Tag: Mayor

Mayoral Candidate on Transport Funding

· 1 Comment ·

Candidate for Auckland Mayor – John Palino Responds to Mayor Brown over Transport Funding

 

This has just come my way as in Hot Off The Press.

Auckland mayoral candidate John Palino has issued a stern response to Mayor Len Brown in Len’s “decision not to give Aucklanders the final say on what equates to a permanent 30 per cent increase in rates.”

This is in relation to the Mayor blocking Councillor George Wood’s Notice of Motion attempt  to get a referendum held on the City Rail Link.

From the NZH on Councillor Wood’s blocked attempt:

Mayor blocks councillor’s bid to put transport funding to public vote

By Mathew Dearnaley; 5:30 AM Tuesday Jun 25, 2013

 

Mayor Len Brown has blocked a councillor’s bid to put funding for the proposed $2.4 billion central city rail link and other transport projects to a public referendum.

North Shore council member George Wood is “astounded” Mr Brown has rejected a notice of motion he offered for a meeting of the council’s governing body this Thursday.

 

Mr Wood wanted the council to at least consider the idea of holding a referendum during October’s local body elections, to ask Aucklanders if they supported a proposal to raise an extra $400 million a year by increasing property taxes or imposing tolls on existing as well as new roads.

But he said the Mayor had refused to allow councillors to debate the prop

 

…

 

Although Mr Brown indicated last year that options for paying for what is expected to be a $12 billion transport funding gap between now and 2041 could go to a referendum, he is waiting for a final report from a “consensus building” advisory group on how to raise extra cash.

 

The 17-member group – on which business and union leaders have joined transport campaigners and the Automobile Association – expects to present a funding recommendation to Mr Brown next month.

…

You can read the rest in the Herald

 

In reply to the Mayor’s decision and transport funding situation this is what Auckland Mayoral Candidate John Palino’s full response was:

I’ll put the local back into local government

“Mayor Brown’s decision not to give Aucklanders the final say on what equates to a permanent 30 per cent increase in rates contradicts the very principle of local government and will further harm Auckland’s critical relationship with Wellington,” says Mayoral candidate John Palino.

“Auckland has massive transport challenges and none greater than finding the investment the city needs. The Consensus Building Group’s investigation into funding Auckland’s transport is a good start to the discussion, but the Mayor proposes that it’s also the end.

“That’s not local democracy, especially when the Consensus Building Group never had central government support and was not allowed to question the key projects driving the need for new taxation.

“The Mayor established the group to consider options for covering a projected $10-15 billion transport funding deficit over the next 30 years. That deficit is made up of the Mayor’s key projects – the $2.8 billion city rail link; the $5 billion additional harbour crossing; and the $2-3 billion AMETI and East-West link project.

“These three projects do not deliver good transport outcomes for Auckland and this shows up in the analysis which shows the transport benefits of these projects to be greatly outweighed by the costs. The return on the AMETI and East-West Link project is still unclear, but the CRL returns 40 cents for each dollar invested and the harbour crossing returns 30 cents.

“In establishing the Consensus group, the Mayor has tried to deflect ongoing and unresolved evidence that his transport programme is flawed, doesn’t return the benefits which would otherwise offset their cost, won’t improve congestion and will require a further $400 million per annum in taxes each and every year forever.

“As Mayor, I won’t be selecting projects as part of my campaign, but I’ll be holding those agencies to account for developing solutions that meet Auckland’s needs – something the Mayor’s programme doesn’t do.

“If we can get a transport programme which delivers the quality of life Aucklander’s demand, then I’ll look at funding options alongside and not independent of central government. We have to work together if we’re going to get positive outcomes.

“And most of all, I’ll give you the final say on whether you think such a significant proposal will help deliver the city you want to live in,” says Mr Palino.

…

 

Thoughts and comments folks? We are counting down to the 2013 Local Government elections and we will be seeing a lot more of this. Post your comments below but, remember play the ball NOT the person!

 

GAME ON

·

Palino Verse Brown

 

I just caught this across Facebook just now and is worth a share

Must have been a birthday present for John because we can confirm a comprehensive poll was recently completed which showed John Palino very favourably in a two horse race vs. Len Brown! #johnpalinoformayor
 

Now I have not seen the numbers yet personally (and may never will) but, I did comment this in return: “So where the MSM and Right Wing failed the rest of the city and this particular individual already knew. GAME ON!”

I had already warned both the Main Stream Media and Right Wing about their lack of “interest” and dismissive approach against those who are credible in standing again Len. It seems the city thinks differently and shows how offside our MSM and Right Wing are (that is Right Wing not the Centre Right Wing (two very different groups)). Offside owing to (and as I have mentioned before) to their last gasp clutching of the old system that dominated the old Auckland City Council arena for so many decades – yet has little relevance out in the South, West and even North. 

 

So it is game on folks for Mayor. You have two credible choices to make now in which direction you wish YOUR city – YOUR home to go. John Palino or Len Brown

 

 

Lets not Play Silly with the Unitary Plan

·

Work with what we have please

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

Not good enough if it is and was…

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

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

 

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:

  1. The amount of money being spent on Spin Doctors (where former Mayor John Banks just has one spin doctor – Cameron Brewer) 
  2. 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)…

 

2013 – #3

·

Who will Be the Next Mayor or Councillor

 

Another blog  ran a post on who will be mayor and who will be our councillors that make up the next Auckland Council after we post our ballots next year for the Local Government Elections.

 

I was searching through my posts from this year and found past commentary on my take of the Local Government Elections next year and found that; “yep – we are still heading down that path.”

 

So for a recap on 2013, I shall link my 2013 articles here as an easy reference for your holiday thinking:

  1. 2013

  2. 2013 – PART TWO

  3. 2013 – YOUR CITY – YOUR CALL! # INTRO #

  4. 2013 – YOUR CITY – YOUR CALL! #1

  5. 2013 – YOUR CITY – YOUR CALL! #2

  6. 2013 – YOUR CITY – YOUR CALL! #3

  7. 2013 – YOUR CITY – YOUR CALL! #4

 

Quite comprehensive isn’t it? And the coverage of 2013 – Your City – Your Call will start in earnest next month especially as I ramp up my campaign for Papakura Local Board next year.

 

And oh, Communities and Residents (C&R) must be have a strategy session over the break if they want to achieve that 6-seat swing in Council to regain control…

 

Fun times ahead for all – indeed 😮

 

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.nz

    http://www.voxy.co.nz

    Auckland 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.
    • Andy Cawston and 3 others like this.
    • Lea Worth Really….. why are we not surprised!!
    • Desley Simpson Pay more get less ! So again Orakei gives and doesn’t receive
    • Ben Ross Give the money to Local Boards away from the Governing Body seeming the Mayor and side kicks can’t budget. Bulk funding Local Boards with 33% of the total rates intake any one?
    • Stephen Maire Yes Ben.
    • Lea Worth At least that way Ben we would be protected from being seen as the cash cow to fund Len’s crazy ideas
    • Stephen Maire Yes, its OUR City not his.
    • Desley Simpson Cash cow and like all cows now need to eat ( mow) its own grass!
    • Ben Ross 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
    • Mark Donnelly Desley – isn’t berm mowing in only a few local board areas a LB decision per the Act? ie not “regional” – and you could go to local govt commission for a ruling? This isn’t about a “cost” but about making a cut in just one or two board areas?
    • Cameron Brewer Good work George Wood. The Mayor botched that one – he didn’t even have the numbers to refer his budget to Strategy and Finance committee. He is very poorly supported by his political inner circle who don’t know how to whip or secure the numbers. Beautiful to watch.
    • Andy Cawston (shakes head in disbelief…)

      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)
    • Tracy Kirkley out west , we have mowed our own berms…forever…its not that hard.
    • Nigel James Turnbull 2.9% is actually pretty good as a rates rise. I wonder how much more could actually be found? And berms are generally mowed by most of us arent they? i mean i do my own berms because council did such a poor job normally…i would be incensed if the whole region got it and only we were getting this cut. I do understand how bearing the brunt of rates increases coupled with the highest rates rises is a bitter pill to swallow.
    • Andy Cawston Service cuts + rates increases + increases in debt burden is not on.
    • Penny Webster A good thing this is ony the beginning Cameron. We look forward to your considerable input and suggestion of further cuts.
    • Cameron Brewer Bernard Orsman covers yesterday meeting in today’s Herald. The good thing about the Mayor’s budget now staying at the Governing Body level is that he has to own it and front the meetings over the next 8 months, and not just kick it to Strat & Finance. This is primarily why a majority of us voted for it not to go to S & F. It was not really about excluding the Maori Statutory Board.http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10842948

      www.nzherald.co.nz

      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.
    • Andy Cawston I’d quite like to see Brown strive for a 5% rates DECREASE. It’s time we saw some Efficiencies of Scale arising from the merger of the Auckland-based councils. Any competent business would have found such efficiencies within weeks of a merger, yet the exercise appears not to have happened yet with Council.

      A 2% increase, within that context, is utterly unnecessary and obscene.
    • Ben Ross I have a debt and spending policy I might go pitch to voters when I run for Papakura Local Board next year. Fiscal Conservatism (hey Andy I am a conservative after all 😛:P ) 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:

  1. Strong but no interfering Governance: Meaning Council  shows active and real leadership but does not interfere with the daily lives of residents and businesses
  2. 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
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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