Tag: Michael Goudie

Close Election?

·

Rudman Says No, Orsman Says “Could”

 

NOW the commentary starts ramping up on the Auckland Council Elections in the main stream media. This after I believe I started it quietly back in 2011 and ramping it up more recently.

We have heard some commentating writing off the elections already especially in the Auckland mayoral race with myself at this point in time giving Len an 85% chance of getting his re-election. As for Council Ward seats (those wanting to become a Councillor) this is proving to be more interesting (not that I don’t mind even with our shills).

Resident Unitary Plan writer Bernard Orsman thinks different to his counterpart Rudman and offered this insightful piece on the upcoming elections.

 

From the NZ Herald

Split vote could lead to close mayoral contest

By Bernard Orsman @BernardOrsman

As the race for the Auckland mayoralty begins, Bernard Orsman looks at the big issues for candidates and voters

…

And even if the mayor gets re-elected, he might find a different hue around the council table, one less friendly to the “inclusive” team he has come to rely upon.

The failure of the centre-right to unite around the Communities & Residents brand (with subsequent desertions from C&R this month) and the mixed bag of left-leaning councillors have worked in Mr Brown’s favour in his first term.

It would take only a handful of new, right-leaning faces to tip the balance and make life difficult for the mayor. Pro-Brown councillors Michael Goudie and Des Morrison are stepping down in the respective conservative wards of Albany and Franklin. The centre-right is also targeting Cathy Casey (Albert-Eden-Roskill), Ann Hartley (North Shore) and Richard Northey (Maungakiekie-Tamaki).

Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse has taken umbrage at a call from Herald columnist Brian Rudman for candidates to embrace the labels of National, Labour and the like.

She says this would see a return to the bad old days of the former Auckland City Council with secret caucus meetings, one-term councils and three-year planning horizons.

She has coined the term “Auckland Party” for people who want to focus on the city and building for the future.

But even minus the C&R tag, there are enough issues uniting centre-right candidates – such as a low uniform charge that leads to bigger rates for high-value home owners and debt levels – to potentially scupper the “Auckland Party”.

The looming election is already seeing changes made to the Unitary Plan, with word leaking out that height limits are being reduced in many town centres and “small-scale” apartment buildings banished from many residential areas.

Modifications to the draft Unitary Plan for formal notification in September is a political test for Mr Brown and his inner circle of Ms Hulse, Ms Hartley, Penny Webster and Mr Northey. Get it wrong and the Unitary Plan – the new planning rulebook that affects every Aucklander and every property – will become a big election issue.

…

I did leave the first half out as it was covering the mayoral stuff.

 

Orsman does have a legitimate point (if not a slight slant due to perceived bias against the Unitary Plan and Deputy Mayor (Bernard have you asked me yet for those secret papers – I do have all 7,000 pages of them sitting here)) though that Council could change its make up (regardless of who is Mayor).

Right now to get a true Centre-Right “dominance” around the Council table you would need a swing of 6 to 7 seats from the Centre Left or pro-Brown supporters in the election. That is one heck of an ask and would need pretty much a city-wide revolt for that to happen. I do not see such a revolt towards the Councillors let alone the mayor at the moment.

But, what makes this more uncertain is what kind of Centre-Right person could land a spot at the table and what they might actually do.

I’ll give an example using me in contrast to a shill. While I have no intention of running for a Local Board or Council seat until 2016 if I did decide to run this could happen.

I am a Social Liberal which naturally puts me Centre-Left on the Political Compass tests. However, I am perceived to be a “young Tory” that would hark back to Golden Era of National from 1936 to 1972. This means I would be cast as a Centre-Right candidate. In saying that unlike the Right Wing shills out there (just look at their stance on the Unitary Plan), I would be more inclined to work with the Deputy Mayor and push through the concessions for my area and the wider city. This is already occurring and I am not even a Councillor nor running this round.

Effectively rather than sit, their arms crossed and looking like a permanent sour-puss grumpy going “No, no, no” and not put any non NIMBY alternative forward (enter the Shill), I would work with the hand I got dealt with and make something useful out of it. So far working with that I have has worked as an advocate and consultant in gaining concessions for a Better Auckland through a better Unitary Plan – all while I am Centre Right.

So in Orsman’s case being Centre Right might not upset the cart per-se in Council business. Sure the sharper edges of the Mayor’s policy might be sanded back but no whole scale change that having a bunch of Right Wingers would foster (and damage the city due to instability – yes I am pointing to you C&R)!

Speaking of C&R – what on earth happened? Never mind!

 

Now what about this Auckland Party concept the Deputy Mayor brought up? Orsman said the concept would not work if the Council make up swung to the Centre-Right. I would correct him and say the Auckland Party would not work if the Council got dominated by Right Wingers for which in any case the City would be royally buggered.

I would say that the Auckland Party would be made up of both Centre Left and Centre Right Councillors who can work in a Grand Coalition sort of manner and advance the interests of the Auckland region. Rather than have factional politics and a divisive Council that marred the Isthmus for the last 50-60 years.

Lets see how this pans out as we draw closer to October 12 – Election Day

 

Related articles

 

This and That – Round Three. But I Hear Mr Kirk’s Concerns

· 2 Comments ·

The Herald Just Can’t Get It

 

Mr Kirk however has a Valid Point

 

 

It seems the NZ Herald with their Auckland Unitary Plan reporter Bernard Orsman can just simply not get it when it comes to actual coverage and commentary on the Unitary Plan. I have repeatedly noted and am doing so again that the Main Stream Media are failing in their obligations of balanced reporting with the most two prominent posts being these two:

 

This unbalanced and one-sided coverage is annoying the city greatly as there are those who support the Unitary Plan in-part or as a whole. However Orsman and the NZH seem to be more interested in the Blue Rinse Brigade and trotting out what they say rather than what we all say.

 

However, Fairfax media who run the local Couriers you get, plus individual private blogs like my own have stepped up to the plate and are doing much better coverage and commentary thus far on the Unitary Plan. Fairfax and those bloggers should be applauded (although I still wince at Sydney’s piece – although that was out of circumstance) for their efforts so far while the NZH be vilified for their continued failings.

 

So where did Orsman and the Herald fail this morning prompting the latest round of backlash in social media. Well it was this article here: ‘Not in my back yard’ and if you look at the main story carefully it is actually not a NIMBY-ism story. It is a story of genuine concerns for an elder – someone with wisdom and knowledge on city planning listing his thoughts on the Unitary Plan and actually giving an alternative here. However, what flipped the story over to a NIMBY-ism piece was Orsam’s rant on the side – obviously still hurting from Sydney’s blog post.

I shall get to Mr Kirk’s concerns in a moment but first Orsman.

 

This is what the fool had to say as a sidebar to the article:

The battle backed by a blog

Hate speech is coming to a street near you – if you live in a quiet piece of suburbia, like Poronui St in Mt Eden, and object to your neighbourhood being rezoned for apartments and infill housing.

In a sign that the council is losing the battle to persuade middle-class suburban Auckland to adapt to a new way of life, it has appointed 28-year-old councillor Michael Goudie to counter more conservative views.

Not only that, but wise heads like deputy-mayor Penny Hulse are turning a blind eye while Goudie promotes an anonymous blog article, We Hate Nimbys (Not In My Back Yard) that labels a “sea of grey hair” opposing a new planning rulebook “selfish, arrogant, narrow -minded and parochial people” who should “just hurry up and die”.

Suburbs, including Orewa and Browns Bay that helped elect Goudie to the council in 2010 are branded “soulless, geriatric timebombs” in the blog he calls “brilliant” but that others label “hate speech”.

 

Yep he is still sore after that apparent line. However let me copy over a post from ANZAC Day by Orsman that would give rise to the ‘Pot, Kettle, Black’ argument:

Len Brown is attending four Anzac Day services tomorrow. I wonder if Michael Goudie will be tagging along in his official capacity of nobbling the oldies on the unitary plan to tell the “sea of grey hair” what a bunch of arrogant, deluded and selfish people they are who should “hurry up and die”.
I think Goudie has a bit more nous than that…
But there is more and even I replied right back
  • Bernard Orsman Other councillors are not speaking in an official capacity Penny. You are condoning this hate speech by doing nothing…and making it political. So Michael can tell the oldies to ‘hurry up + die’ just not on Anzac Day???
    • Ben Ross Major Face-Palm Bernard. For someone who is in the particular age group Councillor Goudie had an apparent crack at, you would think the term “with age comes wisdom (and maturity)” would resonate in your head before uttering that out with ANZAC Day upon us.

      Meaning we put aside our what ever differences (with the UP) for just today and stand united together to remember those who served and fell protecting what we have today. 

      Heck if I was your employer and thank your stars I am not, it would have been a formal reprimand for bringing the company into disrepute on a sacred day as this…

 

That reprimand should now be dismissal…

 

I don’t care what beef one might have against councillors and the Unitary Plan, you NEVER EVER imply ANZAC Day the way he did nor utter such tripe as Orsman did ON ANZAC DAY either. What Goudie might of said can be remarked as offensive to some but, we leave those gripes behind as we remember our War Heroes on that special day – hand in hand united. And if you are wondering if I am fuming – yes I am as ANZAC Day to me does hold close to me (as it does to all others) with having family on both sides of both World Wars.

 

Mr Kirk’s Concerns and Alternatives

 

Mr Kirk (a former planner with the former Auckland City Council) who lives in Mt Eden and right next to the famous iconic Mt Eden Volcano had concerns about the Unitary Plan (as does many others) did have to say this which struck me most:

From that NZ Herald Piece:

 

“Kirk, 77, has produced a demographic breakdown of Poronui St that shows more than half the residents are under 30 – and just six over 65 – countering critics’ claims (see sidebar) that most opponents of the plan are elderly.

He says he has no moral answer to the “nimby” question.

“That’s the dilemma. Do I share Poronui St with others or do the drawbridge thing and say ‘I’m bloody in and I don’t want more people’?”

The planner and social conscience in Kirk says if the council is serious about Poronui St, it needs to develop a specific, comprehensive plan where the architecture and buildings work for the residents – and not rely on blanket zoning passed over to developers.

“That is a lazy, unprofessional cop-out.”

 

 

Now that I do honestly hear loud and clear from Mr Kirk. It is something I have picked up through my Unitary Plan commentary and jet-setting and it is an issue Auckland Council needs to address. Fortunately I am writing and redeveloping a concept that Mr Kirk is looking for with Mt Eden. It is my Special Character Zone work and presentation I am compiling for Orakei Local Board next week in regards to St Heliers but, can easily be translated to other areas such as: Mt Eden, Onehunga and Ponsonby.

 

Taking an extract from my OLB presentation:

 

 

My submission to the draft Unitary Plan (and currently seen in the Shape Auckland Housing Simulator) calls for Local Centres to be dropped to three storeys. This would be consistent with the calls in St Heliers to drop the Local Centre to three storeys – with further restrictions at nine metre heights in place within the rules. What is not recognised thus far through the Unitary Plan is the fact our city is heterogeneous and the great role Local Boards has to play with Unitary Plan “planning” once the UP is operative.

To recognise the heterogeneity of our city I am proposing to St Heliers via the Orakei Local Board a Special Character Zone tied in with my Centralised Master Community Plan (CMCP) – Land Allocation/Development/Utilisation urban development/management model.

CMCP’s were covered in my submission to The Auckland Plan and I shall go back over it in a moment. First it is introducing and working on a new zone – the Special Character Zone (SCZ). 

 

Centralised Master Community Plans being as in the embed below:

Introduction

 

 

CMCP’s

 

 

The CMCP extract is a bit vague as I update and clean it up but in short it takes some of these merits in regards with Local Boards that are found in my other methodology (the SLPD):

 

 

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)

 

 

 

Mr Kirk is wanting a comprehensive plan in regards to Mt Eden, I think that can be provided for with a ‘Mt Eden Special Character Zoned – Centralised Master Community Plan’ – a specialised local plan led by the Local Board overseeing the land allocation/development/utilisation of Mt Eden.

Once I have given my presentation to Orakei Local Board, I might translate St Heliers Special Character Zone over to Mt Eden and see where that goes. But good on Mr Kirk for making his concerns known AND seeking out an alternative for his community. No he is not a NIMBY, he is a genuine concerned citizen wanting the best for his community (and the wider city). 🙂

 

 

Just a note before I sign this off: this Unitary Plan is like the rabbit hole in Alice and Wonderland 😛  I have gone down the hole and where I end up at the end of this – who know!

 

BEN ROSS : AUCKLAND

BR:AKL: Bring Well Managed Progress

The Unitary Plan: Bringing Change

Auckland: 2013 – OUR CITY, OUR CALL

 

This and That – AGAIN

·

Not Again…

 

Where is Progressive and REASON with The Clunker Debate

 

 

You know when something gets flagged on Facebook more than three times it is worth considering rather urgently. I had commented on the polarisation and slack Main Stream Media report on The Unitary Plan in my “This and That” post:

THIS AND THAT

From One Extreme To The Other

 

With The Clunker?

 

While most commentary and interaction with The Unitary Plan (The Clunker) continues as May 31 approaches at a more civilised level, unfortunately extremes can crop up that skewer the debate. This can either be extreme commentary from a particular group or individual (which I will comment on below), the media being particularly lazy as they are and only covering one side of the debate which they are doing with The Clunker for the most part (that will be bringing me to my second part).

…

 

After thinking that kind of situation was to be buried and we all move on with the Unitary Plan feedback and all keep our heads and maturity. Guess I spoke too soon when this was flagged to me:

Councillor backs ‘village idiots’ blog

A blog calling residents “delusional village idiots” for opposing apartment plans in Milford, Browns Bay and Orewa is backed by Albany councillor Michael Goudie. The councillor posted a Facebook link to the anonymous “I hate NIMBYS” blog that labels unitary plan opponents “soulless geriatric time bombs”. Mr Goudie, who prides himself as being the voice of youth on council, says the blog is “brilliant” and encourages people to share it. “I am glad people power is finally taking a stand against the loud minority.”

Hibiscus Bays Local Board member Gary Holmes says Mr Goudie holds passionate views but should step back from debate while the council is consulting on its draft unitary plan. Mr Holmes says it’s “unfair” to pit old versus young generations during discussions on Auckland‘s intensification. “It’s not generational. People have been through battles and understand what is at stake.” Browns Bay and Orewa residents have already fought hard to restrict heights, he says. “In 30 years they will thank us,” Mr Holmes says. If Auckland had listened to members of the older generation such as former mayor Sir Dove Myer Robinson the region would have a widespread rail network. Mr Holmes says there is support for some apartments, particularly around transport routes, but some of today’s character needs protection. “You can’t look at every area in the same way.”

Mr Goudie says on Facebook that the issue was about attitude not age.

…

 

It is about attitude and not age as I can attest to through my work on the Unitary Plan thus far. It is the reason why (and for my views of THAT blog see my “This and That” post) I can be scalding of St Heliers but in the same breath reach out to RIGHT ACROSS THE SPECTRUM age and demographic wise (except the NIMBY’s) with everything thus far with the Unitary Plan. And heck you need to reach out across that spectrum as the old adage states: united we stand for divided we fall (or more simply put divide and conquer).

While an age polarisation debate might have kicked off on The Shore and the Isthmus, down here in Southern Auckland I see: people young and old, workers and entrepreneurs, urban and rural folk alike somewhat if not united in concerns, voices, and ideas with the Unitary Plan. I could go a far as saying Southern Auckland knows growth is going to happen but, it needs to be done right with all negative consequences mitigated against. Then again we always want things done properly. This is what we are fighting for down here in the South with The Unitary Plan – making sure as Dene Andre said “Liveability from international best practice is executed.”

 

So again my conclusion:

 

CONCLUSION

 

All this brings me to the conclusion which seems inevitable in this Clunker debate. The two extremes facing off and firing broadsides against each other which will polarise the debate and entrench views. This action goes and buggers up the middle ground from both sides (those pro-sprawl, and those pro-intensification) who are actively working together and working a compromise in bringing this city forward for the next thirty years. The extremes are trying to force either change or no change, while the middle favours more progression. Progression and change are two very different things and have very different consequences to people and the city.

 

I just ran these words through a thesaurus to get the synonyms that we can more relate too:

  • Change: transformation, revolution (which then implies upheaval), conversion
  • Progress and Progression: development, evolution, growth, advancement, improvement

 

Now look at those words and think to yourself which basically scare the living daylights out of you. Those that are NIBMY-ists don’t bother answering as I am rather not interested in hermits or fossils (one which is a relic of a by-gone era) as nothing is static in this universe. For me I am more inclined towards Progress and Progression over “Change” even though I am a social liberal and can tolerate some “change” as defined above.

But look at the language of the Unitary Plan (and Auckland Plan) and you see the language I classed under the ‘Change’ department (especially transformational). I admittedly have parroted that same language although that has been scaled back in more recent submissions as I swing more to progression rather than transformational. Then again you often have to speak the language of the council (so transformational) to get them paying attention (oops there goes a secret of mine). The language Council is using in the Unitary and Auckland Plans through “change” is pretty much enough to go make most people (even those progressive) rather hesitant in what is being pushed forward. Probably won’t help matters is when Council goes and bollocks up the communications process and people really do start running around clueless through no fault of their own (although communications with the Unitary Plan has been “basic” but not flash).

 

SO WHERE TO NEXT?

Well I expect nothing from the MSM in reporting both sides of the coin in a more balanced manner so blogging continues and my main outlet. But moving the language from change to progression will be more the theme as I continue and sell my alternative to The Clunker. A story is being told, this is my story on our city

 

BR:AKL:  Bring Well Managed Progress

The Unitary Plan: Bringing Change 

Auckland: 2013 – OUR CITY, OUR CALL