Tag: politics

Planning for Who?

·

For Everyone or A Select Minority

 

I think this picture from the Sydney Morning Herald piece on ‘Resident Groups’ was rather apt when I saw it:

Planning in Sydney.
Illustration: Simon Bosch

The Dog-eat-Dog situation that can erupt (and did) when it comes to planning – especially large-scale planning like the Unitary Plan (and soon Area Plans).

 

From the SMH on the Dog-Eat-Dog World that is Associations and Planning

Planning for all, not the loudest few

December 26, 2013

Sydney Morning Herald columnist, author, architecture critic and essayist

Residents groups are relentless in their demands for more ”consultation” – by which they really mean the right to insist on their own views.

Moody morning. Bruised sky. Feels like the morning after. I’m walking the dog but the ambience is more hair of the dog.

I’m thinking about this habitat we make. This lovely, mazy, fecund, fetid city and the extraordinary dogfight we’re having over it. I’m thinking about how we’ve bashed the bejesus out of planning. Literally.

A relentless and emotive campaign for your own interest is not consultation. It’s lobbying.

Of all disciplines, planning demands a God’s-eye point of view. It needs to grasp the big swirling patterns we make, how they smell and feel up close and how they ramify through the aeons. It’s a job for a sage, or a prophet. But we go at it like crazed pygmies.

“Hey, Sis!” someone calls. I love that. In my neighbourhood only Aboriginal people call you Sis. I love how it makes you feel part of the gang – although, frankly, it’s not a gang to which many people aspire and, even more frankly, you know they probably just want money.

This skinny kid is no exception. “Hey, Sis! Ya got 30 cents for a phone call?” I say no, which is true. Walking the dog, who carries cash?

Then I think, 30 cents? I’m worrying about my Wi-Fi speed and the ratbag who refuses to fix my dishwasher and how on earth you’re supposed to have a million bucks worth of super if you didn’t even get onto it until, like, last week. And this boy hasn’t got a phone? Even a landline?

So I track back and offer my iPhone. True, I remove the credit card, but that’s my bad. The boy doesn’t do a runner. He makes the call, two calls, and it’s fine. Except it makes me cry a little because, what can you do?

I’ve lived around here 15 years but I’ve been crying a lot lately, mostly for the poor old human race, trashed by systems that should protect it: especially those who most need protecting, and especially the systems they most need. Like planning. What a snafu.

Dogfights are not uncommon in the hood. People have pit bulls. It’s that kind of place. But these fights are nothing beside the self-concerned snarling and spitting we’ve had lately over planning.

Perhaps I should be pleased. I’ve yearned for planning to be controversial. Argued that way for years. But it’s all so crude, so emotive, so profoundly selfish. Where, I wonder, do the middle classes get off?
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/planning-for-all-not-the-loudest-few-20131225-2zwel.html#ixzz2qP49uJx8

…

“But it’s all so crude, so emotive, so profoundly selfish. Where, I wonder, do the middle classes get off?”

So true when it came to the Unitary Plan debate. The biggest noise makers came from:

  • Eastern Isthmus
  • Lower North Shore
  • A select few local boards right across the City
  • Auckland 2040 lobby group (as that is all they are – no point dressing it up as something else)

Unfortunately though the out noise makers spooked our Councillors prior to the elections and the Unitary Plan was watered down to more restrictive planning than what is in our current legacy plans. This will have to be reversed and again liberalised when we face the Commissioners later on this year. None-the-less for some of the more progressive ones out there, attention has turned to the Area Plans which are due to be released next month where the foundations for more “progressive” planning can take place. Effectively and for example Manukau City Centre I could lobby for some provisions for higher density developments inside the Metropolitan Zone. If someone from say Auckland 2040 (based on the Shore) comes over and tries to push for low density developments in the Manukau Metropolitan Zone they could be told to take a hike and go back to their own area.

This can lead to the question of what about the Unitary Plan as that is a regional document. For example in my Unitary Plan submission I could say that the minimum zone for all residential areas in the old Auckland City Council Isthmus area should be Mixed Housing Urban rather than Mixed Housing Suburban or Single Housing Zone. But in the Area Plans I could tell the North Shore based Auckland 2040 group to keep their nose out of the Manukau Area Plans.  So the question is how do we reconcile this kind of situation and avoid Dog-Eat-Dog problems.

The answer is a perplexing one however, for Manukau as it is a second tier centre (along with Albany) with very wide implications when its Area Plan gets drawn up. For me I would be welcoming of those outside South Auckland to participate in the Manukau Area Plan. Mind you in saying that keep your NIMBYism at home. It is often good to get outside eyes casting over plans in case something went amiss. That said we will have to see how Area Plans play out from next month when the timetable is released.

 

Continuing from the SMH:

The plethora of residents’ lobby groups has coalesced into the Better Planning Network, which is at least reasonably smart and big-picture. But the groups themselves are relentless in their demands for more ”consultation” – by which they really mean the right to insist on their own views, amenity, traffic ease, property values.

A relentless and emotive campaign for your own interest is not consultation. It’s lobbying; no different from the oil or coal lobby.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/planning-for-all-not-the-loudest-few-20131225-2zwel.html#ixzz2qPG2yibh

…

No point dressing mutton up as lamb okay. It is what it is – a lobby group campaigning for their own interest disguised as “advocacy” on behalf of wider Auckland. Say hello to Auckland 2040 – a coalition of “advocates” forming up to create a rather large lobby group.

From their opening lines:

AUCKLAND 2040

Auckland 2040 is committed to ensuring that the future development of Auckland under the Auckland Unitary Plan balances the need for intensification with protecting the character of our residential areas

http://auckland2040.org.nz/

From their actions in the last set of stages of the Unitary Plan prior to the election you can see how Auckland 2040 fits into the last SMH quote above I pasted in. Auckland 2040 though while they got a few minor victories they took a heck of a debunking in the social media realm and lost overall especially when Councillors George Wood and Wayne Walker were re-elected to this Council.

 

 

It should be scribed on the soul of every planner. The only reason to have planning is to protect the weak. Weak people, weak causes; assets to which capitalism assigns no value. Heritage. Access. Clean air. Clean water. The unvoiced.

In other words, planning exists not to facilitate capitalism but judiciously to oppose it. This is something neither governments nor residents seem to understand.

The government, contrary to its promises, goes on broadening its discretion, as an outright invitation to corruption. And the rezzies go on issuing demands. No one argues for what is right, just for what they want. “Commit to a solution that is acceptable to us!” said one.

But that’s idiotic. Planning is like traffic rules. You don’t want an argument at every intersection. That’s not democracy. It’s a big family of only children, each defending their own ugly solipsism.

Planning should ban the rebuilding of hopelessly fire-prone bush-hamlets. It should ban building on the Hawkesbury floodplains, aged-care down bush cul-de-sacs and all development in water catchments.

It should preserve agriculture, prioritise public transport, fund public infrastructure and provide cheap inner-city public housing.

Our rules should not be a balance of competing me-isms. Rather, they should embody a shared view of what is best for us all. It’s not rocket science, but it must at least attempt a God-view.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/planning-for-all-not-the-loudest-few-20131225-2zwel.html#ixzz2qPLToGwx

—

 

“No one argues for what is right, just for what they want. “Commit to a solution that is acceptable to us!” said one.” – reminds me of that err silly person from the Orakei Local Board area at a Unitary Plan public meeting last year where he stated “he did not want change at all.” A pity no one told him to take his blinkers off as the area has changed from paddocks to what it is now – and is still evolving today and will continue to do so tomorrow and beyond. Then again Councillor Brewer was no better when he said in a Auckland Plan Committee meeting last year that he lived in Ellersile and that intensification can happen anywhere – just not his backyard. So much for the neo-liberal principles he is meant to adhere too. Neo Liberal principles that dictate liberal planning methods that allow the market to cater for what the consumer wants (that might be a low-rise apartment building in Ellersile) no what Cameron Brewer wants.

 

“Planning should ban the rebuilding of hopelessly fire-prone bush-hamlets. It should ban building on the Hawkesbury floodplains, aged-care down bush cul-de-sacs and all development in water catchments.”

That kind of planing is mitigation planning to prevent disasters from happening. Planning does have that role to play in mitigation in order to not put or rather allow people in harm’s way, or to preserve areas where we can see resources from (water). The only problem is that we like the Australians are not very good at mitigation planning.

 

Finally: “Our rules should not be a balance of competing me-isms. Rather, they should embody a shared view of what is best for us all. It’s not rocket science, but it must at least attempt a God-view.”

And there is the $64 million question that would take a team of PhD philosophers a Century to answer…

 

Disclaimer: I do participate actively to the Auckland Council on:

  • Urban Planning
  • Transport Planning
  • Urban Design
  • Finances
  • Governance

Thus I do advocate Council ideas, alternatives, and constructive criticisms on policies, projects and other matters concerning Council and Auckland. Current lobbying has been occurring extensively with Manukau amongst other situations out there in Auckland. I do not hide the fact that I have a strong interest in Auckland politics thus advocate and participate. However, to make it clear I do not lobby for my own personal thus selfish gains or protection (although I have my own values, morals and ideology), I advocate for what I believe would be good for the wider community and wider Auckland. It is about THEM – not me – that is how I advocate. 

Any queries feel free to leave a comment below

 

Courage to Ask for Help – Things I look for in a leader

·

Would you like me to help?

Or

Would you like to have a sook to the media (well try)?

 

I was going through the Auckland Council Shape Auckland website (that holds the Unitary Plan and e-maps) to get to the e-maps for another post when I saw these two tweets:

Bob Dey’s commentary at his own blog hits the nail on the head in regard to Palino crying foul over the Unitary Plan. You can see Bob’s commentary here. 

As for the Parking/Sleeping Tweet if I was to have a guess looking at it, it seem that particular person is either a Palino Sympathiser or an Anti Unitary Plan  person (usually a NIMBY). So best ignore whoever that person is.

As for Palino going: “When can I see the Unitary Plan?” this is where the difference between asking for help or having a sook to the media applies.

You see I was always taught “there is no such thing as a dumb question – as your dumb question is usually the same one everyone else is thinking but to chicken to ask.” And in life (and still do) I have asked some dumb questions. The thing is though is someone is lost I will always be compassionate and lend assistance (if they choose to accept it).

Even leaders like Mayors will ask the odd dumb question from time to time. And to that I am willing to lend assistance if they accept it. We are all equal in this and it shows me to that the leader actually has humility in them. Because and I also admit it does take a bit of squashing the pride down and plucking up the courage to ask that dumb question – at the risk of humiliating yourself in front of your peers (who should be themselves ashamed for not having the courage to ask in the first place too).

 

So humility is what I look for in leaders (civic, political, sports, business and military). Having a sook in the media over that “dumb” question will put me off you straight away. And Palino (although already having done so earlier in the piece) has put me (even further) off him with that article (sook).

Look if Palino had asked me nicely I would have done one of the following options (and I’ll also do so in reasonable request to others as I have done already):
1) Emailed a copy of the Unitary Plan Amended Clean Version
2) Linked to my blog site of the voting records on changes to two of the most pressing issues of the Unitary Plan – Density and the Rural Urban Boundary
3) Linked or asked Auckland Council nicely to the rest of the voting records with the changes – Auckland Plan Committee Agendas and Minutes (thanks to Auckland Transport Blog for reminding me there on that one)
4) Given him my Twitter handle where I have around 450 Tweets of “live” Unitary Plan happenings from the 5 days of APC proceedings

 

If I had the time available I could have even gone through the current version of the Unitary Plan with you. And I bet there will be something in there that will get me stumped resulting in me asking the planners what it means. Simple stuff folks.

I don’t want to delve into Palino’s sook too much more but Bob Dey did say this in his blog piece which is 110% correct:

The alternative to notifying the draft now for public submissions would have been to send it to a review by the second-term council, possibly resulting in different recommendations. Whatever the recommendations, post-notification the public has the formal opportunity to review the contents, and there will be many people, especially those with vested interests, who will do just that.

Meaning whatever new changes a new Council might throw in there might get equally rejected thus not show up in the operative Unitary Plan any how. Thus a waste of time and ratepayers money if Council tried to pull that (review) option. Oh and also the screaming hypocrisy to boot against the Conservatives who would try that stunt – after harping on about being financially prudent…

Formal submission time is YOUR time to submit YOUR requests on changes to the Unitary Plan. Not a second term Council going willy nilly on the false premise of a review – or Cup of Tea as Councillor Brewer said.

Oh and one other thing that I have to keep reminding people of and so put in this Tweet:

J. P. L. @yakmoose about 4 hours ago: next time you see a council candidate going on about the rushed unitary plan. remember, if they don’t get it through, government will decide

If that were to happen – pretty much all is lost for Auckland.

 

All in all though no one has been denied to the Unitary Plan. The version that will be used in the formal notification stage is still being compiled and assembled. It will be available (all going good) on September 30 for our consumption and reference point for our formal submissions. Those more keen on a bit of mouse clicking can read amendments that either did or did not go through here.

While the clean amended version before the amendments can be found here (warning there are adverts): http://www.filefactory.com/f/c610f210fe21fea0

 

So no one is being or should be denied access to the Unitary Plan. It is all there and the notified version will be with us at the end of the month. And no those trying to pull back the Unitary Plan for a “Cup of tea” are wasting effort and our money as we can put our changes through regardless in the notification stage. 

Unitary Plan Updates 3.2.1

· 1 Comment ·

Will Get the Update from My Perspective Tonight

 

Owing to the absolute stunner of a day outside, I will get my commentary up on Day 3’s proceeding of the Unitary Plan tonight after sun-down. The commentary will look at the resolutions passed, Councillor Brewer’s defeat (allowing the path to be laid for Auckland advancing from the 1950s to the 1970s as a result), and the apparent hypocrisy of National Party supporters/members in regards to the Unitary Plan.

But for now it is time to enjoy the sun (and tend to the garden ready for Spring).

 

Oh for those who have nothing better to do this weekend, here are the tracked changes to the Unitary Plan: http://www.scribd.com/doc/163821981/APC-The-Rural-Urban-Boundary

 

Related articles

 

Unitary Plan – Towards Notification #2

·

A Warning to the City

Slowing Down the Unitary Plan Will Come at a Great Cost to Auckland

 

As a part of a two-part mini-series I will be going over the Unitary Plan briefing to the media outlets (including Talking Auckland) that occurred yesterday .

In Part One (last post), Talking Auckland looked at: the Unitary Plan and where it has come thus far. Part One will also look at where next with the Unitary Plan – specifically August 28th to 30th and September 5th.

Part Two (this post) will look at one of the questions I asked in regards to the Unitary Plan: could it have been slowed down. Part Two will also serve a warning against those conservative Council candidates who think slowing the Unitary Plan down is a wise idea. Simply done in the name of a Better and Affordable Auckland, slowing down the Unitary Plan does nothing to achieve that. All it achieves is Central Government intervening – something the conservatives might be holding out for

 

Part Two: Could Have the Unitary Plan Been Slowed Down

 

The simple answer to that is NO! Now as this is meant to be running commentary I think I might need to give a bit more than the two letter simple answer.

I need not remind the City (as the Deputy Mayor has already done so countless times) that the Unitary Plan is different from the District Plans of old. With the District Plans the only time “we” – the City get a look and comment on a District Plan is when it was formally notified. Formal notification means formal submissions and a trip to a hearing – often the Environment Court. YUCK for 99% of the City that are not planners or RMA lawyers.

The Unitary Plan was different. We got given the “draft of the draft” where everyone could give feedback no matter who you were in Auckland. That means for the first time the City got to have a good look at the Unitary Plan and comment back on it. And comment back did Auckland do with 22,700 pieces of feedback, with independent commentary being led by this very blog!

As mentioned in Part One, the Council and Local Boards have since June 1 been going through our feedback and changing the Unitary Plan to reflect what we said. The changes that will be introduced to the Auckland Plan Committee and Local Boards will occur August 28th – although they and the media (including me) will have a copy of the tracked changes on Monday. And from there the formal decisions are set over three days (August 28-30th) with the Governing Body giving its final instructions on September 5.

 

This brings me to my warning to those conservatives who will try to slow down the Unitary Plan.

It was confirmed yesterday by the two Penny’s that there is nothing stopping a new Council after October 12 stalling or even withdrawing notification of the Unitary Plan, taking it apart and redoing it again.

Conservative Councillors and candidates, particularly those running in the Albert-Eden and the Tamaki-Maungakiekie Wards at the moment will try to hold out and see if they can get the numbers after October 12 to stall or withdraw the notification on the Unitary Plan (if the September 5 Governing Body meeting decided that the UP was to be notified – it still might not and order the new Auckland Plan Committee to review aspects again before notification).

If I had no confidence in the Unitary Plan as it is I would rally with the conservatives. However, as I do have confidence in the Deputy Mayor and the Unitary Plan I will be rallying against the conservatives who would stall the Unitary Plan out of interests of a small minority.

Yes, a very small minority in two ward areas that are trying to run conservative candidates in those areas. The other wards that could earn my ire have been more constructive. These Wards not attracting my ire include Orakei and most of the North Shore where Auckland 2040 is doing quite a bit of leg work with the Mixed Housing Zone split (to the benefit of the wider City).

If these conservatives get their way and stall the Unitary Plan this is what will happen. For every day the Unitary Plan is stalled is another day pushed back in the three-year notification process. For every day the notification is delayed is another day that fighting the Housing Affordability and Choice crisis is lost. And another day lost in fighting the Housing Affordability and Choice issues is another day of uncertainty in having the city progressed and us losing our best and brightest who want to stay but can not. I also need not remind the City that the Housing Accord’s Special Housing Areas do not come “online” until the Unitary Plan is notified. So stall the notification and you stall getting more houses and apartments being supplied to a growing city. Oh, and if the Unitary Plan is stalled for too long then the Minister for the Environment will intervene and the City really loses out to Wellington.

That is the risk the city runs if the conservatives get their way and stall the Unitary Plan. So, please, I ask you to be careful in the upcoming elections. If the Unitary Plan is stalled by these conservatives serving a small interest, it will come at a great cost to the city – especially the two areas that can ill afford it the most: The South and the West.

Also those who claim that they were shut out of the Unitary Plan process by being denied speaking rights on the UP over the last two months are dead wrong. As the Deputy Mayor confirmed yesterday and as I also know from experience, speaking rights were denied to those wishing to speaking on the UP during the last couple of months. The reason was uniform and straight forward from the Deputy Mayor on why. If one of us (the city) spoke after the feedback session then all 22,700 others could speak. Now 22,700 time five minutes of speaking plus five minutes of questions if the Councillors keep it brief equals – a three month delay. The Deputy Mayor did further say that speaking would be a duplication of what we said in our feedback. In any case I know two of us that did ask for speaking rights and were refused had a good chat or meeting with the Deputy Mayor (and planners) and both of us came away happy. Also  Auckland 2040 and myself have been busy advance both our causes on the side to positive results thus far – and a Better Auckland.

 

So we wait for the August 28-30th Auckland Plan Committee meetings as they set the decisions for the Unitary Plan, ready for September 5.

 

TALKING AUCKLAND

Talking Auckland: Blog of TotaRim Consultancy Limited

TotaRim Consultancy
Bringing Well Managed Progress to Auckland and The Unitary Plan

Auckland: 2013 – YOUR CITY, YOUR CALL

 

Local Government poster png mode

 

Mood of the Boardroom on Len

·

Businesses Quite Warm to Len

People still also don’t see a viable alternative candidate

 

The prominent Mood of the Boardroom exercise was conducted this week in Auckland. What had me interested the most was the fact that most businesses were quite warm to our current Mayor Len Brown and won’t mind him pulling a second term with the mayoral chains.

From the NZ Herald

CEOs cautiously back Brown bid

By Bill Bennett

 

Although a clear majority of business leaders say Len Brown deserves a second term as Auckland mayor, that doesn’t mean he has unqualified support.

 

Sixty per cent of CEO respondents to the Herald survey said Brown should return to the Auckland mayoral chambers. Only 16 per cent are against Brown getting a second term.

 

Brown had a landslide victory in the first Auckland-wide mayoral election in 2010 beating John Banks and Colin Craig. Within minutes of being elected, Brown spoke of his ambition to make Auckland the world’s “most liveable city”.

 

His platform was dominated by a promise to improve public transport in three main areas: build an inner city rail loop, extend the railway to the airport and, eventually, to the North Shore. He also promised to defend public ownership of assets and create a more compact city.

 

Earlier this month Brown made the airport rail link a focus of his re-election campaign.

 

His rivals for the election, due in October, include American-born businessman and former TV host John Palino who plans to shift the epicentre of the city south to Manukau and activist John Minto who will stand for the Mana Party.

 

The lack of a credible alternative mayor is noted

…

With the “lack of credible alternative mayor” piece; meh I give up going on about that now. Seems the elections are forgone in the mayoral department this time around.

As for everything else it seems our businesses are warm (but not flash hot) towards Len. While you can read individual comments in the said article from where I sit, it should mean then further stability for the next three years in and with Auckland Council. Sure there is still heaps to do – the Unitary Plan being a major one but, it is not like businesses are frothing at the mouthing wanting to burn someone at the stake. On the flip side though Council does need to improve things with business if we (Auckland) wish to continue to be an attractive city for residents and businesses alike.

 

In regards to the Unitary Plan and our businesses

Still from the same article

Len’s Unitary Plan a work in progress

Brown’s Unitary Plan aims to shape the city as it adds a million extra residents over the next 30 years. An important part of this will be to intensify housing – a move proving controversial with residents in many suburbs.

 

There’s uncertainty in the boardroom about the plan, with more than a third saying they are unsure whether it will deliver growth. A small majority, 52 per cent think the plan will enable economic growth, with only 10 per cent saying it will not. While 59 per cent of CEOs think the plan makes the right provisions for future population growth, close to a half worry it will not decrease business compliance costs.

 

Forty per cent of respondents think the plan will enable investment, but a little under a half are uncertain about this.

…

 

Okay a tepid response towards the Unitary Plan from business which would be the same as the rest of the city – most likely. Better though than an openly hostile reaction against the Unitary Plan which would not do for stability within the city. So on this alone there is still plenty of work to do before the Unitary Plan goes out to final notification (decided in August).

 

One final note from the Herald article

A sizable majority, 63 per cent, support the idea of limiting Auckland’s growth with projects such as a rapid rail link to Hamilton.

Ah no! This is a liberal democracy not Mao’s China or Stalin’s Soviet Union so no population cap measures. As I have mentioned before Auckland has critical mass and will perpetually grow from within itself owing to that mass. People have been flocking away from the provinces to the big city since the Industrial Revolution in England. Cities are just power magnets of economic opportunities that will always attract people. It is just something we need to adapt to best we can.

And so the final summary figures on the Mood of the Boardroom with the Mayor

How they rate Len

• 60 per cent of CEO respondents say Brown should return to the Auckland mayoral chambers.

• 3.2 out of five report card mark on his first term; 52 per cent of respondents think the unitary plan will enable economic growth, and

•59 per cent think the plan makes the right provisions for future population growth

 

Not too bad for our first mayor of the Super City and its first three years

 

Related articles

 

Oh Dear – Toys out of Cot – Again

·

Someone down in the South is not happy

 

Oh dear it seems someone (or rather some Association) has spilled their cup of tea and decided to have a moan in the media. Yes I am being rather unflattering towards the Karaka Residents and Ratepayers Association but, upon reading the following Courier article can someone explain on earth is really going on here please?

Lets take a look at the said article to get some context shall we?

From the Papakura Courier and the ever-so reliable Dubby Henry

Community groups aim to speak out 

DUBBY HENRY

 

Franklin residents could soon have a powerful new voice if community groups get their way.

 

Groups across the area want to form a united “de facto community board” to rival the Franklin Local Board as a voice for disenfranchised residents.

 

The group will speak on key overarching issues such as the Auckland Council‘s Unitary Plan, transport and infrastructure.

 

The Karaka Residents and Ratepayers Association is driving the move and is working on signing up the 20-plus groups stretching from Kawakawa Bay to Waiuku and Buckland in the south and Alfriston in the north.

Association chairman Steve Bird says many groups have already expressed interest.

 

He says the move has been in the works for some time but its necessity has been highlighted by the recent furore over the Karaka-Weymouth bridge.

 

That saw residents’ groups in Weymouth and Karaka arguing with each other when they could have united earlier against the development.

 

Many Franklin residents feel voiceless in the super city, he says.

 

Big turnouts at residents’ meetings suggest people are not getting information from the local board or from Auckland Council so “we are circumventing that system”, Mr Bird says.

 

He hopes a united group will have “strength in numbers” and will force the council to listen.

 

Smaller groups in outlying communities will especially benefit from a bigger group going in to bat for them, he says.

…

Right let me get this right? Weymouth and Karaka residents were arguing against one another over the now shelved Karaka-Weymouth Bridge?

Last I looked and I was there personally at the those meetings over THAT bridge I saw Weymouth and Karaka residents UNITED against the Karaka Collective and their supporters. Both over and AGAINST that bridge as well as the Karaka North and West Rural Urban Boundary issues.

It was also due to superb planning by Council Planners, some very fine work by the Franklin Local Board, and the united stand in Franklin, Karaka and Weymouth that is seeing the “Corridor” option of the Southern RUB being advanced through the Unitary Plan as the best option. The Karaka North and West options like THAT bridge have been shelved.

So apart from a Council Comm’s cock-up with the Deputy Mayor acknowledged (and most likely someone got roasted for it back in Council) I’d say for the most part in regards to the Southern Rural Urban Boundary and that bridge, Council did listen.

In saying that I realise there are issues with the Large Lot and details around the Rural Zones – that was apparent in today’s Committee meeting. I did hear today from the planners that those issues are still being worked through with the respective Local Boards at the moment.

 

As for force in numbers and “forcing” Council to listen. Good luck with that guys. If anything the Council will more likely go tell you to jump rather than listen to what will most certainly be an enlarged unresponsive NIMBY group.

And as a demonstration that Council listens to the small fellow, watch the Manukau developments.

 

Although elections are approaching, the move is not political.

 

“The idea is to act unofficially as a local board in terms of being a sounding board. So we’ll get the information that people are finding they’re not able to get through the council.

 

“The council treats us like mushrooms – we’re in the dark and they feed us garbage.”

 

The proposal is doing the rounds but there will be some delay for each group to vote on the move.

 

The combined group will be an incorporated society with its own constitution while those it represents will stay independent and continue their local work.

 

It will focus on key issues that affect big areas, such as the Unitary Plan, the Rural Urban Boundary lines, transport, infrastructure and education although “we’ve got to put our toe in the water to see where the strength lays for particular subjects”, he says.

—ends—

Now that I had to laugh over: “”The council treats us like mushrooms – we’re in the dark and they feed us garbage.”

I was called a mushroom once and I took a complement – why? Because to turn crap/garbage and turn it into a very valuable product that is worth quite a bit (think how much do mushrooms cost at the supermarket) to the wider community/people.

So the Association might want to think that quip again owing that the Southern RUB outputs are becoming quite valuable from a rather crap start.

As for the rest of it, running parallel to the Local Board must be the most daft thing to do in advancing the interests of the South. I recommend contacting Desley Simpson – Chair of the Orakei Local Board and ask how she works so well with her Associations she has in her area.

And so I wonder if it is the Karaka Collective stirring behind the scenes after their “proposal” with the RUB and bridge were shelved by the Council and are looking at RUB sentiment from the east Takanini and Alfriston area after Council said they were not moving the RUB further east.

I believe the Takanini/Alfriston RUB issues are owing from Veolia Water not wanting to put in the infrastructure in that area. Also the fact that the particular area concerned sits on a natural flood plain that floods usually after each decent rain dump…

Still I wonder what is really going on here with this mega association push. Seems some minorities are wanting to “circumnavigate” due process and the sound majority…

 

Roll the eyes material after concessions made in advancing the South… Typical

TALKING AUCKLAND

Talking Auckland: Blog of TotaRim Consultancy Limited

TotaRim Consultancy
Bringing Well Managed Progress to Auckland and The Unitary Plan

Auckland: 2013 – YOUR CITY, YOUR CALL

 

Pre-Election Reports from the Council

·

The State of Council before the Elections

 

Auckland Council as per the Local Government Act has released its very first Pre-Election report for your consumption.

From Council

First pre-election report released
 

Auckland Council has today issued its very first pre-election report.

A new requirement of all councils under the Local Government Act from this year, the pre-election report is prepared by the local authority’s chief executive and must be politically independent.

“The purpose of a pre-election report under the Act is for councils to provide information to promote public discussion about the issues a council faces ahead of the local body elections, so voters can make more informed choices,” says Doug McKay, Auckland Council Chief Executive.

The Auckland Council Pre-Election Report 2013, prepared to meet the requirements of the Act, includes financial results for the three financial years immediately preceding the date of the election and latest projections for the three years immediately after.

The report includes a forecasted result for 2012/2013 year; given the final audited financial results for this period will not be reported to council until September 2013.

The report is prepared on a group basis, including council-controlled organisations, and covers operating expenditure, major projects and capital expenditure, debt projections and rates projections for 2014-2017.

—-ends—-

 

You can read the Report HERE (opens in new tab)

 

Election coverage will continue here on Talking Auckland as it happens.