Tag: Len Brown

Legitimate Concerns with the Unitary Plan?

·

What Do you Think?

 

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

Support for draft plan ‘fading fast’

By Wayne Thompson

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

…

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

There are several messages cropping up here:

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

Time will tell

 

2040 Has an Alternative

· 3 Comments ·

Thoughts and Comments?

 

2040 Auckland and the Character Coalition have released a statement and letter on their alternative for the Unitary Plan. Please not I am not endorsing or disagreeing (yet), just seeking YOUR thoughts on what they have to say.

From 2040 Auckland and the Character Coalition

Auckland Mayor Len Brown and Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse meet Auckland 2040 Group for

Urgent Talks about Unitary Plan

 

Auckland 23 May 2013

 

In response to mounting public outrage following Auckland 2040’s disclosure of the implications behind critical elements of the draft unitary plan, Auckland 2040 Founders Richard Burton and Guy Haddleton met this week with the Mayor, and Deputy Mayor for intensive discussions.

 

The meeting was constructive, with the Mayor willing to consider proposals put forward by Auckland 2040 for amendments to the plan. He also expressed a commitment to have a fair and meaningful dialogue with Auckland 2040 over the next few months, stating that the Unitary Plan would not be notified in September until 80-90% of the issues were resolved.

 

Following the meeting, Auckland 2040 has submitted their proposals in a letter to the Mayor and is now awaiting feedback.

 

Comments Richard Burton, “I look forward to the healthy public debate that will emerge from our proposal and our participation in on-going discussions with Council”

 

Letter to Auckland Mayor below:

 

22 May 2013

 

His Worship the Mayor

 

Our thanks to you and Deputy Major Ms P Hulse for taking the time to meet with Auckland 2040 and the Character Coalition yesterday. We were very pleased to read in the NZ Herald that you agreed with much of what we said.

 

A fundamental issue in looking at the future growth of Auckland is the extent to which Auckland is likely to grow over the next 30 years. That Auckland is growing and will continue to grow is undisputed; it is the rate and extent of growth which is at issue. Significant under or over estimation can have profound effects on future planning. We request that Auckland City:

 

  • Be completely transparent in revealing the statistical justification for Council’s 1,000,000 population increase forecast for the next 30 years

 

  • Reconsider the Auckland population estimate of 1,000, 000 additional population over the next 30 years to align with Statistics NZ Medium estimates. Overseas cities generally adopt the Medium estimate in planning for growth and then monitor that estimate over time, with adjustments up or down depending on actual growth. The High estimate as used by Auckland Council may overstate actual growth by as much as 50%. Overstating the population increase has serious implications on infrastructure and the need for high density intensification and or greenfields development.

 

 

The Draft Unitary Plan has been prepared on the basis of an additional 1,000,000 population over 30 years. Even if Auckland reaches such growth levels, it will not happen overnight but rather in a progressive incremental manner. It is thus logical to release land for intensification and green field’s development in a staged manner. To zone immediately 56% of Auckland’s residential areas for unrestrained, scattered apartment development is neither logical nor staged. Neither would immediate release of greenfields land sufficient for 400,000 people be logical or staged. Fortunately no-one is suggesting the latter.

 

We are not opposed to intensification, nor apartment development. We are opposed to scattered, un-planned, uncoordinated developments with no or inadequate consideration of urban character values, heritage values or infrastructure and no community consultation.

 

Certainty in an urban framework context is of fundamental importance to most people living in or buying into neighbourhoods. While alteration or addition of dwellings is largely accepted, structures introducing a different, more discordant building form are strongly opposed. Many residential areas have a mature character with established dwellings and streetscapes. Some have a dominant heritage character. Many of the most popular areas have had significant infill, but the infill is of a similar character to the existing housing so is accepted, albeit reluctantly in some quarters. Apartment buildings are a very alien building form in those streetscapes and the uncertainty of whether this form of development will occur in “my street” is what is galvanizing Aucklanders to object to Council’s proposals.

 

Auckland 2040 and the Character Coalition request that Council approach the Unitary Plan in a more planned and staged manner. Specifically Council should reduce the amount of land zoned for apartment development and instead have a more targeted focus providing development opportunities while preserving most of the existing residential areas.

 

If demand indicates more apartment zoned land is required, Council can undertake the appropriate neighbourhood or town centre studies with meaningful community involvement prior to release of more land for redevelopment. If full structure planning is required prior to release of greenfields land then why should not the same apply to intensification proposals within the existing urban area?

 

The following proposals should be considered in the context of the above statements. We request the Auckland Council give consideration to the following proposed amendments to the Unitary Plan:

 

 

  1. The introduction of a new residential Infill Zone which allows one and two storey buildings only and permits infill at a density of one unit per 350m2 net site area. This zone to be applied to the majority of the residential areas and in particular to residential areas which:
    1. Retain a strong residential character of 1 –2 story dwellings ,or
    2. Have significant heritage values, or
    3. Are close to sensitive environments such as the coast, lakes, volcanic cones, or
    4. Have been subject to considerable infill development, but which retain predominantly stand-alone housing, or
    5. Have topographical challenges which would tend to increase the adverse effects of apartment buildings

 

  1. The Mixed Housing Zone be restricted to areas in close proximity to town centers or selected arterial routes with good roading, public transport and infrastructure and which do not have the characteristics in (1) above.

 

  1. The Terrace House and Apartment Zone be confined to areas immediately adjoining inner city or Metropolitan Centres, plus the major town centres subject to (5) below.

 

  1. Development controls to be reconfigured to address adjoining property effects, and height limits to be restricted by full discretionary activity status, including public notification and affected party’s consents for exceeding height.

 

  1. That Metropolitan, Town Centre and neighbourhood studies be undertaken with community involvement to determine the most appropriate zoning mix after due consideration of existing urban character, heritage values, infrastructure and traffic. That Council reconsider town centre studies undertaken by previous council’s or Environment Court decisions affecting specific areas and incorporate the principal findings of those studies/decisions into the Unitary Plan.

 

 

  1. That should Council determine that additional intensification is warranted in the future due to increased demand, Council undertake structure planning of the areas where intensification is planned. Such structure planning should be similar in scope to that required for greenfields planning and have an aim of achieving a significant degree of community consensus.

 

 

We would welcome the opportunity to discuss these proposals in a constructive manner with Council and senior staff.

 

 

 

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Guy Haddleton, Auckland 2040

Richard Burton, Auckland 2040

Sally Hughes, Character Coalition

 

 

About Auckland 2040

 

Auckland 2040 is a newly formed grass roots organization of non political residents passionately concerned about the future planning and shape of Auckland. Its web site is www.auckland2040.org.nz

 

Comments and thoughts in the comment box below

 

Those Secret Papers are Back Again

·

Slow News Day?

 

I see Orsman is banging on about secret papers again with the Unitary Plan:

Mayor to decide release of secret housing zone papers

By Bernard Orsman

 

Auckland Mayor Len Brown is sitting on secret documents about controversial plans which would make up to three-storey apartments possible in half of residential Auckland.

The Herald asked Mr Brown on Tuesday to release documents used to draw up the mixed housing and terraced housing and apartment zones in the new planning rulebook, or Unitary Plan.

The request was made under the emergency provisions of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act so they could be made public before feedback on the draft plan closes on May 31. Last night, a spokesman for Mr Brown said the mayor’s office was working through the request and would provide a response shortly.

The documents were the basis for a political working party to develop heights and controls for the two zones that have a profound effect on more than half of residential Auckland. The working party, which meets behind closed doors, makes recommendations to the Auckland Plan committee which discusses issues in public.

A member of the political working party said officers provided no in-depth analysis on the two zones and had belatedly revealed the three-storey height limit in the mixed housing zone.

 

I was sure I have covered this before so I went for a look and found this:

THOSE SECRET PAPERS

Posted by BR:AKL_Admin01 on April 30, 2013 · Leave a Comment(Edit)

Where’s Wally?

 

…

You can go read the piece by clicking the respective hyperlink.

 

After digging that post up I went digging through the emails again as I remember a conversation about those papers. Yep the emails are still there from April 29. The emails gave rise to my particular post on April 30 and seem to give rise to this post today.

 

Now this presents an interesting situation which has two possible paths:

  1. There is more to those papers than I got led to believe on April 29. This means the mayor and deputy mayor might need to come clean here if this the case. While I have respect for the Deputy Mayor that respect can be lost fast if I was led to believe one thing when the opposite occurred. Trust and confidence applies here
  2. Orsman is full of crap again and rehashing a month old story. While that would be nothing particularly new I noted this remark “A member of the political working party said officers provided no in-depth analysis on the two zones and had belatedly revealed the three-storey height limit in the mixed housing zone” to which I can think of two Councillors who might say that. If that is the case then a leak perhaps to substantiate the claim. Otherwise the city is running around like headless chickens (cue the Julia Gillard headless chook experiment video which actually you should watch. Just replace Gillard with Len Brown and you should get the rest) to which Kevin Rudd‘s quip: “Everyone should take a very LONG cold shower” could very well apply to the Unitary Plan as it stands.

 

So what path we will all go down is now on apparently what the mayor is meant to release “shortly.”

 

The city waits

 

 

 

Government to Impinge on Council Sovereignty

· 2 Comments ·

The Housing Accord is an Affront to Auckland

 

 

The debate on the Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas is still happening live in Parliament as I wrote this. But the Government is bringing through the Legislative processes with the Housing Accord and Special Housing Area material announced today in Budget 2013.

 

I have posted my swift reactions against the Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas in my “THE MUCH-ADO-ABOUT-NOTHING ACCORD” and “HOUSING ACCORD RELEASED” posts. Today I noted this in regards to the Housing Accord:

From TVNZ

“If passed, the Bill will allow the Government to intervene in instances where accord cannot be reached in establishing special housing areas and issuing consents for developments.”

 

I have noted the Mayor (Len) has also released his comments on the Housing Accord and the SHA’s:

More work needed on housing accord bill – Auckland Mayor

 

Auckland Mayor Len Brown has welcomed the introduction of legislation for housing accords, but says he will be seeking clarification on a number of points to ensure the final legislation is consistent with the draft Auckland Housing Accord.

“There are clauses in the bill introduced today that appear to be inconsistent with the Auckland Housing Accord,” says Len Brown.

“My expectation is that the Select Committee process will provide an opportunity to clear up these inconsistencies.

“Clearly, in relation to the accord, the point of the legislation is to give effect to the agreements we reached.

“The accord still needs to be considered and agreed by the Auckland Council’s Governing Body. Before we can do this we need to be certain that the legislation is consistent with the agreements in the accord.

Len Brown said he would be writing to Housing Minister Nick Smith to raise questions about the consistency of the accord and the current bill.

The Housing Accord is an agreement between Auckland Mayor Len Brown and the Minister of Housing aimed at tackling issues of housing affordability and supply in Auckland.

It is subject to agreement by Auckland Council.

The streamlined consenting process outlined in the accord can only take effect once the council’s draft Unitary Plan is adopted for notification – expected to be September this year.

Ends

 

To me however, I see this as direct attack on Council Sovereignty and the Auckland region. My reasons are made very clear in my previous posts mentioned above (and with links provided) on why I see the Accord as an attack on Council Sovereignty. The further point made and illustrated in bold from TVNZ provides the fish-hook that makes my view clear on this attack from Wellington.

I also note my earlier comment on our planning history here in Auckland:

Of note that the National Government in the 90s decentralised planning and removed itself largely from it with the introduction of the Resource Management Act 1991. This would replace the Town and Country Act and hand over to Councils primary planning powers. Now in 2013 a National Government is seeming to want to re-centralise planning powers away from Councils with its Much-Ado-About-Nothing Accord – the Housing Accord.
Impinging on Council Sovereignty – A Stalinist Move, not a (Social and (Neo)) Liberal move that the Party was founded on in 1936

 

So the remark made a few days ago especially to Monty Python and Fish Slapping continues:

The heavy questioning will continue until all the straight answers are given about the Much-Ado-About-Nothing Accord and those Special Housing Areas that are satisfactory to the city – something we are not getting at the moment if the Facebook comments are anything to go by. I wonder if that is because there is no satisfactory answer to a process that is:

  • Anti-Democratic
  • Anti-Auckland
  • Rough-shodding the Unitary Plan Process
  • Short circuiting the Rural Urban Boundary process still under consideration and consultation (and being treated separate to the full Unitary Plan)
  • Does not answer about provision of employment centres that can not be expanded nor built until the Unitary Plan is in operation anyhow (so three years?)
  • Relate back to infrastructure provisions that Council can not provide for (more broke than the girls from 2 Broke Girls) not has a decent plan on (the Auckland Transport Integrated Transport Plan failure)
  • And how does this make things affordable when there are five major prongs to housing affordability:
    • Land
    • Construction Costs
    • Council Fees and Contributions
    • Financing and wages
    • Infrastructure provision

Ah dear – some people should honestly not meddle in things beyond their comprehension (Dr Nick Smith and might as well be the entire Government at this rate). As for the Councillors backing the Much-Ado-About-Nothing-Accord I invite you to Karaka tonight and listen in on what could very well happen in a Special Housing Area and how that has upset residents from all sides of the divide…

In conclusion? More Monty Python Fish Slapping still to come

 

And yes even as a Nat Party member I see the Accord as an affront to my home, my city and to liberal ideals…

 

 

Mayor Supports South East Highway

·

Mayor Supports Redoubt Road – Mill Road Arterial

 

Last month in my “ROAD PLAN CONCERNS” post I had noted Auckland Transport‘s continued progress on moving towards the construction of the 4-lane “bypass” from the Manukau Motorway Interchange (with State Highway 1) along Redoubt Road, down Mill Road, around the back of eastern Papakura and reconnecting with State Highway One near Drury.

The respective post had a commentary piece from the NZ Herald as well as links to the Auckland Transport web portal on work thus far with this new four lane corridor plan. Also of mention was: the said corridor is both close to home (being in Papakura and five minutes away from the southern end of the soon-mentioned corridor) and I often use to skip-pass a section of the Southern Motorway when it backs up (usually in the afternoons) BR:AKL will take a look at the situation, then later on post an alternative proposal to the scheme.

 

Now I will resume working on that alternative proposal and will publish after my return from the Australian holiday starting next week. Work on the Manukau Rail North Link situation (which resulted in a compromise and win) as well as a pending mega project had taken much of my time recently however most of that is now finished (for now).

 

This morning however, I note Councillor George Wood picking up on comments from Mayor Len Brown (who lives 30 seconds from the said corridor) on his support for the corridor project.

From Stuff.co.nz

Manukau to Drury four-lane highway supported by mayor

SCOTT MORGAN

A four-lane highway that would connect Manukau with Drury has the backing of mayor Len Brown.

The Redoubt Rd-Mill Rd corridor needs land that is now occupied by homes and farms to progress.

Auckland Transport is finalising the route the $246 million first stage of the Redoubt corridor will take. It is an alternative arterial route to the southern motorway.

The road is expected to take more than 20 years to complete and has been subject to opposition from local residents’ groups.

Mr Brown has to declare a conflict of interest whenever decisions are made about how the project will move forward because he lives in the area.

“I’m in the way of it.”

But as leader of the city he supports the idea.

“It’s critical that we get this work done.”

There is a strategic need for the growing communities of Papakura, Alfriston and East Tamaki to be able to connect through the eastern side of the isthmus, he says.

Mr Brown says he is concerned about the effect plans for the 20-year project appear to be having on people’s lives.

But progress on new infrastructure needs to happen now, he says.

…

You can go see the rest of the article over at Stuff

 

But you can see the Mayor has thrown his support behind this large and long-winded project. With the corridor inching at a snail’s pace and seeming unable to be stopped in its entirety the next step (and I am aiming to try this through the alternative proposal) to mitigate against the worst of effects from the corridor and aim for a full integrated transport package.

More to come as it happens

 

WHO WILL STAND AGAINST LEN (CTD)

· 2 Comments ·

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):

Desley Simpson

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 me
Whether 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?
      • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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

        www.worldmayor.com

        World Mayor Code of Ethics
    • 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?

Mayor Gets Left Behind

·

New Ferry Service Takes Off

 

&

 

Mayor Gets Left Behind

 

No I am not kidding – the mayor Len Brown DID get left behind forcing the ferry to turn around to come and get him after he was caught gas bagging and forgot to catch the service.

From TVNZ

New Hobsonville Pt ferry service launched

For the first time in 50 years Auckland City has funded new ferry terminals in a bid to get commuters off the roads and onto the water.

A new ferry service was launched today and will connect the suburbs of Hobsonville and Beach Haven with downtown Auckland. Two morning and three afternoon services will run on weekdays.

The trips will take 30 minutes and cost $12 a ride for those paying cash, and less for those with an Auckland Transport Hop card.

Hundreds of people gathered to see the launch. The first passengers were Auckland Mayor Len Brown and Prime Minister John Key.

From downtown Auckland the ferry travels west on a scenic journey across the Waitemata Harbour.

“It’s gorgeous,” said Key.

“What you take for granted when you live in Auckland is just how beautiful the surroundings are, and you get a completely different perspective from the water. Can’t think of a nicer way to start the day,” the Helensville MP said.

The boat stops at the North Shore suburb of Beach Haven and then it’s just 400 metres across the water to Hobsonville, a trip the mayor nearly missed out on when the boat left without him

…

DOH!

 

A Radio NZ piece has also come up on the new ferry service this morning that is worth a listen. You can listen by click the link HERE.

Two things that did catch my attention were the following:

  • I hear that right? The Beach Haven ferry service is cheaper due to a larger subsidy so it can COMPETE with the local buses in the area that also head to the same place as the ferry (Downtown).
    Ummm that is rather backwards and an honest flushing of cash down the loo…
  • And plodding along in the interview I just heard that those in Hobsonville have a bus service with no shelter, route map or timetable while AT just spent a few mil on the ferry docks? 
    Am I missing something here?

While I have confidence these ferry services will take off and be a success (got to get more sailings in) the concerns noted above won’t help gaining full confidence when there is so much work to get through in getting this right.

 

A good and basic system has started with this new ferry service, but the inner mechanics in AT when it comes to things like subsidies, competition and lack of facilities on existing services need to be ironed out before things can advance to a first class system.

 

I (well someone will) keep an eye on this and see where things ends up 12 months from now…

LGOIMA Request Out – Manukau Car Park

·

Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act Request on Manukau Public Car Park is Out

 

 

Recently I had filed a Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act request to Auckland Council over the business case for the now Auckland Transport owned and operated Manukau City Centre Public Car Parking Building:

Time for a Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act Request

 

It is time to file another Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act request to the Auckland Council. This time the LGOIMA request will be on the recently opened Auckland Transport public car park building in Manukau which I reported on this morning. The request I will be filing will be for the originalbusiness case presented to the former Manukau City Council (under Mayor Len Brown) on this $14m building before it was carried over as a legacy project by today’s Auckland Council.

I am curious to what the business case was for this parking building in trying to understand why the former Manukau City Council went ahead with this project and possibly why Auckland Council did not stop it.

I’ll be keeping the readers up to date on the request – whether it is accepted or rejected by Council officials.

But in any case it is time to take a peek and what was the methodology behind the construction of this parking building in Manukau City Centre! 

 

And so the information requested has come in today and is posted (as four attachments) below.

 

 

This is the revised version

 

 

 

 

Now I am still reading the documents, but on first glance I think we have just been sold down the road initially with this building if we do not get any more high density development around Manukau soon (the Manukau South Rail Link adds another dynamic to the mix as well).

 

However check this out from AT’s website in the Ronwood Avenue Parking Building:

Ronwood Avenue car park

Last reviewed: 10/12/2012 11:55 a.m.

Car park location: Corner Ronwood and Davies Avenue, Manukau  – entrance from Ronwood Avenue

Parking description:  Multi-storey parking facility with a Vehicle Height Clearance of 2.1m. Eight levels with 676 spaces.

Car park features:

  • System for quick and easy parking (space availability signage by level)
  • Well lit
  • Clean and tidy
  • CCTV cameras that link through to a central control room monitored by security personnel.

 

Contact us about this car parking facility, or if you require immediate assistance in the car park building, press the blue “assistance” button located on the payment machines.

Hours  |   Tariffs  |  Lease Parking  |  Debit Card  |   Parking Vouchers  |   Ways to Pay  |

Normal operating hours 

​Day of the week ​Opens ​Closes
Monday to Friday 6.00am​ ​9.00pm
​Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays ​Closed ​

Note: Customers can park their cars in the building for 24 hours or longer, but can only exit before the last exit or opening times. See Other Parking rates to work out the cost of leaving your car overnight. For example, should you park your car in the building after 5pm on Friday night, and remove it on Monday morning at 6am, you will pay the $5 evening rate for each night it is in the building ($15 in total).

 

Tariffs

The following tariffs are a guideline only and subject to change. Refer to the schedule of fees at the car park entry.

Casual parking (Monday – Friday)

​Casual parking ​ ​ ​
0 – 1 hour​ ​$1 1 – 2 hours $2.00
2 – 3 hours $3.00 3 – 4 hours $4.00
4 – 5 hours $5.00 Max daily rate​ $6.00
* Lost ticket fee​ ​$40.00 ​ ​

* If customer loses their parking ticket, an instant $40.00 fee will be charged to be released from the car park.

 

Other Parking

Other parking​ ​Tariff ​Times & Conditions
Early bird parking​ $4.00​ Weekdays only

Enter and pay before 9.30am

Availability during this time is on a first come basis until full​

Levels 1 and 2 only
Evening rate​ $5.00​ Enter after 5.00pm – valid until 6.00am (following morning)

One entry, one exit

Pay at the machine​
​Lease Parking

Monthly lease deals (incl. GST)

See application forms for lease parking

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 ​Concession

$150.00

 Level 3

No reserved allocated space -“first come – first served”
Global concession

$360.00​

 ​
Reserved allocated (undercover)

$250.00

 Level G​
Reserved allocated (external)

$160.00

 Level G​
Reserved unallocated

$200.00​

 Level 4
Debit card​ Coded for denominations $20.00 to $200.00.

Rechargeable.​

 Contact us for more information
​Parking vouchers See casual rates above Available in 1,2,3 hour; half or full day periods, parking vouchers are used at the pay machine together with the entry ticket.

Request via fax or contact us ​
​Ways to pay Automatic payment machines can take Visa, Mastercard, Diners card and EFTPOS payments, as well as cash.

Help is only a button push away if required.

 ​

 

* If customer loses their parking ticket, an instant $40.00 fee will be charged to be released from the car park.

 

 

So what methodology was used? Love to seriously know

And I would really love to know how the diminished operating hours and parking tariffs compared to the original and revised Business Case studies are meant to assist in paying off the building as well as building a “sustainable” positive cash flow for Auckland Transport and Auckland Council. Now remember the parking building’s parking tariffs have already been slashed to these current levels to match or even underpin the All Day Park and Display street parking around Manukau. Even then that has not enticed people off the street and into the building (and it wouldn’t for me either).

I also have to ask, it is packed at Westfield Manukau Mall with Christmas shoppers and will be this weekend. Have AT even thought of opening the building this weekend to catch the overflow – you know a win-win for AT and Westfield? Probably not. So while you the shopper go round and around looking for a park, you have a perfectly empty dead parking building just sitting there – NICE ONE AUCKLAND TRANSPORT!

 

Why does Cabbage Boat come to mind here folks.

 

More in this business case later.