Category: Hot Discussion

An issue causing hot discussion either here in the blog or in the wider community

The Price Keeps on Rising

·

Art Sculpture Price Tag Keeps on Rising

 

I suppose this is a lesson on not giving a Public Authority a “lead” on a public art project as this Herald article from Bernard Orsman shows below:

 

Cost of State House sculpture rocketed to $1.9 million

5:17 PM Friday Oct 24, 2014 – Bernard Orsman 

A leaked drawing of the State House Sculpture by artist Michael Parekowhai.
A leaked drawing of the State House Sculpture by artist Michael Parekowhai. Source: NZ Herald
A leaked drawing of the State House Sculpture by artist Michael Parekowhai.

The cost of the State House sculpture on Auckland’s Queens Wharf blew out to $1.924 million before being scaled back to $1.5 million, papers show.

Documents released under the Official Information Act to the Herald show the original plan was for the project to be finished in the first few months of this year. The completion date was later revised to February 2015 and is now some time beyond that.

Auckland Council announced plans for the sculpture in March last year, to be funded by a $1 million donation from Barfoot & Thompson, marking the company’s 90 years in business.

The documents show the cost of the sculpture – a “scaled version of a Mount Eden state house” by renowned artist Michael Parekowhai – had reached $1.9 million by May 2013.

Images of the sculpture have been shared with councillors but not the public, causing widespread criticism.

In February, Parekowhai told council public art manager Carole Anne Meehan he did not want early concept drawings and photos of a model to be “distributed publicly by anyone attending” a council meeting.

But several images were leaked to the Herald. They show a typical state house with external stairs leading to a platform offering multiple views of the chandelier filling the interior.

They also show a skylight, to allow cruise ship visitors berthing at Queens Wharf to peer inside the brilliantly coloured and intricate glass garden of native birds, flowers and insects inside the house that will glow softly at night.

A council source said if the council wanted to stuff up the sculpture it could not have done a better job.

Today, council chief operating officer Dean Kimpton said there was no fault with the process, but acknowledged it would have been better to have released images earlier.

He said the design had gone through a number of iterations, saying images and construction dates would be made public in mid-December.

“It is what it is. The design process has taken longer … and we have got a great result from Michael [Parekowhai]. I think the public are going to love it. I’m not anticipating a public backlash,” he said.

Asked about ratepayers underwriting up to $500,000 after the cost ballooned above the initial $1 million budget, Mr Kimpton was confident of attracting sponsorship once images, a story to wrap around it and a building deadline were made public.

He confirmed rumours that other suppliers were being considered for the chandelier, including glassworks in the United States and New Zealand, “but it is likely to be constructed in Italy”.

The documents show that Parekowhai was recommended “after careful consideration” as the “only candidate” for the artwork in late November 2012 after a shortlist of 11 potential artists, whose names were redacted, was drawn up.

Said Ms Meehan on November 26, 2012: “This is the right moment for a significant commission for Auckland by him [Parekowhai], as national and international recognition of his work is climbing.” She also recommended moving the sculpture from the cityside of Queens Wharf, a location “sabotaging” its potential, to the water’s edge at the end of the wharf.

The latest breakdown for the $1.5 million project, includes $705,000 for the chandelier, $415,000 for the building, an artist’s fee of $225,000 and $155,000 for a contingency and development costs.

A council document, dated May 15, says the project is a given and will not go out for public consultation in the new 10-year budget.

—————

Source: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11347859

 

  • $1.5 million project, includes
    • $705,000 for the chandelier,
    • $415,000 for the building,
    • an artist’s fee of $225,000 and $
    • 155,000 for a contingency and development costs.

The whole thing seems Gold Plated and an absolute disaster in handling since day one! Misinformation and lack of clear concise information from Council is certainly not helping either and this will feed on to other projects whether it be public art or something else.

 

Have Your Say on Legal Highs

·

Council Wants Your Say on Legal Highs

 

From Auckland Council:

Time to have your say on the sale of legal highs

 

Aucklanders are being urged to have their say on where psychoactive substances, commonly known as legal highs, can be sold in the city.

The council’s Local Approved Product Policy consultation, which will decide where the products can be sold, opens on Tuesday 28 October and proposes that:

  1. Licenses to sell legal psychoactive substances in all of Auckland (apart from the city centre) will not be granted in:
  • areas of high deprivation
  • neighbourhood centres
  • within 500m of a school teaching students year seven and above
  • within 200m of a school teaching students between years one and six inclusive
  • within 500m of a mental health or addiction treatment centre
  • within 500m of an existing psychoactive substances retail licence
  • areas identified as restricted areas.

 

  1. Licenses to sell legal psychoactive substances in the city centre will not be granted:
  • in areas of residential deprivation
  • within 100m of an existing psychoactive substances retail licence.

 

Councillor George Wood, chairperson of the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee says the council is working hard to ensure the proper, responsible balance is found.

 

“We have done extensive work on this draft policy, to try and minimise the risks to those most vulnerable in our community,” he says.

 

“Our vision, to become the world’s most liveable city, will be achieved in part through Auckland being a safe and healthy city. These proposed measures will help ensure that is the case.

 

“By setting up our policy on the sale of the products before they are licensed by government, we will be prepared for when they are once again legal to sell.

 

“And while we can’t stop their sale altogether, the council is being as responsible as possible by proposing these restrictions of sale.

 

“So we want as many people as possible to have their say on the policy, as the sale of these products has the potential to affect everyone in Auckland. Making your views heard now on this issue is absolutely vital.”

 

The consultation is open from 28 October-28 November and can be completed via shapeauckland.co.nz.

——ends—–

 

Head to Shape Auckland to have your say on where Legal Highs can be sold

 

Criticisms Towards the Council

·

Observers are noting increased Criticisms

 

budget

Note: This does not include reaction to the Air Quality debate as any resentment should be directed at Government where the order came from – not Council who are simply complying with central legislation

It was brought up in conversation over the Long Term Plan that criticisms and resentment towards the Council seems to be more naked, concentrated, and getting rather well-informed than the usual junk you can see often being flung. What makes the criticism more concentrated and naked is that once residents understand how the rating system works they hone their criticisms rather sharply back at the Council. So is such criticism warranted towards the Governing Body or is the City over reacting to the large and wider situation at play.

My own reaction (in-lieu of the discussion) was:

The City is openly critical for three reasons

  1. City Building – not seeing it unless you are in the City Centre or a community getting cut backs (85% of Auckland)
  2. People just want to be left alone, live, work play in a decent city without being rated to hell in back
  3. And the Council (that includes Auckland Transport, and Auckland Council Property Limited) perceived to be well, tone-deaf

 

What is fuelling the criticisms along is the 21 Local Boards send a sharp letter to the Mayor as we can see here: Local Boards Fire Shot Over Mayor’s Bow

If you are looking for a Councillor’s sharp criticism – with me replying back twice then I leave you this from Councillor Chris Fletcher:

Endless meetings and workshops are being held in a desperate attempt to reconcile the Mayor’s 10 year budget with Auckland’s community aspirations. The public were sold a pup during the unitary plan process. It did not duly consider the cost of meeting infrastructure investment with population growth. Furthermore planners were working on a different set of data from infrastructure providers. Now in desperation we are trying to ration sparse resources to ensure we can meet our responsibilities. This has translated into an unacceptable proposal to cut parks and sports investment by nearly 40% over the next 10 years. All of this could have been avoided if there had been leadership in managing the statutory processes bringing policy and funding together in the Auckland Plan, LTP and Unitary Plan.

  • Ben Ross Yes and No Councillor Fletcher. The Central Government can ware some of the blame through the statutory time frame set to the Unitary Plan as well as being too hands off unlike their New South Wales, Victorian, and Queensland counterparts as seen here: https://voakl.net/…/queensland-gets-it-right-auckland…/As for Council well I have seen the Mayor’s 10 Spatial Priorities being floated around. If funding is so limited then wouldn’t be wise to focus on those 10 Spatial Priorities. After five years we move onto another ten and so on and so on.

    Alternative sources of funding have been pointed out to the Council to supplement the rates stream also seen here:https://voakl.net/2014/10/21/questions-around-land-sales/ (you were absent Councillor – I believe at the late Mark Ford’s funeral?) More can be seen here:https://voakl.net/…/the-reaction-to-my-presentation-to…/

    The alternatives and way forward is all there for the Governing Body, whether the Governing Body advances into the 21st Century in thinking, planning and having to go outside the box is yet to be seen

    • Christine Fletcher It is totally irresponsible to commit to new developments knowing we are unable to care for our existing infrastructure with renewals etc. Council should have staged the unitary plan, carefully rolling it out in an orderly and financially sustainable manner with social and physical infrastructure in place. I am absolutely sure government would have supported this process if the issue had been properly presented to them.
    • Ben Ross I would safely the say the Government knows very full well what is going on otherwise the Environment Minister would not be approving SHA’s in North West Auckland (If Adams and now Smith were doing their jobs properly that is).

      Furthermore on that assumption the Government has no appetite to stage any part of the Unitary Plan otherwise the 2016 deadline would have been kicked to say 2018. Procedural Minute 10 from the Hearings Panel also gives weight to that the MofEnviron is again aware but choosing not to intervene in any great measure.      The Ministry for the Environment is about to use a senior analyst to review the Unitary Plan Hearings Processes thus far. What the review will find and whether the Government will intervene from that is yet to be seen.

      All said if the Minister and Ministry have no idea what is really going on since the Unitary Plan went out for notification then what the heck was in their submission and what are they honestly doing that does not involve blinkers.

      Impetus now lays with the Minister

 

Seems Central Government might be partly to blame for where we are if we take both the Unitary Plan and Long Term Plan in account.

 

So are the critiques too harsh, too soft, or about right as we come to the 2015-2025 Long Term Plan – the Council’s master budget document?

 

Council to Bring In New Air Quality Rules

·

Fireplaces to be restricted or banned

 

So much more out there than the CBD Also less smog with the new bylaw?
So much more out there than the CBD
Also less smog with the new bylaw?

 

From Auckland Council – and read the bit in bold carefully too

Proposed Air Quality Bylaw tackles pollution

 

Auckland Council’s Regulatory and Bylaws Committee adopted a draft Air Quality Bylaw today to tackle Auckland’s air pollution. The proposed bylaw has been recommended as a way of meeting national air quality standards, as required by the Government.

In winter, 75 percent of Auckland’s air pollution is due to fine particulate emissions (PM10) from open fires and old, non-compliant wood burners. The inhaling of fine particles – which can lodge in the lungs – has raised the level of respiratory illness in the region, a surprise to many who thought that vehicles or industry pollution was to blame. The proposed Air Quality Bylaw will focus on the management of indoor fires to reduce the emissions of these fine particles into our air.

“It is hard to comprehend that the warmth emanating from that wood fire we enjoy on a cold winter night is the cause of serious health issues.  By concentrating on the air pollution culprit in winter – indoor fires – we will not only achieve cleaner air, we will be well on our way to meeting national air quality standards,” says Calum Penrose, Chair, Regulatory and Bylaws Committee.

The committee held a robust discussion about the various implementation timings of the bylaw and Councillor Penrose was pleased with the resulting recommendation of prohibiting both open fires and older wood burners (pre-2005) in October 2018. This will allow homeowners and landlords time to consider alternative heating sources.

All regional councils are required to monitor air pollution levels to ensure particle concentrations are within National Environmental Standards for Air Quality (AQNES) requirements and that we identify any areas  – airsheds – where air quality may exceed standards. The Ministry for the Environment now requires all councils to meet the AQNES standards with no more than one exceedance per year in a region by 2016. 

The bylaw is expected to be tabled at Auckland Council’s Governing Body meeting later this month.  Calls for public submissions will begin on 10 November.

—-Ends—-

 

The Urban Air Shed where the restrictions will be in place by the order of Central Government per Resource Management Act – National Environmental Standards for Air Quality

 

Some Frequently Asked Questions – and answered