From The Liberal Side of Urban Development Councillor Dick Quax last night posted on Facebook a link to a New Geography article on how Houston (known for its sprawl) … Continue reading A Houston Perspective
The Politics behind the issue or of the day
From The Liberal Side of Urban Development Councillor Dick Quax last night posted on Facebook a link to a New Geography article on how Houston (known for its sprawl) … Continue reading A Houston Perspective
I have a copy of that letter the Herald article “Compact city rulebook hits wall” talks about. You can read it in the embed below and post your reactions accordingly. BR:AKL is of the belief that this is going too fast – the Unitary Plan consultation rounds, but I do disagree with Central Government and delaying the Clunker by three years. One extra year should be adequate enough at the ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM before it gets drawn out beyond a joke.
Other reactions from me with The Unitary Plan can be found else where on this blog
After returning from the Papakura Unitary Plan feedback session this morning which was highly informative as I went one on two with Council Officers. I even learnt that Browns Bay on the North Shore who think they are in for 6-8 storey buildings are only in for four storey buildings looking at The Clunker in-depth. However, more on The Clunker later.
After my dialogue on The Unitary plan I had a discussion with Angela Dalton of Manurewa Local Board and two Papakura Local Board members (who I will look up their names shortly). The discussion came to the Glenora Road Rail Station at Addison, Takanini; 5-minutes from where I live. I was told that Auckland Transport are not doing Glenora Road Station AT ALL because of the $35 million cost for the station. $6 million for platforms, shelters, park and ride, kiss and ride and bus interchange (so a fully fledged station minus people manning it); $29 million for the grade-separation at Walters Road 50 metres south. AT forecasts the patronage figures at 952 daily using Glenora Road which I called Bollocks on straight away as a justification in not building the station.
I will also write a separate post on the Glenora Road situation and call AT on this as I know that station will attract at minimum five times that amount (952) as a conservative figure as the area grows (regardless of Takanini closing down or not).
But the 952 gives light to a mega-embarrassing situation that has not been aired yet on the Auckland laundry line. That is our honestly shameful rail utilisation figures which on average over 363 days a year (there are no passenger trains on Good Friday and Christmas Day) stands at 27,000 a day or 20.5% of potential patronage if we ran every train on average 67% full day in day out (see explanation at bottom of post).
Let me run the numbers with you:
On existing services (there are 325 a day average according to the Fare Evasion Modelling) AT expects around 30,000 passengers a day. That means 92 passengers a service and our current diesel fleet holds anywhere between 350 to 750 depending on the train class (safe loading – not crush loadings). So 92 passengers means the train is anywhere between 12% full to 26% full AS AN AVERAGE as I know some trains are packed out.
Using 10 million as the rolling annual target we are at 27,000 passengers a day which gives an actual utilisation AVERAGE (weekends are in here) of 10-23% and we need around 40,000,000 rail passenger trips annually using the existing diesel fleet if the utilisation was at 67% (rather than 100% – see explanation below)
If we take the averages across the fleet (which with out diesels it does not make this easy as we have a heterogeneous fleet currently) then followed by the new EMU fleet all running at the maximum 6-car – top and tail config (two EMU-3s put together) this happens:
If the average diesel train holds 507 passengers average and 67% puts it at 339 passengers required, multiply that out by 325 services means you need Monday to Thursday 110,099 passengers a day to get ANY WHERE near turn over rates mentioned above. And yes I know the ADL-2 and ADK-4 can not hold 507 passengers – but this is averages here made out from the SA/SD 6 car sets holding 750 passengers.
67% means 502 passengers and across the existing 325 services means you need: 163,150 passengers DAILY to make this viable, while AT is playing around with 30,000 a day or 92 passengers per train service. This means for an EMU-6-car running at an average of 12% full.
As a grand total figure we need with the EMU’s all running on just the existing provisions moving about 60 million rail passenger trips a year (this is at the 67% average utilisation rate) (so 6 time more than now) and we have not even stepped up the services yet to well over 400/day Monday to Friday at the minimum as planned.
This is mega embarrassing folks to have our existing rail utilisation at any where between 10-26% (92 passengers average for every single service – and depending on train type) per service which means Auckland is at no more than 18% of rail utilisation compared to its minimum viable capacity which stands at 67% of total maximum capacity – if we were carrying the 30,000 AT is modelling for at the moment. However remember as I mentioned above only 27,000 approximate people on average use the trains a day (10 million divided by 363 days) which means knock another 2% off the utilisation rates.
I did say mega embarrassing now didn’t I? To be honest as an Aucklander I would be deeply embarrassed at the situation before us right now with our heavy rail. We have seen growth to above 10 million only for it to slip back below that milestone in February this year. But we seem to be stuck in a rut in getting the figures where it should be. AT forecasted the annual rail passenger trips near the 12,500,000 mark which means around 34,500 a day or a utilisation rate of around 23%, but that has slipped to 10.5 million so the figures fall back to around 30,000 a day.
We have a long way to go folks to get near 60 million annual rail passenger trips (might as well use EMU figures now with them coming on-stream soon) (60 million at 67% average utilisation across ALL 325 existing services) – which means the theoretical capacity stands at 90 million.
Still 9,996,066 annual rail passenger tips for the existing diesels and we need 40,000,000 for it to be viable, 60,000,000 when the EMU’s are all on stream. Remember this total average utilisation figure rises if you run more services. For example say the CRL is complete and all EMUs are running as 6-car sets holding a maximum capacity of 750 passengers and we go to 410 services average a day, 363 days a year. That means at 67% utilisation across the services one would need 74,500,000 annual trips approximate for the entire operation to be viable. The Auckland Plan calls for by 2041, 140 million trips to be made a year by public transport – all modes…
Note: my figures are expressed as a percentage of 67% average utilisation or carrying numbers (which is 67% of the total maximum capacity) – not the actual total maximum capacity numbers (which would be 100% utilisation or carrying numbers). 67% was derived from the theoretical minimum all services would have to carry as an average for the Auckland Metro Rail system to be viable, and takes into account the system will be:
never at 100% utilisation across all services
balances out across the services where are individual services are at 95-105% utilisation and others are around the 10% currently and also projected. It basically allows for a generous spread and average from varying patronage numbers per individual service.
So with this very embarrassing situation that makes me deeply embarrassed as an Aucklander to be confronted by this
I await Auckland Transport’s reply
Auckland Vs. Wellington Thanks to the kindness of Metro Magazine this thoughtful Editorial piece from Simon Wilson was able to be read while I was in Sydney and Brisbane … Continue reading Metro Mag Opinion
And so it happened, an accident on the southbound lanes of the Southern Motorway (State Highway One) on the Newmarket Viaduct causing absolute gridlock for hours on end – and it even delayed the start of the Breakers game to boot.
You can see (what is most likely to have been caused by hopeless driving Auckland is known for) the accident and its absolute chaos from the NZ Herald along with a bonus video
From the NZH:
How one crash caused gridlock chaos
By Amelia Wade
5:30 AM Friday Mar 8, 2013
Inner-city Auckland traffic was brought to a virtual standstill last night after a motorway crash – gridlock that the Automobile Association described as the worst it had seen.
A van crashed into the back of a truck in the southbound fast lane on the Southern Motorway at Newmarket at 3.50pm, seriously injuring a man.
More than two hours later, traffic on almost all of the city’s arterial routes was gridlocked, with buses backed up in city streets and motorists reporting speeds of less than 10km/h.
Journeys that normally took 15 minutes were taking more than an hour.
Automobile Association traffic spokesman Phil Allen said he had never seen traffic so bad in central Auckland.
Are you sick of Auckland’s traffic problems? Send us your commuting tales of woe and any ideas you have on how to fix Auckland’s traffic jams here.
The association launched traffic-mapping technology on its site 18 months ago. Routes marked in black show where traffic is moving at under 25 per cent of the speed limit.
…
You can read the rest and watch the video over at the NZH.
I was fortunate enough to have returned from the success at the Strategy and Finance Committee ahead of that traffic disaster yesterday however it is going to highlight a rather sore point?
Would of the much vaunted four lane Eastern Highway expressway coupled with cycle-ways and even the Botany (heavy rail) Line alleviate some (not all but some) of the chaos yesterday by giving a viable bypass for those heading south out of the CBD. Those coming from the north would have used the Western Ring Route (State Highways 16 and 20) if it had been completed by now as an extra backup.
The Eastern Highway and Botany Line basically followed this trajectory before its mothballing in 2004

Click for full resolution
I have the original EASTDOR report into the four options available for the Eastern Highway and will get them uploaded when I return from Australia.
But for now just ponder to yourself; The Eastern Highway – that critical back up for the CBD we now miss.
Of course I am waiting for the fringe brigades from both the pro road, and pro public transport and nothing else to pipe up and basically kill the debate before it starts…
Just remember folks – the Eastern Highway provided an absolute full suite of actual integrated transport options such as: road, freight way, bus priorities, cycle ways and even heavy rail to a part of Auckland not served by rail as of current. I suppose I could have the last laugh after the project was mothballed in 2004 and how (as it would have been completed by now) it could have made a pure crap day just that slightly bit better for those stuck last night…
Actual Alternative to Betterment Taxes Proposed by Council? Recently I had written a post on basically what is a new round of taxes better known in slang as Betterment … Continue reading It is all about the MUD
I love Brisbane and am going back there for a holiday in the middle of March. Brisbane is my second home and where I lived for two years as part of my err “gap-year.” Brisbane is also similar in some respects to Auckland in regards to its civic structure, urban fabric, transportation systems, and political stupidity in investing in the wrong project.
Now I did just say political stupidity – and why is that? Check these two pieces from NZ and Brisbane on Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) not delivering as they were meant to:
Stephen King: PPPs need better ways to handle risk
5:30 AM Tuesday Feb 26, 2013
As another toll road in Australia fails, what is the future for public-private partnerships?
Instead of taking traffic off congested suburban roads, high tolls may mean too few cars use the toll road. Photo / APNIs there a future for privately funded toll roads? BrisConnections has been placed into administration only seven months after opening the Brisbane Airport Link toll road/tunnel. It has not had sufficient users to make the project viable. So what does this mean for future public-private partnerships (PPPs)?
In the short term, it will mean very little. The citizens of Brisbane have a great tunnel that (from my experience) cuts significant time off a trip to the airport. The investors have done their dough. And there may be various lawsuits about who misled whom.
However, this is the fourth in a series of PPP toll road failures, including Sydney’s Lane Cove and Cross City tunnels, and Brisbane’s Clem7. If PPPs are to have a future, we need better ways to handle the project risk.
The risk associated with large infrastructure projects can be significant. For toll roads, the viability of a project depends on projections of future traffic flows. But these flows may be highly variable, depending on a range of choices by the government and car users
…
You can read the rest over at the Herald website
Now what Mr King was referring to in regards to PPP failure and by virtual extension political stupidity in Brisbane is this Brisbane Times piece I Facebooked not so long ago:
From Brisbane Times:
Airport Link in administration
- Date February 19, 2013 Bridie Jabour
Brisbane’s Airport Link tunnel has gone into voluntary administration. Photo: Harrison Saragossi
UPDATED
The $4.8 billion Airport Link tunnel has been placed into voluntary administration.
In an announcement to ASX, tunnel’s operator BrisConnections said the company had decided to place the tunnel into administration citing low traffic levels and debts worth more than the tunnel.
The board of BrisConnections entered negotiations in November to restructure the tunnel’s debt but on Monday night, the board was told lenders were not prepared to support any of the restructure proposals.
The latest traffic figures show an average of 47,802 vehicles using the 6.7 kilometre Airport Link each day, about half of the original forecasts which had daily traffic of 90,000 vehicles.BrisConnection conceded in the ASX statement that an extensive marketing and phased-in toll regime had failed to attract enough traffic but Non-Executive Chairman Trevor Rowe was still positive about the future of the tunnel.
‘‘It’s disappointing that the board has to reach this decision,’’ he said.
‘‘The AiportlinkM7 is unquestionably a world class piece of transport infrastructure that will continue to support Brisbane’s growth into the decades ahead.’’
BrisConnections was placed into a trading halt in November and two board directors resigned after a dismal report to the ASX on Airport Link.
In the report, the company admitted for the first time the tunnel’s debt might be more than its value and a research analyst said at the time the most likely option for the Airport Link was to put it up for sale.
The tunnel had a toll free period which ended in October last year with traffic forecasts falling tens of thousands of vehicles short even when the ride was free.
The costs of building Airport Link blew out so much for construction company Leighton Holdings that it contributed to them posting a yearly loss of more than $200 million which has been turned around to a $450 million profit since it handed over the tunnel and its other high profile troubled project, the Victorian desalination plant.
Airport Link was opened in July 2012 and connects Brisbane’s northern suburbs with Brisbane’s CBD and the airport, the Clem7 and the Inner City Bypass.
The tunnel will remain open and available to users as normal.
Airport Link is the second Brisbane tunnel to financially collapse with the operator of Clem7, RiverCity Motorway Group, going into receivorship in November with $1.3 billion worth of debts.
News of Airport Link’s collapse forced Brisbane Lord Mayor Graham Quirk to defend Brisbane City Council‘s decision to push ahead with the city’s third toll tunnel, the $1.5 billion Legacy Way tunnel
The Brisbane saga should sound a warning to both Central Government who are ploughing on with the Wellington Transmission Gully Motorway – which is a PPP (the Herald article above mentions the risks of that as well) and our Auckland Council if we consider PPPs for some of our larger projects including the City Rail Link.
I have called for a PPP with the City Rail Link with our public authorities handing the tunnel construction and maintenance, while having private companies operate the stations for say 50 years providing they get the rights for urban development (including sky rights) in the immediate vicinity of stations as part of a wider investment program. Now I know in Tokyo’s railway has stations that are built and run by companies basically on behalf of the rail metro line and in the same token have developed often impressive complexes of residential, commercial office and commercial services (retail, malls, hotels) above and around the said station.
These impressive complexes allow the Tokyo authorities to share some of the costs of rail metro line station building with private companies in return for pretty much guaranteed patronage due to the urban complexes built above and around the stations.
So there are cases where PPPs for in this case with Tokyo – rail can work. This could be a very good example for Auckland to follow-up on when the CRL is being built. However the Brisbane and Transmission Gully Wellington Road PPP projects (go figure – I said roads) are also examples on what NOT to do with PPPs.
So Auckland (including AT and Council) still have a long and hard road ahead in plausible financial planning for some of our larger mega-projects like the much needed City Rail Link. On one side it could go extremely wrong and bankrupt the city, on the other we get an golden opportunity for a needed transit link and some actual world class urban renewal in our grey and drab CBD!
Food for thought
I have been away over the weekend attending our annual Church Family Camp up at Whangaparaoa Peninsular and enjoying the absolute stunner of the weather. In saying that and while New Zealand is lagging behind in the digital age (you try your “internet” via cell phone network outside of the main centres) I was able to keep up with some news out of the city.
Of particular note was Councillor Cameron Brewer’s speech to the ACT Party Conference somewhere out in the whop whops. I shall leave you to read the speech below and feel free to comment as you (respectfully wish)
Speech notes by Auckland Councillor Cameron Brewer Act Party 2013 Conference, Gibbs Farm, Kaukapakapa Saturday, 23 February 2013
Ratepayers yet to see the real promise of one city
Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen
Former Act leader and Minister of Local Government, Hon Rodney Hide, did a great job amalgamating the eight former regional, city and district councils into one unitary authority, Auckland Council. The architecture has proven to be sound with no serious legislative changes mooted.
Today however I will argue that while the architecture of the Super City remains sound, benefits for ratepayers that should have been delivered have yet to be delivered by the local body politicians. The public of Auckland was told that it wasn’t necessarily going to be any cheaper, but one council would be better on their back-pockets now and in the future.
Nearly two and a half years into the Len Brown centre-left inaugural council, most ratepayers would argue their back-pockets have yet to see any benefits. But when you consider the personalities involved that’s not surprising.
Only a few years ago the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor were adamantly opposed to amalgamation. They were matching in the streets against the prospect of Auckland Council.
In essence the Mayor will never be interested in driving and delivering on all the amalgamation’s financial promise and potential, because he never wanted it in the first place. What drives him is community development and pulling the once disparate areas of Auckland together and on that front he has done well.
But let’s not forget the primary drivers of this amalgamation were economic. So how are we doing?
In the current financial year, over half of Auckland households are paying an average of 8.1% more in rates than last year, and the news gets no better in the coming financial year for wards like mine. In the ward of Orakei 67% of households are up for another 5 – 10% rates increase from July. The Left’s low Uniform Annual General Charge is not helping.
Like 133,000 other households, I am paying the full 10% cap this year and will again next year, and the following. That’s because my rates went up 32.4%, with the increase split over three years. So while I’m paying 10% more in Ellerslie after municipal amalgamation, the average Christchurch resident is paying 7.8% more after their massive earthquakes. Go figure!
Mayor Brown is going around telling everyone that the average regional rates increase for 2013/14 will be 2.9% but that’s not how it will be felt by many, particularly on the Auckland isthmus.
In fact the old Auckland City Council area will also have to get used to user-pays rubbish in the next couple of years, not to mention ongoing regulatory fee increases. Then we have the prospect of tolling the existing motorway network and/or a regional petrol tax, as well as the plan to ban all open fireplaces, but I digress. Debt at Auckland Council is growing at nearly $3m a day. Our latest 2011/12 Annual Report showed that total council group debt has increased by $1b, from $4.0b to $5.0b in just 12 months. Now that’s nothing on central government’s ongoing borrowings, but we are not even a state government. We are a local council, yet the plan is to triple council debt this decade and already the debt ceiling has been lifted to enable this.
In this relatively flat economic environment household debt has been shrinking and the Government rightly remains committed to getting back into surplus, so it’s totally out of whack that council borrowings have gone up 25% in the past year alone.
It is future ratepayers who will be lumped with the crippling interest payments, projected to be close to ½ billion dollars a year by the end of this decade. Not to mention Eden Park! The latest annual report also revealed that 1,165 staff now earn more than $100,000 and 123 earn over $200,000. Comparative figures show that we pay our executives, specialists and managers much more than what Air New Zealand pays. So if your son or daughter wants to become a pilot, tell them to become a public servant!
There seems to be a job for everyone in Auckland Council. That same annual report, published late last year also revealed that the number of full-time equivalent staff went up 12% from an estimated 7,200 to 8,040. That’s 840 more staff in 12 months, taking the wage bill to over 2/3rds of a billion dollars or $670m, and that is just FTES. There are even more individuals on the books, and of course these numbers exclude the many consultants and contractors engaged by the council.
Rest assured we will be watching further creep on staff numbers and costs. That’s not what the people of Auckland were promised. Nor did ratepayers think the Mayor’s Office would come with six spin-doctors and a budget of $4.9m a year to run.
The Government’s Better Local Government reforms are all about tightening the leash but so far we’ve seen little real change. Some of us however are looking forward to the second part of the reforms to be introduced to Parliament by the new Local Government Minister. My message to Chris Tremain is keep the pressure on. Local Government New Zealand told us from their ratepayer-funded Queenstown conference last year that it doesn’t like these reforms, but the public does.
One project that’s really going to put pressure on Auckland Council’s 500,000 ratepayers now and in the future is the City Rail Link.
On Monday the Minister of Transport said he thought that 2030 was a more realistic delivery date, but the Mayor won’t hear it. He wants to cut the ribbon in eight short years and rest assured the borrowing is already in full swing to achieve that completely unrealistic timeframe.
In the council’s draft annual plan another $180m is set aside for this project for this coming year.
This ratepayer-funded spending comes without any government commitment whatsoever. The Prime Minister is on the record for saying the CBD project at this point in time just simply doesn’t stack up and will do little to reduce Auckland’s region-wide congestion. Nonetheless the ratepayer is now committed, like it or not. The $2.8b City Rail Link has gone up six fold in estimated cost in the past eight years, and as sure as night follows day the cost will keep going up. Amazingly, the nearly $1 million a metre cost, and the fact that the Government remains completely unconvinced and uncommitted, are not the most concerning aspects of this project. The biggest worry is that this project almost completely strangles every other potential public transport project, at a time when rail patronage is falling.
According to Auckland Transport’s Draft Auckland Regional Public Transport Plan published in October, “approximately 80 percent” of the region’s 10-year public transport infrastructure budget is set to be solely allocated to the City Rail Link. The remaining 20% will be thinly spread across all other regional rail improvements, new and improved ferry terminals, bus lanes and corridors, and park and ride facilities.
Spending approximately 80 percent of the 10-year budget on this one CBD-based project, where less than 10 percent of Aucklanders’ live or work, is not a balanced approach, and will not deliver a strong and mixed integrated transport system.
At the very least, let’s first secure some government commitment, and let’s get some agreement from the motoring public that they’re prepared to pay tolls or more fuel taxes, before we commit the poor old suburban ratepayer any more. Just on Auckland Transport, that council-controlled organisation is working well but there are concerns that where we might’ve once had territorial silos under the old structure, now with our seven CCOs, we’re possibly seeing departmental silos emerge with some empire building well underway.
I support further rationalisation of our CCOs. I support a greater role and greater budgets for our 21 local boards. I support a renewed focus on the council getting its overheads down. I support a greater focus on core council business, and I support the Mayor learning to say no. I also want to see a more functional relationship with central government.
Next month the Auckland Council releases its draft Unitary Plan for public input. The plan is for widespread intensification. Our town centres and suburbs will be changed forever. It will mean another burst of infill and many angry neighbours. We’ve been told for two years by the Left that the public wants a “compact city”, let’s now see. Consultation closes 31 May. Get involved.
I want to also talk about the election promise of greater transparency and accountability. And give you two examples from many of where this council has erred.
Two weeks ago the Office of the Ombudsman confirmed it will investigate my complaint over the council’s refusal to disclose what it has paid its different legal providers over the past two years. The Auckland Council and its CCOs last year spent over $20m on lawyers, but only Watercare was prepared to reveal how much it paid each external provider.
The ratepayers’ right to know how much of their money is being pumped into which lawyers surely overrides the need to protect our city’s big law firms. I await the Ombudsman’s ruling with interest.
Secondly when it comes to the promise of greater transparency and accountability, the plan to put up to $30m of ratepayers’ money for a whitewater rafting facility does not live up to best practice.
This pet project of transforming the paddock that sits between Manukau’s TelstraClear Stadium and the Southern Motorway into rapids is set to leapfrog its way into this year’s council budget. This is despite the project being resoundingly voted down by the previous Manukau City Council and the fact that it was not part of Auckland Council’s 10-year Long Term Plan.
So while the kids of Manukau are set to get a cool whitewater rafting facility, from 1 July the roadside grass verges throughout the former Auckland City area will no longer be mowed by the council.
Ladies and Gentleman – that is how crazy things have got. Whitewater rafting is now council business, mowing council-owned lawns is not. Yes make a submission to our draft 13/14 budget by 4pm this Monday, but more importantly the centre-right needs your support this spring, with the postal ballot results for the local body elections set to announced on Saturday 12 October.
The focus for some of us is not on the mayoralty. The focus will be on getting the numbers around the table but it will be an uphill battle. Only five of us councillors voted against the Mayor’s $58b 10-year budget last year. We’ve got a lot of work to do if the centre-right is to gain the majority – that is at least 11 around a table of 21.
The first job of the new council will be to appoint a new council chief executive from a short- list of candidates. That is another key reason why the 2013 local body elections are critical for ratepayers.
Don’t be fooled by those councillors who masquerade as centre-right. Look at their voting record when they’re at the town hall. Despite north of the harbour bridge being painted blue in Parliament, at Auckland Council only Cr George Wood provides a centre-right voice and vote.
Yes the council has transitioned and worked well enough at an operational level, yes the Super City architecture has stood up to public and political pressures, but no the many promises of amalgamation have not, and will not, be fully realised by the current leadership. Auckland’s ratepayers were promised much more and deserve much better.
Finally, ladies and gentlemen, having represented the people of Newmarket and Remuera for the past eight years as head of the Newmarket Business Association and as a local councillor, I have no doubt whatsoever that Epsom voters’ primary interest next year will be to ensure their fellow local resident John Key gets a third term as Prime Minister.
I wish you all, your leader Hon John Banks, and president John Boscawen all the very best for this year and next.
Thank you.
Ends Cameron Brewer (021) 828-016
One thing that I will add though is my reaction to Brewer’s speech. I am pragmatist and will not plonk myself in the ideological boxes of Centre-Left and Centre-Right within the Council. That means both sides are up for critique when warranted, the same for praise where it is due.
So in this instance I am siding with Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse’s call on Brewer’s speech:
From Facebook
I seem to have been left off the invitation list to the ACT party conference this weekend? Can’t say I am that surprised, never really hit it off with Hide! Several of my fellow councillors however appear to be there. Reading one of their conference speeches I see that the election is well underway and will be focussed entirely on getting rid of the mayor. Whilst they talk, the rest of us will continue to focus on making this city work, doing the hard yards, like getting the Unitary plan out for consultation. It is easy to simply sit and throw stones, it is harder to stand up and work with your community to build a better Auckland.
Ben Ross Second part from me (yay spamming comment boxes)
There are two ways this can be approached with Council:
1) Work together despite your different views
2) Be combative and utterly waste my time
I know which one I prefer when working with Councillors – even when I might be a bit “tough” on them some days 😉
You can see I am not overtly impressed with Brewer’s speech.
That part in bold stems from a conversation I had with our Deputy Mayor in regards to the Unitary Plan which is about to be released for community feedback. Yes I have strong views on the practical level with the Unitary Plan stemming from the view I hold that the Unitary Plan is too thick and needs to go on a crash diet. And while I know Councillors and Auckland Transport read this blog, I can be admittedly “tough” on them but I sometimes need too. Got to keep them both on their toes and honest. But at the end of the day I can either be combative and go no where as Councillor Brewer is right now with that speech of his, or I work with Penny and we get this Unitary Plan tightened up before it becomes operational.
After the SPINNING THE SPIN and WHO WILL STAND AGAINST LEN posts here at BR:AKL, the Herald picks up Kiwiblog‘s original post on our Mayor’s spin doctors and decided to write a story about it:
From the NZ Herald:
Mayor heavy on ‘spin doctors’
By Bernard Orsman BernardOrsman 5:30 AM Tuesday Feb 19, 2013
Len Brown‘s critics say the ‘gaggle’ of communications staff means ratepayers are funding his re-election bid.
Auckland Mayor Len Brown is facing criticism for hiring a sixth “spin doctor” six months out from the official start of the local body elections.
The six advisers at Mr Brown’s disposal include three full-time staff and three part-timers.
The full-time staff are Dan Lambert, the head of communications responsible for strategy and planning; chief press secretary Glyn Jones and senior communications adviser Melanya Burrows
…
In a post on his Kiwiblog site titled “Len’s gaggle of spin doctors“, Mr Farrar said Mr Brown’s hiring of Dan Lambert took his tally of spin doctors to six – more than the entire parliamentary Labour Party.
Labour has five parliamentary press secretaries and a part-time speech writer for 34 MPs. Prime Minister John Key has four press secretaries and one media assistant.
Mr Brown refused to answer questions about communications staffing under his leadership.
Mr Lambert blocked repeated requests by the Herald to speak to the mayor, saying: “I think it’s reasonable the mayor wouldn’t want to go on record on a matter like this.”
Orakei Local Board chairwoman Desley Simpson said Orakei ratepayers were funding the latest “propaganda manager” and the mayor’s election campaign.
In the same posting, Mr Farrar challenged the right-wing Communities & Residents to select a mayoral candidate, otherwise Mr Brown and his spin doctors would have an easy time of it.
No one from C&R or the right has come forward to challenge Mr Brown for the local body elections, including Orakei councillor and the mayor’s loudest opponent, Cameron Brewer.
Mr Brewer – a former “spin doctor” to Auckland City Mayor John Banks, Prime Minister Dame Jenny Shipley and Act leader Rodney Hide – said nobody would be able to match Mr Brown’s army of spin doctors, advisers and consultants.
Well DPF and myself picked up on the fact pointed out in the red bold text through our own blogs:
From my own recent post
WHO WILL STAND AGAINST LEN – No Alternative Candidate to Run Against Incumbent Mayor?
After DPF’s Kiwiblog ran a piece on “Len’s gaggle of spin doctors” he asked this question at the bottom: “Talking of the election, isn’t it time also for C&R and their friends in Auckland to get their shit together and select a Mayoral candidate. Otherwise Len and his six spin doctors will have too easy a time of it”
That opens the question:” WHO IS THAT ALTERNATIVE TO RUN AND STAND A REMOTE CHANCE OF WINNING AGAINST THE INCUMBENT MAYOR – LEN BROWN“
Orakei Local Board Chair Desley Simpson picked up on DPF’s blog post and had this to say on Facebook (it was made under the Public section):
…
The rest of the debate continued from there and you can see it at that respective post
However as the Mayor asks for over $4 million in this 2013/2014 Annual Plan to run his office including six spin doctors – we the ratepayers should be asking are we getting value for money here from the Mayor’s Office?
From Councillor Cameron Brewer:
The Mayor is asking for $4,994,000 to run his office in election year (see Page 40, Volume 1, Draft Annual Plan 13/14). Have your say by making a submission to the plan by 4pm, 25 February. As I’ve been saying for over two years, the place is completely out of control.
So again if you are submitting to the Annual Plan, consider whether just short of $5 million worth of “spin” is good value for money. I would think $1 million would be sufficient to run the mayor’s office and the rest going to our starving Local Boards who do need the cash – and are more productive with that cash in providing our local civic amenities (than the mayor’s spin doctors could ever be)
But hey what would I know about the Mayor’s Office? Time for a Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act request then?
More on this is bound to come as the elections at the end of the year draw nearer! And as I said: “The Mayor has more spin on this than the spin cycle of my washing machine – talk about how to make one’s head spin”
[Note from Admin: More to this debate has been added since I wrote the original post this morning. As a result rather than writing a new post I will add to the bottom on the debate as of 14:45 this afternoon]
After DPF’s Kiwiblog ran a piece on “Len’s gaggle of spin doctors” he asked this question at the bottom: “Talking of the election, isn’t it time also for C&R and their friends in Auckland to get their shit together and select a Mayoral candidate. Otherwise Len and his six spin doctors will have too easy a time of it”
That opens the question:” WHO IS THAT ALTERNATIVE TO RUN AND STAND A REMOTE CHANCE OF WINNING AGAINST THE INCUMBENT MAYOR – LEN BROWN”
Orakei Local Board Chair Desley Simpson picked up on DPF’s blog post and had this to say on Facebook (it was made under the Public section):
6 hours ago near Parnell ·I wonder if I told the ratepayers of Orakei that I used their rates money for ….
- 1. A media and communications manager AND
- 2. A propaganda manager AND
- 3.A press Sectetary AND
- 4. A Comms manager AND
- 5 . A media consultant AND
- 6. A speech writer
ALL just for meWhether they would approve and vote for me again ? I am of course not the mayor however – Our mayor Len Brown has employed all 6 people ( probably all funded by Orakei rates)And – if its true that the 6th ( propaganda manager ) has just been hired 6 months before official election starts one could say Orakei ratepayers are funding the Mayors election campaign ?Cameron Brewer are you happy about this?
Aaron Bhatnagar Maybe we need a mayor who is confident enough in what they say that they don’t need a half dozen hangers-on to prevent them from not slapping their heads feverishly or breaking out into rap Lani French Agree…. Aaron Bhatnagar one would have to wonder if someone cant do the job without that much “protection” then can they do the job at all? Angie Cassidy Here’s hoping the ‘singer mayor’ will be singing for his supper soon enough…. what. a. joke. Ben Ross “The Last Supper” Ron Hamilton Is there no mechanism of conducting a “value for money” review in both the existing mayor’s office and the concept of an executive mayor? Can the Audit office be invited to undertake such a review, for example? Talk about profligacy! Rosina Hauiti You forgot the Kia ora consultant Desley…… Desley Simpson Oh glory Rosina Hauiti 7 ?????? Christopher Fidoe With over 1000 employees earning over $100k no wonder there is a sense of entitlement to those on this ratepayer funded gravy train Len Ward OK so just who is going to be an electable alternative for us to vote for to get rid of this incumbent? Cameron Brewer perhaps Aaron Bhatnagar maybe? Desley Simpson? – now there’s a candidate worth voting for
Ron Hamilton All good people but candidates need to be known outside their immediate patch. I admit to bias but we would hate to lose any of the three people from their Eastern Bays focus! Len Ward Good point Ron – but have you any better suggestions? Alex Swney perhaps? Ron Hamilton Worth considering – candidates need to have a wide public image by now and he does have one. Ben Ross Wait didn’t Swney who did have a high profile image get beaten by Brewer or Lee (which ever Ward Swney stood in) in the last elections? Len Ward So does Rodney Hide – but is he electable versus Mr Mayor Brown? Ben Ross No Ron Hamilton Personally like Rodney but isn’t he responsible for the nonsens of an executive mayor? But I bet he is still disliked by the wider electorate? Len Ward So, the answer to my question seems to be – there is NO suitable and electable candidiate for whom we can vote to unseat the incumbent (is he Lord yet?) Mayor should we wish to do so? Ben Ross Correct Len Ward So the debate about replacing Len Brown seems to be somewhat academic ! Ben Ross Yep. Time to focus on Councillor replacements and Local Boards Millie Liang Agree Ben….Put the broom through the whole place and take the mayor out that way…and whatever happens with the new lot make sure the mayor doesn’t divide and rule them by offering them positions of grandeur to stroke their egos Aaron Bhatnagar Not available. Millie Liang someone ring Sir Bob Jones and tell him to check his rate bills on his Auckland properties and work out how more his tenants can absorb before they leave the buildings… might just get him motivated enough Wayne Davis Communications people there to make everyone rosey, and happy. Should be working with Santa ,on some of the snow jobs they create through dis-content of Ratepayers
Stan Blanch Wayne of course you will remember Taylor?…Makes Rasputin look like a boy scout. Rosina Hauiti I’d vote for you Desley….and I’d work on your campaign.
Angie Cassidy I second this, wholeheartedly. Rosina Hauiti I think all the media type roles could and should be deal with by one person who is multi skilled, ie proficient across a number of disciplines within media and politics. Ailsa Perkins grrrr Cameron Brewer No. Not happy. I have been amassing the Mayoral Office’s full second year costs and assessing his proposed budget for this coming financial year… and it’s not looking for the poor old ratepayer, but will be a big boost to his re-election. Watch this space!
Ron Hamilton Nothing in there that could be referred to the AO re public monies potentially being used for electoral purposes? Millie Liang Hi Ron, I would have thought this section that the mayor signed up to would be good enough to lay a complaint and the resulting world wide publicity into the investigation would keep the mayors pr dept gainfully employed ….. Also what is the total number of paid council spin doctors/secretaries for all the other Councillors compared to what the mayor has on hand.Article 9
Mayors shall be open to public scrutiny of their official actions and those of their staff, including their relationships, contractual and otherwise, with vendors, consultants, and business associates. Mayors shall report any improper actions they witness, such as bribes, kickbacks, and gift offers.
http://www.worldmayor.com/contest_2010/code-of-ethics.html Millie Liang Good on you Cameron. The growing number of concerned ratepayers I’m sure like me, are counting on you to show what is really going on and ratepayers have had enough and aren’t the smiling compliant Muppets he treats us all as with his pr spin and smoke and mirrors.. Just my thoughts Ron Hamilton It will require someone to take ownership of the issue. Seek the information officially (OIA) and then put together a formal complaint. I suggest that it should not be an elected person – presentationally could look bad.
Ben Ross Right what are we LGOIMA-ing here please? Millie Liang You just won yourself another job Ben… Pay non existent… all for the cause Ben) but think of all the national and international media attention and the mayor and his evangelists running to the nearest tv screen where ever they maybe to catch the 6pm news and ohhh the nation glued to Campbell Live not believing what you are exposing…. You can’t buy that sort of publicity as the big league boys know. Rosina Hauiti Yeah ka pai, except you guys sound like a bunch of right wing fundies…which is better fundie right or fundie left. I want fair and centre centre, and I think Desley and Cameron are a good fit. Ron Hamilton What I want is cost-effective Council management and funds used for infrastracture purposes. Touchie-feelie stuff is fine for organisations which have unlimited funds. It is certainly not appropriate for self aggrandisement for any elected official. Or for management’s hobby-horses. Such as white water rafting. Millie Liang Ron can I add…equestrian centre at Dury or the bike/walk way strapped onto the bridge which the council will get to own in 20yrs time when the bridge life span is only 15-20yrs.. Mind you the walkway has a fifty yr life span so could possibly be dismantled at ratepayers expense and rebuilt at Motat (once again at rate payers cost for future generations to view..Surely that beats (at ratepayers expense) chopping it up and shipping it off to china as scrap metal. Ron Hamilton I wish there is some way of copying and pasting this exchange, The new Residents Association is to meet with the Council early next month and this is grist!
-Ends as of 14:45 hours-
I really honestly thought that kind of question would have been asked and answered last year with the alternative candidate now in full swing to building their profile before the elections at the end of the year. Obviously not which means Len is in for a second term…
So who do you think should run AND be mayor – and why?