With regards to “Evidence on Council’s methodology behind aspects some zoning like Mixed Housing Zones and the Centres (especially in Town and Local Centres);” I have seen a post from Phil McDermott that covers aspects of this and will repost his thoughts later today.

In regards to the next round of engagement with the Unitary Plan; it will be with Local Boards and Key Stakeholders (I got ranked as a Key Stakeholder by Council in regards to the UP – whether I participate in this next round is yet to be seen) around June-July. This is per the resolution moved by the Auckland Plan Committee this month. What this next round with entail and how much effect it will have in reshaping the Unitary Plan is yet to be seen.

 

So legitimate concerns with the Unitary Plan or full of wind? Comments below. My own opinion currently is; allow the May 31 deadline to pass. However, I am interested to see what this next round with Local Boards and Key Stakeholders will entail. More to the point will that particular round have any real grunt in getting changes through in reshaping the UP…

Time will tell

 

Time for a Debunk?

· 4 Comments ·

I will let you read this first as I would like your comments as you have heard enough of me on this particular matter.

 

DISCLAIMER: The email originating from the particular Local Board member does not reflect the view nor opinion of the Eden-Albert Local Board. The email below is to be taken as a reflection of the the particular individual’s view only

Ben

Managing Director of TotaRim Consultancy Limited

———

Got forwarded this from someone that has originated from the Eden-Albert Local Board.

Take a read and leave your comments below. If you really want to know my comments then please wait for my full feedback currently being written up for the Council on the Unitary Plan

———-

Subject: Unitary Plan Important Please read and pass on
Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 18:15:35 +1200
Dear fellow Stakeholder in Auckland’s future,
This is lengthy but worth the read  and please submitt I am sending this to you because I know you and thought you would like to know the implications ..
This has been put together by some one else but I agree with all it say.       Pauline Anderson Your Local Board member for Albert Eden
Read the following email text, then copy it and email it to (or share this page with) any and every Aucklander you know ! This is IMPORTANT – this “plan” has the potential to wreck our city for everyone – and once it is done there will be no going back!!

I am writing to you as a personal contact because I have become deeply concerned about the future effects of Auckland Council’s draft Unitary Plan.

I want to alert you to these issues and persuade you of the need to act FAST, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!

The deadline for submissions is next Friday 31st May and the plan runs into thousands of pages. Given the 31st May deadline you don’t really have time between now and then to read and understand the Plan in detail.

However this email will give you the key points of concern, tell you what you can do and help you to do it.

But I stress: you/we must act before the deadline or it will be too late!

If we do nothing it will be assumed that we are happy and the plan will be fast-tracked through implementation by our elected representatives.

The impact upon you, your city, your neighbourhood and your homes could be severe and will be final!

Why?

Well the provisions of the plan are set to change the rules about what can be built in more than half of the city’s residential areas.

How this directly impacts you will depend on which “zone” your property is in. There are several zones but if your house is in either the Mixed Housing or the Terraced Housing and Apartments zone then you have got a problem ! To find out which zone your property is in go to

http://acmaps.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/unitaryplan/FlexViewer/index.html

to view the Council’s map.

The viewer is not very user-friendly but if you put your pointer onto the map it will change to a hand and you can then zoom in with a double click and move the map to locate your actual plot.

· If your plot is shaded in the “brown paper” colour you are in the Mixed Housing zone.
· If it is in the “Amber” colour you are in the Terraced Housing & Apartment zone.
· If your house is in the off white colour your enjoyment of your property will not be directly affected by the plan unless your property is close to the border with one of the other zones.

…but since we all stand to suffer indirectly as a result of the plan you might want to read on anyway!

Firstly the direct impacts:
If you are in the Mixed Housing zone then your height-to-boundary rules are gone and the plan will allow construction of 10 metre high three storey multi-occupancy apartment blocks. Go to

http://auckland2040.org.nz/?Issues

and scroll down the page to see what this might look like.
If you are in the Terraced Housing and Apartment zone then your height-to-boundary rules are gone and the plan will allow construction of rectangular multi-occupancy apartment blocks with, dependent upon the width of frontage, in the worst case no effective height limitation. Go to

http://auckland2040.org.nz/?Issues

and scroll down the page to see what this might look like.

WARNING:

In both zones your right to notification of and objection to such developments will be removed –
the decision will be made between the Council and the developer independently of what you may think.

In both zones your right to appeal to, and have your objections heard
by a higher authority (the Environment Court) will be removed.

So the first you might know of a multi-storey development starting three metres away from your boundary could be when the diggers start up – and there will be basically nothing that you will be able to do about it! The plan is specifically designed to allow this sort of development to take place without the hindrance of objections by people affected. New blocks will be allowed to shade your windows and garden from the sun, block out your views, increase traffic in your road or down your shared driveway etc. etc. and there will be absolutely nothing you can do about it!

ACT NOW!
IF YOU ARE IN EITHER OF THESE ZONES AND YOU DO NOT OBJECT BEFORE 31st MAY 2013
THE COUNCIL WILL ASSUME THAT YOU ARE HAPPY WITH ALL ASPECTS OF THE PLAN!

Indirect Impacts:
And what about the indirect impacts of such a development “plan”. Well these will affect everyone right across our city. That is because the “plan” does not stipulate where development will take place; it is designed to allow developers free rein to build high intensity (i.e. high rise apartments) housing anywhere within the new zones without the hindrance of objections from neighbouring property owners and these areas are spread right across the city.

But what the plan doesn’t do is take any account of the extra load of all the additional families and people who may move into an area where development takes off; that is because the Council, with this plan, does not impose any sort of planned approach to manage the roll-out of such developments to allow local infrastructure (e.g. Roads, sewerage, schools, parks, public transport, swimming pools, libraries, etc.) to support all the extra people to be put in place. And that means that it cannot predict where developments will actually be built – that will be left entirely up to the developers – and they will have more or less free rein to build what they want, where they want and when they want, right across the city whether the infrastructure is ready or not.

I do not know how such a free-for-all constitutes a “plan” and I am deeply concerned that what will actually occur will be years of mayhem. If you think the traffic problems in your suburb are bad now, just think what they will be like if multi-occupancy blocks start appearing all over the place with each new family expecting to have a couple of cars! Let alone the question of where their kids are going to go to school or providing adequate emergency services, etc., etc. etc.

The conventional approach to development is to put in the services such as roads, sewerage, water and power first and to work to a plan which provides for the other services such as schools, hospitals; public transport and green spaces to be provided before or at least at the same time as the houses start going up. Where new housing is to be built upon existing infrastructure as is being proposed here, then to avoid creating infrastructural problems down the track, the development plan should include updating and enlarging of that infrastructure at least at the same time as the housing is being developed if not before, but definitely not after the event.

So even if your home and family are not directly affected by the new building rules you will more than likely suffer from more cars on your streets, longer commutes, bigger class sizes in your kids’ schools, more foot traffic, more noise and possibly years of disruption as the Council and the other services providers go round and round upgrading services that are simply not up to the job for the number of people who will be using them.

No matter how they try to sugar-coat this draft plan (and they are trying very hard with the considerable resources at their disposal that you pay for with your rates), the fact is that it is not really a plan at all, but an attack on the established rights of a subset of the population of Auckland to allow uncontrolled and uncontrollable development in the Council’s chosen upwards direction and the impact will be felt by all of us if it is allowed to proceed.

So what can you do about it?

Firstly let me say again: Doing nothing is the same as saying that you are happy with the plan!

If you do nothing the plan will be pushed ahead as Len Brown put it “fast, fast, FAST”.. And while the council strategy is to persuade you that it is a “just a draft” if you do not tell them in no uncertain terms what you do not want in any plan, they will only take out of the draft the bits that they do not want in their plan not the bits you don’t want in it – and you can guess which bits they will leave in!

The only chance you have of influencing the outcome is to object. The following are some things you might like to object about worded so that you can copy them straight into the Council’s online objection form:

I/We oppose the Draft Unitary Plan residential provisions and request Council to:
· Rethink the plan and allow more time for residents to understand, consider and if necessary oppose it. The current plan is far too long for anyone to understand in its entirety, let alone laypeople who are not familiar with the wording of such documents in the time that has been allowed under the current proposals.
· Change the wording of the plan to allow a right of consultation and objection about proposed developments to all affected homeowners and a right of appeal to a higher authority such as the Environment Court.
· Revise the plan to prevent the proposed scattergun approach which permits multi-storey/high density apartments to be developed throughout the city.
· Determine the ability of roading and other infrastructure (e.g. schools, sewers, public transport) to support and accommodate intensification before permitting intensification.
· Focus apartment building into key areas where the prices for apartments that are built will be affordable (rather than million dollar plus apartments e.g. ones with million dollar views) and where the city’s environmental appeal will not be adversely impacted and encourage comprehensive planning for each of these areas.
· Re-evaluate the projected population growth used as a basis for the plan based upon census information and consider other ways of reducing population growth in Auckland rather than just accepting that the projected growth is an inevitable fact.
· Change the plan to respect and not override existing determinations of the Environment Court and other such agencies.
· Remove the Council’s discretion to allow buildings of any height to be built.

The Council’s online objection form can be accessed by going to
http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/planspoliciesprojects/plansstrategies/unitaryplan/Pages/theunitaryplanonlinefeedbackform.aspx.

To complete the objection form:
copy (highlight them and press Ctrl & C at the same time) the objections you want to raise from the list above;
2. click on the online form link;
3. scroll down the form to the section entitled “Please provide your feedback on the aspects of the draft Auckland Unitary Plan you would like to see changed and why (please attach a separate document with your feedback if required)”;
4. click in the box on the form;
5. paste (press Ctrl & V at the same time) your objections into the form;
6. add your other details and any other objections you want to make;
7. when you’re done click the “Submit” button.

Before you start doing that, please can I ask if you will do something else which is just as important and will only take a few moments?
Please will you forward this message to (or share this page with) as many other Aucklanders as you can, so that they can consider the ramifications of the plan & if they wish send their objections too?
To forward the email:
1. click the “Forward” button in your mail software;
2. replace my name with your own;
3. type or paste the email addresses of up to 10 Aucklanders you know into the “To:” field, and
4. click the “Send” button….
(N.B.. all the right people in central and local government will have been targeted by the time you get this – so you don’t need to send it to them too, unless you want to because you know them personally!)

Then you can go back to click the links above to send your own objections – but remember they have to be received by the Friday 31st May deadline.

Regards,

Pauline Anderson Albert Eden Local Board Member
Facilitator Mt Albert Business and Community Groups Assn
Hm: 09 8467 402 Mob: 021 770799
74 Mt Albert Rd, Mt Albert, Auckland 1025

———

Yes I have noted that anything on the RUB which affects the South and West is rather silent…

Also the above provides irony abound especially after my “Skewing of the Unitary Plan” post this morning.

Sigh

Dr Smith and the NIMBY’s

·

So a Fish Hook?

 

cats_fail-14143

I am getting the Herald delivered free on a five-week trial thanks to the AA. You can comment on the irony of the situation later but the word free and word worm-food have relevance here.

So upon reading the A-Section of the Herald (was looking for Orsman after a menacing Facebook remark he made last night on his page) I found this about Dr Nick Smith:

I wonder what he means “lower quality developments” for Auckland and affordable housing.

Would it be the quality like my ex-army house made of treated wood and brick built in the 70’s. It is basic with basic fittings provided in the house but huge potential to upgrade as the resident saves up and upgrades the dwelling (like what we are doing with our home).

Or (and most likely) something like the quality of the Hobson Street rabbit hunches that the NIMBY‘s bark on about that leak like a sponge and are of poor quality (forcing off an expensive virtual rebuild). History (and this hurts when it spells the truth) I believe tells us those rabbit hunches were “signed off” by the C&R dominated former Auckland City Council in 2004 (while the Mayor at the time – Banks wanted a stop to it before he got chucked out because of the Eastern Highway). Oh dear I see irony abound here folks…

For further irony I need not remind Auckland that it was the then National Government of the 1990s that removed the requirement of treated wood for new houses (saving costs to the consumer apparently) and now most of them leak worse than a sponge and have rotted away to such an extent that if your repair bill was not sky-high, your house was basically condemned. As for the old Auckland City and Manukau City Councils that signed off on these disasters as well, I believe both were Centre Right dominated as well in most of that period. If you want me to drive a further boot in the situation who do our conservatives (and NIMBY’s) vote for traditionally.

And before someone sends a flaming comment right back I ask you reflect upon yourself and remember you get what you either ask/vote for or deserve (to the point my generation have to pick up the can from your mistakes).

 

Now the onus is on the Minister Dr Nick Smith to clearly define what he means by “lower quality development.” Because unless you plan to return to building leakers and crap like those Hobson Street apartments, then under the current situation with constructions costs artificially high building a quality basic house like mine would be near impossible for under $300k all up (including land).

Hmm with Northern Regional National Party Conference this weekend, I wonder what is being schemed or parroted in the hallways and theatre rooms…

 

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