Tag: NIMBY

It’s About the Jobs – Again

·

Strong Economic Growth – Just not where it is needed

 

A release from Auckland Council‘s Chief Economist today on how the Auckland economy continues to do rather well:

Auckland’s housing market boosting wider economy
 
 
Strong house price growth across the Auckland region is boosting other parts of the economy including construction, finance and real estate industries, according to latest economic figures for the region in the first three months of this year.
 
Economic activity is now more sustained and broad based, with 17 out of 20 sectors recording gains in the quarter. Auckland grew at a rate of 3.2 per cent in the year to March; along with Christchurch, these two cities are underpinning growth across the country, said Geoff Cooper, Auckland Council’s chief economist. Mr Cooper said activity in Auckland’s construction, finance and property sectors will likely spill over into other parts of the region’s economy, and with time, other areas of New Zealand.
 
“Auckland house prices continue their upward march, which is buoying consumer confidence and further stimulating demand,” Mr Cooper wrote in the latest Auckland Economic Quarterly, released today.
 
“We’re already seeing a pick-up in activity across the finance, property and real estate and construction services sectors. As building work gathers pace, it will act as a catalyst for growth in various downstream sectors, particularly domestic manufacturing and retail.”
 
The median Auckland house price was $562,000 in March 2013, up 12.5 per cent from March last year. Signs that migration is rebounding, amid the slowing Australian economy, are likely to support house prices in the medium term.
 
Some 4,764 residential building consents were lodged with Auckland Council in the 12 months ended March 31 this year. While that’s down from the 10-year average of 6,631, it is up from the year-earlier figure of 3,976. This represents the early stages of a construction upswing in Auckland, which will need to continue before house prices ease.
 
Auckland’s consumers are among the most optimistic in New Zealand, spurred on by activity in the housing market. Westpac McDermott Miller reports a consumer confidence score of 119.0 for Auckland, well ahead of the national average of 110.8, and up 13.7 per cent from Q1 of last year. Retail sales rose 1.1 per cent from the final three months of 2012, and new car registrations increased again to just shy of the 10-year average.
 
Still, lack of job growth continues to weigh on Auckland’s recovery as unemployment remains high at 7.3 per cent. With business employment intentions in positive territory and economic activity looking more sustained, job seekers have more reason for optimism in the year ahead.

—–ends—–

 

Okay some renewed strength in the house building sector is good as that will get the supply up. Although still not fast enough for sustained Unitary Plan levels if the population growth remains to be high.

The issue though is emphasised in red although the rest in black could be good news if job growth increases..

However, this shows the crucial nature to which the Unitary Plan needs to get right on employment centres. Those main centres being our City Centre, (Super and) Metropolitan Centres, heavy and light industry, and supported by good Town Centres.

 

Forget focusing on you house and everything within 25 metres around it like our NIMBY‘s and shills are. Attention needs to focus on our higher end commercial and industrial centres to make sure the land and infrastructure is in position so that entrepreneurs like me can create jobs.

With the failure that was the Consensus Building Group just announcing their report on transport funding over the life of the current Integrated Transport Program; I believe emphasis will be placed on a more decentralised front with employment centres. Decentralised like running two CBD’s and multiple industrial centres so that people have the option live local and work local rather than cross city commute or funnel into one point as the mayor wants.

i will work up the plan and subsequent language around Manukau, Wiri and Southern Auckland and its potential development front through the life of the Unitary Plan as part of ongoing work in this area.

If we need jobs and our transport boffins are rather inept on getting Auckland moving (and no, Auckland Transport are absolved of this. They are the ones who need to carry this all out) the we better look for some alternatives quick

 

The CBG Final Report

Related articles

 

Rethink the Housing Accord says Auckland 2040

·

Rethink or NIMBY‘s Striking Again?

 

Auckland 2040 released a press statement on Monday about the Housing Accord. This will be due to that Auckland Council is giving their submission to the Accord today after deliberations yesterday at the Auckland Plan Committee that I sat in and observed.

This is the press release from Auckland 2040

Rethink the Housing Accord says Auckland 2040

Monday, 10 June, 2013 – 11:41

Auckland 2040 says linking the Auckland Housing Accord to the notification of the draft Unitary Plan (DUP) will put pressure on the Council to ‘fast track’ the plan ignoring around 14,000 submissions.

The coalition has written to Housing Minister Nick Smith requesting that he reconsider tying the Accord to the DUP notification and providing an alternative solution. It’s concerned that Aucklanders have just had their first look at the DUP, invested considerable time in preparing submissions and that the planners won’t have the time to read, consider or adopt the suggestions.

Auckland 2040 spokesperson and planner Richard Burton says there are serious shortcomings in the DUP and it’s important that the Council is not forced to notify the Plan before it is ready.

“We do not believe that Auckland Council has the time or the resources to consider the large number of submissions received, to rethink the Unitary Plan and rectify the problems by the target notification date of 1 September. Much more time is needed to prepare a quality Plan.

“There’s also an easy solution that will take the pressure off the planners and make sure Aucklanders have not wasted their time making submissions. We suggest Council identify Special Housing Areas (SHAs) and then prepare Structure Plans. These will also ensure better quality housing,” said Richard.

The current Auckland Housing Accord makes no mention of requiring Structure Plans for SHAs which Auckland 2040 argues is a serious omission. It says that structure plans will avoid haphazard unplanned development by matching the level of development intensity to infrastructure capacity, including roads, waste water and other services. It would also integrate residential development with reserves, community facilities and schools. Community consultation is another component of a Structure Plan and would allow greater consideration of the interface between SHA’s and adjoining communities. Qualifying SHA Developments would then have to comply with the Structure Plan.

“Requiring Structure Plans in the Accord legislation doesn’t need to be overly time-consuming. Auckland Council could quickly identify a number of SHAs and then commence planning. The other advantage of this approach is that neighbours and affected parties will have a say in the process. Without meaningful consultation and a right of appeal, the potential for abuse is high,” says Richard.

Auckland 2040 is a coalition of local non-political groups passionately concerned about the long- term implications of the draft Unitary Plan (DUP). It wants Auckland Council to ‘ReThink’ the Plan in order to balance intensification with infrastructure capability and urban character values. The group opposes random high density multi-story apartments haphazardly scattered throughout Auckland, poor planning and provision for infrastructure, and inadequate community involvement in the Plan. For more information go to http://auckland2040.org.nz/.

—–

 

All seems good doesn’t it? On paper it does look good what Auckland 2040 is suggesting with Special Housing Areas and these Structure Plans. These Structure Plans could end up similar to my proposed Semi-Liberal Planned Districts for greenfield areas and Centralised Master Community Plans for brownfield areas.

However, there is a catch. My SLPD and CMCP’s take effect when the Unitary Plan is in operation. Meaning it has been thrashed out and the Rural Urban Boundary options firmed up after research and further consultation.

Auckland 2040’s idea would take effect once the Accord was in operation which would not bother me per say. But, in knowing Auckland 2040 they would clam up in any Brownfield Special Housing Areas being put forward (especially on the Isthmus and North Shore) and dump the entire lot in the Greenfield areas out in the south.

In Auckland 2040 would like to suggest a Brownfield area on the Isthmus and North Shore that would have significant development then let me know in the comments box your location choice below. Otherwise your subsequent silence would imply pro-sprawl behaviour down here in the south. Of which I believe the NIMBY term applies.

 

What is wrong with lugging significant developments in the greenfield areas now? We of the south are still going through the Rural Urban Boundary processes at the moment. Currently in the Unitary Plan feedback process that closed last month we got to choose one of three options we would think best for Greenfield development under the UP. Council is now considering this and hopefully are doing capacity and infrastructure studies on the options. Once done it is meant to be reported back and a more informed selection can be made by us in the formal notification stage at the end of the year.

What Auckland 2040 are doing is effectively short circuiting the RUB process away from Southern Auckland. It can also be implied through some of the NIMBY aspects of Auckland 2040 that they would want the bulk of the SHA’s in the greenfield zones.

I’d rather have the RUB processes done fully and properly first. As I have mentioned before if the wrong section of land is opened up down here in the South the unintended consequences are large. That being the Karaka-Weymouth Bridge which has upset a lot of people here.

 

So what do we do now?

Sit and wait for the council to finish the southern RUB work. Lets see how many houses we can get, what infrastructure is needed and at what cost, and what employment centre bases will also be needed as well. Suggesting SHA’s down here now would be beyond pointless when we and the area are simply not ready.

The RUB Addendum 1/2

The RUB Addendum 2/2

 

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…

 

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