Tag: Nick Smith

Rates, Rates and oh the Rural Urban Boundary

·

Otherwise it is all about the rates

 

Do I really want to talk about the issue that has people frothing at the mouth most on a beautiful Sunday morning in Auckland. Yes I do. It is about those things we call Rates – you know, the money from us that funds Council activities.

As the Council year finished on June 30 we have the new cycle under way. This means the next round of rates instalments is on their way to your letterbox (in August). It also means the next round of rates rises or decreases are on their way as we hit the second year of the transition system (which includes the cap of 10% max rise and 5.56% max decrease).

Tomorrow morning there will be a briefing and a Q&A session on the next round of rates instalments. I will endeavour to have the report and commentary up later that night on the latest for the now current Council financial cycle.

Remembering from the 2013/14 Annual Plan discussions that rate rises were averaging 2.9% – below the 4.8% forecast in the 2012-21 Long Term Plan.

 

Rural Urban Boundary

As mentioned earlier in the week on Wednesday the Council and Local Boards will be discussing the Rural Urban Boundary at a Unitary Plan workshop (closed session). While I am not keeping up with state of play for the north and north-west RUB, I am definitely keeping up with state of play for the Southern RUB.

As mentioned in my “Pukekohe Area Plan Maps and Information” reblogged post earlier this week; Franklin Local Board has been working with their community and will be advancing their proposal for the RUB at the Wednesday workshop.

While the green-zone buffer has moved from Paerata to Drury, the “corridor” concept seems to have been stuck to and is what is being advanced. This is similar to what I believe most in Southern Auckland submitted on in general as a RUB option – including myself.

I do really hope as the most practical and “sustainable” of all the Southern RUB options that what FLB have proposed is what will be in the final Unitary Plan when it becomes operative. In saying that I can think of two spanners that can be thrown into the works that would screw the Southern RUB preferred option up:

  1. Dr Nick Smith and his Housing Accord – Special Housing Areas (unless they go inside the RUB preferred option)
  2. Karaka Collective if their option is left out and they decide to challenge it in the Environment Court

 

As the preferred RUB option proposed by FLB and Southern Auckland submitters staves off THAT bridge, there might be some pro-Weymouth/Karaka Bridge supports aggrieved by this situation. This will be a case of watch and see as the Southern RUB preferred option moves through the Unitary Plan processes.

Talking Auckland will be keeping a special eye on the Southern RUB as it does progress through the Unitary Plan.

 

 

Related articles

 

Dr Smith and the NIMBY’s

·

So a Fish Hook?

 

cats_fail-14143

I am getting the Herald delivered free on a five-week trial thanks to the AA. You can comment on the irony of the situation later but the word free and word worm-food have relevance here.

So upon reading the A-Section of the Herald (was looking for Orsman after a menacing Facebook remark he made last night on his page) I found this about Dr Nick Smith:

I wonder what he means “lower quality developments” for Auckland and affordable housing.

Would it be the quality like my ex-army house made of treated wood and brick built in the 70’s. It is basic with basic fittings provided in the house but huge potential to upgrade as the resident saves up and upgrades the dwelling (like what we are doing with our home).

Or (and most likely) something like the quality of the Hobson Street rabbit hunches that the NIMBY‘s bark on about that leak like a sponge and are of poor quality (forcing off an expensive virtual rebuild). History (and this hurts when it spells the truth) I believe tells us those rabbit hunches were “signed off” by the C&R dominated former Auckland City Council in 2004 (while the Mayor at the time – Banks wanted a stop to it before he got chucked out because of the Eastern Highway). Oh dear I see irony abound here folks…

For further irony I need not remind Auckland that it was the then National Government of the 1990s that removed the requirement of treated wood for new houses (saving costs to the consumer apparently) and now most of them leak worse than a sponge and have rotted away to such an extent that if your repair bill was not sky-high, your house was basically condemned. As for the old Auckland City and Manukau City Councils that signed off on these disasters as well, I believe both were Centre Right dominated as well in most of that period. If you want me to drive a further boot in the situation who do our conservatives (and NIMBY’s) vote for traditionally.

And before someone sends a flaming comment right back I ask you reflect upon yourself and remember you get what you either ask/vote for or deserve (to the point my generation have to pick up the can from your mistakes).

 

Now the onus is on the Minister Dr Nick Smith to clearly define what he means by “lower quality development.” Because unless you plan to return to building leakers and crap like those Hobson Street apartments, then under the current situation with constructions costs artificially high building a quality basic house like mine would be near impossible for under $300k all up (including land).

Hmm with Northern Regional National Party Conference this weekend, I wonder what is being schemed or parroted in the hallways and theatre rooms…

 

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…