From Yesterday’s Proceedings As usual Bernard Orsman has one heck of a slant on “proceedings” that might happen at a Council Committee meeting. His interpretation was much different then … Continue reading Unitary Plan Report
Tag: Cameron Brewer
Challenge Laid Down To Oppositional Councillors
The Challenge is Laid Who Will Step Up From the Opposition? Answer Thus Far – NO ONE! This morning I threw down a challenge to the oppositional … Continue reading Challenge Laid Down To Oppositional Councillors
Speech From Brewer
Speech from Councillor Cameron Brewer
Delivered to ACT Conference
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.
My dual replies were:
Ben Ross Quoting Two Items from Brewer’s speech:
1) [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]. Seems “they” have given up and resort to attacks if nothing else. I do not personally see a swing over to the hard right and maybe not even centre-right at the moment. So waste of text pixels there as the battle is not up-hill but a cliff that one might not have a clue on how to scale.
2) [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.] I think someone just announced their tilt at mayorship and who would be deputy mayor. George I would distance yourself from that comment quickly – too distracting.
3) [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.] AND repeating the point made in (2) – I do feel sorry for Christ Fletcher there who I consider a reliable work horse with the Unitary Plan and Auckland Transport…
So of little note here – no alternatives, no vision. Something I am missing here
1) [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]. Seems “they” have given up and resort to attacks if nothing else. I do not personally see a swing over to the hard right and maybe not even centre-right at the moment. So waste of text pixels there as the battle is not up-hill but a cliff that one might not have a clue on how to scale.
2) [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.] I think someone just announced their tilt at mayorship and who would be deputy mayor. George I would distance yourself from that comment quickly – too distracting.
3) [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.] AND repeating the point made in (2) – I do feel sorry for Christ Fletcher there who I consider a reliable work horse with the Unitary Plan and Auckland Transport…
So of little note here – no alternatives, no vision. Something I am missing here
And
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.
My “heads up” on the Unitary Plan nearly ready to be released for community feedback can be found at my “UNITARY PLAN READY FOR THE COMMUNITY” post here at BR:AKL.
I shall be back tomorrow with more commentary and idea scoping – all here at BR:AKL
WHO WILL STAND AGAINST LEN (CTD)
More Spin than the Spin Cycle on my Washing Machine
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”
Who Will Stand Against Len
No Alternative Candidate to Run Against Incumbent Mayor?
[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?
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
-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?
Spinning The Spin
Mayor’s Office has Six Spin Doctors?
I kid you not in the fact that the Mayor’s Office with an annual budget of over $3.2 million (of our ratepayers’ dollars) just hired a sixth spin doctor according to Kiwiblog:
From DPF’s Kiwiblog:
Len’s gaggle of spin doctors
February 16th, 2013 at 3:00 pm by David Farrar
Len Brown has just hired his sixth spin doctor. That’s six spin doctors, all funded by the ratepayer, working in Len’s private office. That isn’t six spin doctors for the entire Auckland Council. That is six spin doctors just for Len.
Started this month is Dan Lambert as Len’s propaganda manager. He comes from the United Kingdom.
Dan joins Glyn Jones who was the chief spin doctor, and who is now called Media Communications Manager.
Len also has a senior press secretary, a communications advisor, former Clark spin doctor David Lewis as a media consultant and a speech writer on top of that.
Len has more spin doctors than the entire Parliamentary Labour Party (they have five). The previous Mayor of Auckland had just one – Cameron Brewer.
Should Auckland ratepayers be funding Len’s reelection campaign?
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
Well the question in red-bold is a prudent point as the “opposition” has either been slow or quiet (not going to say inept) in getting their alternative forward.
However while Len spins the spin with his six spin doctors at least Blogs can counter the spin and attempt to hold the Mayor’s Office to account – with this blog doing its part in countering the spin.
Also the last look on Facebook on this Hot Button topic showed that this issue of Len’s Spinners have stirred up the ratepayers quite a bit on two fronts:
- The amount of money being spent on Spin Doctors (where former Mayor John Banks just has one spin doctor – Cameron Brewer)
- No alternative candidate has come forward – leaving it extremely late!
Meanwhile it’s back to transit and urban planning issues with South and Counties Auckland to be the hotbed on those issues (seeming we are bearing the brunt of it)…
The Reality of Parking in the CBD
Even a Parking Operation Admits on Public Transport
And
The Logic I Use When Travelling into The CBD
This morning while reading the morning Facebook comments (politicians and councillors are usually online making their statements for the start of the day) I saw this from Councillor Cameron Brewer in regards to CBD parking:
Cameron Brewer shared a link.
Don’t ever say I’m never nice nor helpful: ‘Mr Brewer, chairman of the Business Advisory Panel, said the council had “done well” to reduce its charges in its three main parking buildings in the central city.’
My friend Alex Swney in the CBD is hoping the private car parking providers will follow suit. In the meantime it’s much cheaper to use council’s Civic, Downtown, and Victoria Street car-parks. That’s my public service announcement for the day…
The article in question from the NZ Herald was this one: Big cities mean big parking bills
As a result I packed the following quip:
Mr Ryan has hit it right on the money – and it is the truth – not that Transport Blog would ever recognise it:
“”The reality is that until Auckland’s public transport services are improved, motor vehicles shall still pour into the city each morning at increasing rates, and these commuters do need to be catered for – and that’s where the private parking companies have a significant role to play.”
That spawned off a few questions in Twitter and Facebook while I was away in Manukau however in reply I posted the following over at ATB’s “The cost of parking:”
Devils advocate time 😀
Popping my head in here after my Twitter and Facebook remarks I would have to be somewhat “brave.” However while I shall reply to my remarks sometime today (or tomorrow) – actually no I can answer it right here below and it seems to (in my eyes) reinforce the point I made that caught the attention of a few here.
I have noticed the quotes quoted above but the most prominent one has been missed – which was a statement from Mr Ryan which gives further weight to the argument of his quoted above:
“”The reality is that until Auckland’s public transport services are improved, motor vehicles shall still pour into the city each morning at increasing rates, and these commuters do need to be catered for – and that’s where the private parking companies have a significant role to play.”
Whether increasing rates or not is playing around with statistics and something I am not interested in for this part of the debate. Mr Ryan has stated (could be that it is an admission) what is basically the truth of the current situation we face in the CBD. Heck I can vouch for that on more than one occasion both when working for a public transport company (now self-employed) or having to go to the CBD for say the Unitary Plan forums last year.
With work in a particular transport company, the position I was in often required me to start or finish outside of public transport hours, so that meant having my parking paid for and a trip in and out of the CBD from Papakura.
The other case was The Unitary Plan forums last year at Town Hall. I had a choice; train or car. I took the car from Papakura to the CBD, parked, attended the forums and went back home again. Why? Because I am a liberal and “operate” in a way that is sensitive to price and time considerations against me. That means I will choose an option that is the least expensive, the most efficient, the easiest to complete, and most efficient in relation to time spent travelling – when about to undertake my travels.
And so all costs (including time and money) considered it was the car that was used as it filled the criteria above when making my travels (and no I don’t like being coerced either into one option when it is more expensive than the other)
So that meant travelling up and down State Highway One and parking in the AT Civic Parking Building – because to use the train took double the time and 1.3x the cost as it would have by car (and also I think the main forum was on a Saturday which drops the trains to Papakura every half hour to boot)
So I can clearly hear what Mr Ryan is saying in his: “”The reality is that until Auckland’s public transport services are improved, motor vehicles shall still pour into the city each morning at increasing rates, and these commuters do need to be catered for – and that’s where the private parking companies have a significant role to play.” remarks.He knows and I know that until P/T is improved (and yes I would assume safely that he knows it is being improved constantly) this is the reality of the situation.
So basically I re-highlighted Mr Ryan’s statement on P/T and parking buildings as well as the “logic” I use when deciding to make trips in this case the CBD but also when travelling through wider Auckland. The logic was simple; price and time and which was better when choosing between private and public transport.
After that I went for the full comprehensive argument in regards to the transit situation:
If you want me to extend this argument to a more fuller comprehensive situation then lets look at a few comments in Facebook
Again in regards to Cameron Brewers remarks and link to THAT Herald article
We paid $24 for just over an hour, at the parking building across from the gallery. Yes, we could have taken the train in – but the Orakei car park is full by 0800. Incidentally, one of the reason’s Liability Len’s inner city loop will fail to achieve the necessary patronage is the lack of suburban car parks.
Yep – can vouch for that when the Papakura Park and Ride is full.However this comment lead me to this which has obviously caught the attention of a few here via Twitter and Facebook
That is correct —-. The rail situation is compounded by the following (and excuse me if I am repeating)
1) Lack of Park and Rides especially at the big stations
2) Lack of feeder buses
3) Lack of cycle lockers
4) Stations in the wrong placeNow all this I am trying to bring to AT’s attention next week at the RPTP hearings (wish me luck there) but until then what Mr Ryan said is true and absolute reality
Mr Ryan has hit it right on the money – and it is the truth – not that Transport Blog would ever recognise it:
“”The reality is that until Auckland’s public transport services are improved, motor vehicles shall still pour into the city each morning at increasing rates, and these commuters do need to be catered for – and that’s where the private parking companies have a significant role to play.”The article can be found here: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10861778
You can figure out what would have caught the attention from the above remark (which was made before the post here went up).If you are trying to understand the “logic” in the quip then sorry not going to explain here – catch up over a coffee, soy latte or an iced drink if you want to understand me and it.
However to me and others I share conversations with it shows the situation which Mr Ryan has stated but Transport Blog did not pick up on (and if so not well enough). This is especially that one could interpret Mr Ryan’s remarks on a read between the lines support in getting p/t to be better (and most likely (if fleshed out fully) as part of a fully integrated transport system – public and private)
Look I would love for the CBD to be free of parking buildings but our P/T system has a very long way to go before that could either be viable. So for now and to me – CBD parking buildings – the necessary “evil”
So basically we have the following:
- A basic admission of truth from a private parking operator in the CBD
- The logic I use when travelling
- The Reality on the CBD and Parking
And I will use a car if it is more efficient in time and money compared to the nearest public transport option okay? As I said I am a (social) liberal and am sensitive to time, price and efficiency considerations; thus if private transport meets my travelling criteria OVER public transport – then so be it. This is why (and said above) I advocate for a fully integrated transport system catering to both public and private transport options – because I know and experience the reality of the situation and sympathise with other citizens in the same boat as me (which might be the bulk of Auckland).
However some (as I do use and will advocate for private transport (as well as public transport)) case me off as the villain due to that (private transport) use and advocacy. As if I care about them. My care is to the citizens and visitors of Auckland and having the full suite of private and public transport options available to them. It is why I advocate the split and private/public integration. And as am example all things considered with Port of Auckland staying put for now I advocate for: The Eastern Highway but; in the same regard advocate for the North Shore, Botany, Airport and South West (Rail) Lines as part of the full integrated transport suite. Oh and as for the Second Harbour Crossing, that would be heavy rail only tunnels – for now.
Also working with politicians on both sides is a must and something I strive to do – both at Central and Local Government Level as it is also a must in getting Auckland moving (forward).
And so this blog will continue to push on
BR:AKL’s full integrated transport suite: starting to turn a good transport system into an advanced integrated transport system – one step at a time 😀
Brewer and Transparency
Some Are – Some Are Not
Transparent…
One thing people like is transparency, especially if it is either their money or lives (livelihoods) being affected by the said corporation or civic institution. In my “What Do I Stand For and Believe In – For a Better Auckland” post I make mention of: “Open Governance: I believe in open governance where the public can sit in, listen and where possible discuss “matters-of-state” as much as possible with their representatives. None of this hiding behind closed doors (except for commercially sensitive material that does come up from time to time), and fessing up when you know you have stuffed up. You might find the public are more sympathetic you one acknowledges and apologies for a legitimate mistake”
By virtue of extension; Open Governance also applies to being transparent to the ratepayer as well – especially in regards to “costs” that come out of the ratepayers pocket.
Yet we have a case of a Council Controlled Organisations (CCO) (Watercare (Auckland Transport figures seems to be out but not released currently)) being transparent with the ratepayer and Councillors , but the Main Council Body not being transparent with the ratepayer and councillors (this especially from the Council Planning Department…).
From the NZ Herald:
Watercare opens up on legal costs
By Bernard Orsman BernardOrsman
5:30 AM Thursday Jan 17, 2013CCO’s willingness to offer data lesson in transparency for council, says councillor.
Watercare Services is teaching its big brother Auckland Council a lesson in accountability and transparency by releasing details of how much it is spending with city law firms.
Auckland Council is refusing to release details of millions of dollars of spending with city law firms, saying it may prejudice future negotiations.
The only information the council’s general counsel, Wendy Brandon, is prepared to release is that the council uses a number of law firms and the five highest paid over the past two years were Brookfields, Buddle Findlay, Kensington Swan, Meredith Connell and Simpson Grierson – in alphabetical order.
Ms Brandon’s insistence to limit the details of legal costs from ratepayers is not shared by Watercare’s corporate affairs manager, David Hawkins, who has given a breakdown of 33 law firms used by the council body in the past two years and how much each was paid from total spending of $6.26 million.
The figures ranged from $522 to Rob Webber and Associates to $2,686,705 to Russell McVeagh.
The approaches are outlined in information collected by councillor Cameron Brewer into legal costs by the council and seven council-controlled organisations (CCOs).
The figures show that legal costs for Watercare and Auckland Transport increased by 34 per cent and 127 per cent respectively between 2011 and 2012, which both CCOs put down to costs for big construction projects.
Council acting chief executive and chief finance officer Andrew McKenzie said that overall the Auckland Council group had cut its legal costs by about $3.6 million, or just over 9 per cent.
Mr Brewer said Watercare’s 34 per cent rise in outside legal costs did not make good reading, but at least they did not hide behind the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act. “Watercare didn’t see the need to protect themselves or the legal firms they use, so I can’t see why the rest of the council can’t show the same transparency.”
…
You can read the rest over at the Herald.
So Watercare have stumped up but the Main Council will not (while waiting on AT).
Councillor Brewer had this further to say:
From NewsTalk ZB
Councillor calls for transparency over legal costs
By: Aroha Tahau | Latest Auckland News | Friday January 18 2013 10:17
One Auckland City councillor is appalled the council won’t publicly release details on how much its paying different legal firms.The council’s total legal bill this year was 21 million dollars, but when councillor Cameron Brewer asked about a break down of where the funds were going, the council refused. Councillor for Orakei, Cameron Brewer says Mayor Len Brown promised transparency and now he needs to publicly say what money is going to different legal firms.
“Ratepayers deserve to know where in fact council is spending its legal budget. At this stage we know that they’re spending over $21 million per annum but they refuse to tell us what legal companies are indeed benefiting.
“I’m calling for the council to come clean, to be transparent, something that the mayor campaigned on and actually come out with how much we’re paying what legal firms around Auckland.”
And from Facebook:
Cameron Brewer shared a link.
The council has refused to release me information about how much they are paying each of the city’s big law firms. Today I call on them to show the same transparency Watercare has shown. Going to the Ombudsman may be my only option. The council group spends over $21m a year on legal bills. Should the public know where this is going?Watercare opens up on legal costs – National – NZ Herald NewsWatercare Services is teaching its big brother Auckland Council a lesson in accountability and transparency by releasing details of how much it is spending with city law firms.
-
-
Alice-Margaret Midgley Absolutely agree Cameron.
-
Ben Ross Okay – what are the officers hiding now?
-
Stephen Maire How can Brown refuse??? Still another valid reason to cease paying rates imo.
-
Ben Ross By law and definition he can not refuse. Watercare I take my hat off to, yeah their Legal Bills might of been ugly per se but least they released them immediately so that I cant get double angry on the actual bills AS WELL AS stalling. Sure I might be peeved with Watercare over their legal bills, but that peeved will last around 2 seconds and all is well.
As for the Main Council, well stalling now keeps the anger sustained much longer and will have me peering through the eventual reports with an electron microscope.
The old saying goes: You get pulled over by a cop, you hand over your licence and answer his questions true-fully with no added lip and you walk away with a fine. Give him lip and hello he is going to do the full works including Rego, WoF, tyres, springs, rust, position of plates, lights and even maybe the horn. Not only is that time consuming for you but your risk of the dreaded pink sticker became that much higher – al because you gave lip
Council is now in the same situation… which means – idiots
-
-
Gary Holmes So…. the council is more than happy to release details on the private lives of elected members via the annual declaration of interest (which i still refuse to complete) but won’t tell us how they are spending ratepayers money. The old Auckland City practice of officers thinking they control the place continues I see……..Mark Donnelly That’s incredible arrogance! Can’t see how they can justify not giving you the information. Can’t be private commercial, as anyone who contracts with Council knows it can become public knowledge – look at Tender information.
-
Ben Ross Umm with respect I think the idea might not be to bring attention to one’s self especially with the Annual Declaration of Interest List – the idea is not give someone an idea to go having a look through there especially with elections so close .
However for the rest of the argument yes I agree with you there Gary
Hey now that Main Council is stalling while Watercare is playing ball – shall we now look at the rest of the CCOs? -
Aaron Bhatnagar Actually, I found Auckland City officers pretty responsive to our directives to open up matters. Things under the Hubbard term was pretty bad, but the Banks Term part 2 was widely acknowledged as good for transparency and openness. A lot of stuff that was done in confidential committee work was put back into open. Stuff that was confidential was done for discussion, and then when the result was achieved, the results could be released into the open. Stopped the political leaking by both sides too.
-
Gary Holmes Good point Ben however its worth considering why do they council need to know who your partner or spouse works for, who you bank with, what groups you are a member of, what companies you have shares in and the list goes on. As Local Board Members, who have no decision making ability on contracts etc, it is not required, especially when the Council imposed that code of conduct on Local Boards without consultation. I have fought this one for the past two years and will continue to do so! Time for that coffee Ben
-
Ben Ross Time for that Coffee indeed – I shall reply to that in a moment (needing coffee at home right now – going to be a very long day here)
-
-
Stephen Maire Brown is the picture of arrogance unfortunately. He thinks its leadership style. But he is deluded and possibly mentally unfit for his position. Heart attack survivors often suffer such mental malady.
-
Gary Holmes i don’t necessarily think this is the mayor’s decision, more likely to be the CEO and his senior management.
-
Stephen Maire The buck stops with Brown. He must have full knowledge of this. If he does not, then we have a serious problem that needs immediate attention and action on behalf of the ratepayer.
-
Robyn Forryan Keep pushing Cameron you are already having an impact and the public have the right to know this information.
-
Stephen Maire And we shall also remember and be exceedingly grateful for your efforts on our collective behalf Mr. Brewer.
-
Jules Clark What’s required is some CPR … “Cease Paying Rates”!
-
David Cooper Keep pushing Cameron you will out of a job soon..
-
Wayne Davis You can bet the TOP guys are getting a GOOD shot at any fees,same as Council consultants. The Waitakere City Council had Kennsington Swann, hate to think what Auckland Council use!!
Open Governance which includes being transparent with costs and actions by your civic institutions.
My point was made above in regards to one aspect of being transparent – especially if some flak or anger might come your way:
“By law and definition he can not refuse. Watercare I take my hat off to, yeah their Legal Bills might have been ugly per se but least they released them immediately so that I can’t get double angry on the actual bills AS WELL AS stalling. Sure I might be peeved with Watercare over their legal bills, but that peeved will last around 2 seconds and all is well.
As for the Main Council, well stalling now keeps the anger sustained much longer and will have me peering through the eventual reports with an electron microscope.
The old saying goes: You get pulled over by a cop, you hand over your licence and answer his questions true-fully with no added lip and you walk away with a fine. Give him lip and hello he is going to do the full works including Rego, WoF, tyres, springs, rust, position of plates, lights and even maybe the horn. Not only is that time-consuming for you but your risk of the dreaded pink sticker became that much higher – al because you gave lip
Council is now in the same situation… which means – idiots”
This would stem from this part in the “What Do I Stand For and Believe In – For a Better Auckland:” None of this hiding behind closed doors (except for commercially sensitive material that does come up from time to time), and fessing up when you know you have stuffed up. You might find the public are more sympathetic you one acknowledges and apologies for a legitimate mistake.”
While Watercare have not stuffed up per se (still got questions on a big jump with the legal bills for last year however) at least they have made deliberate attempts to annoy Councillors or ratepayers – thank you Watercare.
As for the Council Main Body – we hiding something that we ought to know about? It is our money you know…
THE ACHILLES HEEL OF C&R – CTD
Open Schism in C&R Exposed
And so I go trundling through Facebook and Twitter this morning (as I usually do) and I notice this crop up which links to an article from Bernard Orsman and the NZ Herald:
Council duo attack rail link spend
C&R ticket divided on Mayor Brown‘s $2.86 billion policy, with some comparing it to a ‘black hole of Calcutta‘.
Spending on rail in Auckland has been compared to a “black hole of Calcutta” as right-leaning councillors take an increasingly strident line against Mayor Len Brown’s $2.86 billion city rail link.
Communities & Residents councillors George Wood and Dick Quax are openly contradicting their ticket’s policy of support for the rail link by saying it does not stack up and calling for a halt.
C&R leader and rail supporter Christine Fletcher is playing down the divisions in the caucus, saying Mr Wood and Mr Quax have always had “extreme” views and the ticket is a broad church.
Mrs Fletcher insisted the C&R policy of supporting the rail link and land purchases, but not approving a start on construction until funding is in place, “was the policy” and had the backing of candidates chosen for next year’s local body elections.
The views of Mr Wood and Mr Quax – half the C&R caucus of four councillors – have hardened in the past week with the release of a Horizon Research poll showing 64 per cent of Aucklanders support the rail link and a leaked report saying rush-hour traffic in central Auckland will slow to walking pace in 10 years without the rail project.
Mr Quax said the rail project made little sense because it would gobble up 80 per cent of the public transport capital budget over the next 10 years when much-needed bus lanes and ferry terminals received a “paltry” 20 per cent.
“The Government has made it quite clear that it does not see the central rail link as a transport priority project. The numbers don’t stack up. For every dollar it returns just 40c and will only remove 1400 cars per day from the road.”
Mr Wood said he supported the project “sometime in the future”, which Auckland Transport said could be 2025 and the Government 2030, subject to it being financiallyviable.
“Rail is a ‘black hole of Calcutta’ and is soaking up 80 per cent of the public transport budget and costing ratepayers around $461 million over the next three years,” he said.
“There is a lot to be done in other areas before we get into sucking all the lifeblood out of Auckland into this one project.”
Centre-right and independent councillor Cameron Brewer is also becoming increasingly concerned about the cost of the rail link after initially supporting the project and work to secure the designation and buy properties along the 3.5km underground route.
Mr Brewer said he had yet to be convinced about the cost and benefits of the project, including the benefits to nearly 90 per cent of Aucklanders who do not work or live in the CBD who may have to pay for it through tolls or a regional petrol tax.
Mr Brown did not want to comment about C&R’s internal wranglings on the rail link, but said he could not see how councillors could ignore the latest poll.
“The poll showed overwhelming support for the city rail link and integrated bus and rail improvements to public transport across Auckland.”
Rail wrangle
•C&R councillors George Wood and Dick Quax blast the $2.86 billion rail link
•C&R leader Christine Fletcher says the ticket supports the link
•Mayor Len Brown points to a poll showing 64 per cent support
Did I not ask the last week to Communities and Residents (C&R) for a UNIFIED Policy Statement on the City Rail Link? I think I did in this particular post: THE ACHILLES HEEL OF C&R. With the question being in that post: “Is Communities and Residents (C&R) Actually Unified?”
Well if you read the article above, I think the answer is a firm ‘NO!’ Especially after the language exchange from Councillors’ Wood, Quax and C&R Council Leader Chris Fletcher…
And so where am I going with this?
Well if we want to avoid this parody below I think it might be seriously time to take the broom out, brush out the cobwebs and inject some new blood into Council. And by new blood I mean electing no-one that has served on a legacy Council prior to the current Auckland Council.
Yes that picture still gets the laughs every time someone goes at posts it.
But in any case, can Auckland really afford a fractured Council in the most pivotal period of our future (2013-2016). Pivotal meaning that what ever Council does in 2013-2016 will affect Auckland quite easily for the next 50 years. So no pressure there folks 😛
A schism has been exposed in the primary (heck that is loose when they only hold 19% of the voting power in the current Council) centre-right party “ticket” which can result in being the catalyst to a fractured Council after the elections next year. It is something I clearly do no want, and nor does Auckland!
I have warned aspirant Councillor Cameron Brewer about the City Rail Link on Facebook:
Cameron Brewer, I had noticed this after C&R developed a schism that the ratepayer has noticed: “Mr Brewer said he had yet to be convinced about the cost and benefits of the project, including the benefits to nearly 90 per cent of Aucklanders who do not work or live in the CBD who may have to pay for it through tolls or a regional petrol tax”
That argument about the CBD can be shot to pieces by anyone from the Centre like myself OR the Centre-Left with a simple and slick marketing campaign that would have Auckland Transport envious on the City Rail Link. This resulting in the Centre-Right’s flank being awfully exposed in the campaign next year.I might go an expose that flank now in a post of mine and see where we go over the next 10 months
So as ratepayers and voters next year we have a collective decision to make; do we bring in a unified and progressive Council that will take us forward for the next 50 years, or a fractured Council that will cause us to backslide in the mud for the next 50 years.
Again as candidate to the Papakura Local Board in next year’s Local Elections you can check my baseline policies and stance on the City Rail Link
2013 – Your City, Your Call
An Investigation
Rates Due to Hike Again – So Time for An Investigation
Okay, some idiot in Council mentioned rates and rates rises again giving the hapless ratepayer a sour stomach as we approach Summer and the Silly Season (although for Council, it is always the Silly Season with the Ratepayer Credit Card). Here is a piece from Councillor Cameron Brewer via Facebook with all the comments below (I am pasting this to draw context on where I am going with this):
Despite inflation running at just 0.8%, rates keep going up and on the isthmus service levels fall. In the Mayor’s draft 2013/14 budget released today road-side berm mowing will be axed in the old Auckland City area. Wards like Orakei will soon be paying more for even less.
Another service reduction for old Auckland City area | Voxy.co.nzAuckland Mayor Len Brown’s draft budget for 2013/14 released today will cut out a long-held lawn mowing service for residents living in the old Auckland City area who are the same ratepayers stung the hardest with ongoing rates increases, says Auckland Councillor for Orakei Cameron Brewer.
The Governing Body can not touch the 33% as it is ring fenced to Local Boards. This also includes the Governing Body unable to hike the rates beyond 1.6x the rate of inflation at max with all spending spelled out per the current Better Local Government MK II Bill/Act/Paper
It would have been reasonable to expect significant cost efficiencies to arise from the Auckland SuperCity merger — reduced duplication of effort and infrastructure being the efficiencies that spring immediately to mind.And it would have been reasonable to expect the rate take to stay stable and/or for services to be improved for the same cost, or more likely to decrease in cost as these efficiencies filtered their way down…
…but no. Exactly the opposite has happened.
(Makes marks of the Balanced Scorecard)
Auckland Mayor Len Brown is proposing a rates rise of between 1.9 per cent and 2.9 per cent in next year’s election-year budget.
A 2% increase, within that context, is utterly unnecessary and obscene.) is the name of the game and something those serious about fiscal prudence need to adhere too. The idea was in my submission to the (now failed) Long Term Plan. Busy writing post now on this
Okay so that is the discussion as of when I was writing this post. But the situation that I think is worth investigating is bulk funding Local Boards as I have suggested above:
Just a refresher (just in case) Bulk Funding the Local Boards goes like this. Orakei currently pays $106m in rates to the “Council” yet “Council” only gives $10m (about 10%) back to Orakei to run its Local Board and services. The proposal I am running with is Orakei pays $106m to “Council” and Council gives back (and that is a must, no if’s buts or maybes) 25-33% (up to Local Board’s decision on level) back to Orakei so Orakei can run and maintain its Local Community Services, Events plus any CAPEX spending as it sees fit (of course with dialogue with its residents and businesses).
The Governing Body can not touch the 33% as it is ring fenced to Local Boards. This also includes the Governing Body unable to hike the rates beyond 1.6x the rate of inflation at max with all spending spelled out per the current Better Local Government MK II Bill/Act/Paper
That policy piece stems from at least half of my What I Believe In for a Better Auckland fundamentals which I am going to pitch to voters at next year’s Local Government Elections (running for Papakura Local Board). The fundamentals being applied here are:
- Strong but no interfering Governance: Meaning Council shows active and real leadership but does not interfere with the daily lives of residents and businesses
- Finances: If my family has to live within its means then so does the civic institutions that impact on us greatly (that being Council and Government). You work out your income, then what you can spend on – NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND as with Auckland Council
- Keeping It Local: Large centralised civic institutions seem impersonal (if not frightening) to most us. So how about keeping it Local and allow our Local Boards to be resourced properly so they can execute their true functions of local advocacy and providing our local community parks and services for us.
- Basics first: One thing I learnt when I moved out from the parents’ home and struck it out in the real world (including getting married and owning our first house) is that with the limited resources you have got, you did the basics first then with anything left over you just might be able to afford a luxury. Same applies to our civic institutions; they have limited resources so get the basics right first then “treat yourself or others” to a luxury if you are able to do so once the basics are taken care of.
- Listen and Engage: God gave us two ears and one mouth. In my line of work you actively listen with both ears THEN engage in dialogue with your one mouth. Not the other way around as that is usually monologue and the fastest way to get your ears clipped. Same applies to civic institutions: you actively listen with both ears THEN engage in dialogue with your one mouth unless you like getting your ears clipped… Oh and remember some days all the person wants you to do is JUST LISTEN to their little piece – as all we want some days is just to get it off our chests.
- Stay out of my way: I believe in the following strongly “Individual Freedom -> Individual Choice -> Individual Responsibility (oh and do not forget the consequences)” I am an adult who can make choices for myself (whether it was right or wrong), treat me as such rather than a child.
Actually that is 3/4 of my fundamentals being applied from the bulk funding of Local Boards proposal.
But the point I am going to pitch strongly to Papakura (in fact most likely to be the strongest as all other fundamentals technically stem from it) is Point Three (in bold):
Keeping It Local: Large centralised civic institutions seem impersonal (if not frightening) to most us. So how about keeping it Local and allow our Local Boards to be resourced properly so they can execute their true functions of local advocacy and providing our local community parks and services for us.
It is of my strongest belief that the Local Boards are in a better position than the main council and bureaucracy to deliver your local community services as well as being the main calling point from local residents (so you) in advocacy issues. And none more so with being the main calling point for advocacy that urban development within their jurisdictions.
In my submission to the Auckland Plan, and in my pitching to the Civic Forum of the Unitary Plan; I pushed for Local Boards working with planners in delivering the urban development outcomes in Auckland. An excerpt from my submission:
The main crux of the SLPD would come from the: decentralised, semi-regulated, collaborative, efficient, simplistic and affordable approach to LADU. This is how the crux or ideal would be achieved:
- Under SLPD’s the decisions and/or oversight would be with the Local Community Board rather than the centralised Council
- Council provides a statement of intent (The Auckland Plan) and action plan for Auckland (Auckland Long Term Plan) over the next period of time
- Council provides a mediation service when there is a dispute with an SLPD
- Council assists Local Community Boards with resources required when an SLPD is being carried out
- SLPD follows the Philosophies of Land Allocation/Development/Utilisation (mentioned page 14)
- Simplified Zoning
- Collaboration between the Local Board, Community and Developer (allowing greater flexibility and response to community concerns and needs/desires)
As well as
So in the end the SLPD-LADU model follows a hybrid of Houston’s method of urban planning and (to a limited extent) the (although simplistic and maybe crude compared to reality) techniques used in Sim City Four!
In short this is how the SLPD-LADU would work:
- Council provides its goal/vision for the wider city over a period of time
- Council provides a framework on how it would like to reach that goal
- Council and the Local Community Boards begin the SLPD-LADU Process by:
- Created a SLPD which “maps out” the local area’s intentions
- Zoning or rezoning begins
- Memorandum of Understanding between Council (if required), the Local Community Board and developers in developing the land (but complies with the Region LADU Philosophies previously mentioned)
- Development begins
- Development is then underway with the developer having to provide these basic provisions inside the zoning area – effectively zone or zoned district or districts:
- Water infrastructure for the district
- Electricity infrastructure (in coordination with the local lines company)
- Telecommunications infrastructure (in coordination with whoever is contracted to provide phone/broadband cabling
- Basic park/recreation facilities (set a minimum percentage of total developed area within the zoned district (except for “pure” industrial land)(percentage to be determined at a later date))
- Basic street network (that can be readily connectable to the main transit system)
- Allow for provision of a mass transit system if one is required (often in medium and higher density zoning districts)
- After completion, the corresponding infrastructure of the zoned district would be allowed and capable of connecting to the existing city infrastructure
You can see the rest of the Submission that covers Land Use (urban development) in the embed below.
But as you can see I am pushing for democracy to return to the Local Boards and costs to be brought back under control. I will run further commentary in my Civic Forum update but in regards to Council finances and debt, check my submission to the LTP via the link below as both submissions are interlinked.
2013 you will need to decide how you want your Local Board(s) to work for you (and how it should be resourced). We all have a long road ahead but I advocate for local (community) democracy and basics first in regards to finances for you the Papakura ratepayer. Yes we all need to work together for a better Auckland, but also we need to work and focus closer to home – a better Papakura. Because a Better Papakura that you love and enjoy to live in contributes to a better healthier Auckland!
Check my commentary on the Unitary Plan and the pitch for local democracy and moving away from big stick regulation in building outcomes for housing, transport and the (physical and human) environment!
Submission to LTP where I mention a Debt and Finance Policy for Council
Submission to Auckland Plan
Talking Southern Auckland 