The perils of High-Rise living.

23.6.17

The Editor, NZ Herald, (Not published in the NZH)

Dear Sir, Letter to the Editor: High-Rise living.

Interesting that some officials are now looking busy examining the type of cladding on high-rise buildings. But everyone – elected members of Parliament, Councils and their officials – are all ignoring the central problem of high-rise accommodation.

Except for the luxury pads of the rich and famous, high rise living is essentially anti social and inevitably leads to vertical slums and jungle type, gang dominated situations generally ignored by society at large, which doesn’t need to live in vertical caves – yet. This is the antithesis of the propaganda slogan of making Auckland a “most liveable city.”

I commend to all central and local government politicians and their planners that they read the “perfect storm,” laid out so eloquently by Paul Lochore in the Herald’s issue, 23 June, entitled “Today’s new buildings are a ticking time bomb.”

He is so right, but I guess our politicians and their advisers will come up with the usual platitudes and avoidance measures, including how our regulations, or “self policing” will ensure our wellbeing.

Auckland Council and frivolous expenditure

31.5.17

The Editor, NZ Herald,

Dear Sir, Letter to the Editor: Council Annual Plan Time. (Published in NZH 1.6.17)

If the Mayor and Councillors are really serious about saving money, reducing the burden on ratepayers, helping the road congestion and housing problems, then stop frittering away large sums of money on a huge ‘communications/media and P/R’ staff, including production of expensive mind-manipulating, jargonistic publications telling us to “love Our Auckland” and propaganda from Council and Local Boards.

These publications try to sell us the idea that it is “OUR” Auckland, inviting us to join in various vacuous exercises, the results of which will be generally ignored.

“OUR” Auckland is actually run by the bureaucrats and businessmen in their own interests, not by the people, or their elected representatives.

Then there’s the Mayor’s idea to spend a heap of money on a “crater” stadium, on our waterfront, followed by the idea of a $10m bridge lighting scheme. What will these do to ease the traffic congestion, the homelessness or the burden on ratepayers? Nothing!

Time for a drastic rethink, Mayor and Councillors, plus some very severe questioning and very sharp pencils.

Possible sale of Ports of Auckland. Letter to Mayor and some Councillors.

28.5.17

Dear Mayor and Councillors,

I have been very concerned to read the latest Bernard Orsman commentary on this matter, and that possibly one or two of you (and especially the Mayor) are considering the sale or partial sale of the Ports of Auckland.

I am strongly in favour of the Parliamentary Party’s opposition to asset sale,and shocked that some of you may consider it is worthwhile to ignore that policy for short term gains, while ignoring the long term financial and other costs by full, or even partial sale.

Of course, this ignoring of Labour policy may also well weaken Labour’s chances of making important gains in the forthcoming elections, not to mention another ’short term’ effect at the time of the next local body election, by having a damaging effect on those Councillors who vote for, or promote this proposal.

I hope you will consider this matter very fully and carefully, and stand united against the sale of the people’s assets.

I need say no more than to quote this piece emphasized in the article:

“If you go down this path you need to know there will be widespread public opposition and widespread corrosive cynicism and distrust in the leadership of the city”

The Destruction of Local Government.

Local government is being removed from the people at an increasing rate.

For decades the Local Government Commission has had a general instruction to reduce the number of local authorities nationwide, especially since the first major amalgamation in 1989.

Just twenty years after that amalgamation, Auckland became the target for another significant amalgamation – the amalgamation to set up a new, experimental species, the “Super City.” What was established was a corporate, and bureaucratic model, with a democratic veneer to confuse the public.

Further constraints on the captive citizens of Auckland were overlays by central government through the requirements of the Unitary Plan, which, among other things, ensures that there is little chance of objection from the majority of Aucklanders, and that the rights of developers and intensification anywhere and everywhere are paramount.

In addition, the key public assets and services have been excised from any real democratic input or control and are run by unelected appointees from the business world. These euphemistically named “Council Controlled Organisations” include:

Watercare Services: controls water and sewerage services and reticulation, together with sewerage plants, water storage and treatment plants.

Auckland Council Investments Limited: (100% shareholding in Ports of Auckland Limited; shares held in Auckland International Airport; Auckland Film Industries.)

Auckland Transport (Public transport network including Britomart; Roading network. This asset is owned by the council and managed by Auckland Transport).

Development Auckland Ltd (Panuku). (Freehold interests in Waterfront Land; Sale or redevelopment of various council-owned land and facilities.)

Regional Facilities Auckland. (Auckland Art Gallery (including the arts collections owned by Regional Facilities Auckland; Auckland Zoo; Aotea Centre; Civic Theatre; Viaduct Events Centre; Mt Smart stadium.)

The “local” level of governance in this mish mash Auckland Council, are the local boards which have far less say and fewer functions than the former Community Boards.

In brief, then, the democratic rights and avenues of Aucklanders have been largely removed or overridden by government.

Not satisfied with this, the government has altered the Resource Management Act, and now introduced the Urban Development Authorities (UDA) proposal.

The powers potentially available for an urban development project relate to:

• Land – powers to assemble parcels of land, including existing compulsory acquisition powers under the Public Works Act 1981.

This means private property, which should alarm every citizen. Also alarming is that it means public property such as parks, so this would override the Reserves Act intended to protect public open space for public uses.

• Planning and resource consenting – powers to override existing and proposed district plans and regional plans, and streamlined consenting processes.

• Infrastructure – powers to plan and build infrastructure such as roads, water pipes and reserves.

• Funding – powers to buy, sell and lease land and buildings; powers to borrow to fund infrastructure; and powers to levy charges to cover infrastructure costs.

The Government would decide which enabling powers could be used for particular projects.

The government is keen to impose its Auckland model of ‘local government’ on the rest of New Zealand to ensure direct control from Wellington.

So far that has failed, because it allowed two regions to actually have a referendum on the proposals, something denied to Aucklanders.
The two regions were Wellington and Hawkes Bay, both of which sensibly rejected the proposal.

I doubt that the government has given up this quest, and I believe that those plans will resurface soon after the forthcoming elections. If so, the Auckland born and bred ‘refugees’ now streaming out of this beleaguered place will not escape for long. The reason is that if the government resumes this pursuit, I believe it will impose this model throughout the country.

The logical consequence of all of this is that local government, local democracy and local determination as we have known it, will be dead.
Full control will have been removed to Wellington and Parliament, and probably will be administered by a new Ministry – of ‘Local Government!’

Don’t count on Labour opposing this government policy. Labour began the move to a “super city” and amalgamation, as well as being responsible for the 1989 one.

We seem to be moving towards a totalitarian form of centralised government, devoid of local needs and aspirations.

(12.5.17)

Sensible, balanced Plan for Auckland’s Expansion ignored and overridden.

The Herald’s article ‘Towns become cities(7 March) helps illustrate how a comprehensive plan spelling out the necessary action for Auckland’s growth problems has been ignored for twenty years.

In 1999 the Auckland Regional Growth Forum, consisting of representatives of the ARC and all local authorities in the Auckland region, published a comprehensive report – ‘The Auckland Regional Growth Strategy’.

The purpose of the Growth Strategy was “to ensure growth would be accommodated in a way that met the best interests of the inhabitants of the Auckland region” with sustaining strong, safe and healthy communities, a high quality living environment, appropriate infrastructure, and protection of the coast and natural environment.

The Growth Forum didn’t know then what we know now. That Labour would initiate the amalgamation of Auckland’s 7 major Councils, propose a ‘super city’ and that National and Act would create a ‘super-city’ entity called the Auckland Council and set up several ‘Council-Controlled Organisations’ to administer Auckland’s assets.

This new Council was tasked with producing a monster document called the Unitary Plan, overriding the Resource Management Act that still applies to the rest of NZ. Only in the case of Auckland would all of this be done without consulting residents and ratepayers.

Today it seems as if the Auckland Council and its CCOs have never heard of the Auckland Regional Growth Forum or their report, compiled over many years through democratic co-operation and agreement.

Looking back to when the Growth Forum report was launched, it included a very sensible plan for managing the effects of expected growth, including the housing, infrastructural, cultural, economic, and environmental needs.

The number of additional dwellings to be built through to 2050 was calculated to be at least 200,000. Additionally, there would need to be massive expansion of infrastructure for the rapidly increasing population, including public transport, schools, hospitals, open space, sewage treatment, water supply and community resources.

There was clear recognition (see ‘Herald’ article) that some rural towns should become satellite cities providing better opportunities and high quality living environments. Sensibly, these included towns on existing rail lines, such as Helensville, Wellsford and Huntly being developed into cities of around 100,000 people, largely self-sufficient in employment, services, recreation and other social requirements.

Potentially, ‘distance employment’ through good internet connections and Skype could reduce the need for Auckland-based employees to regularly commute to Auckland.

The Auckland Growth Strategy allowed for most growth to be quality, compact urban environments within the existing metropolitan area, around town centres and major transport routes to create higher density communities. Development outside current urban limits was to be only where environmental, accessibility and community principles could be met .There would be much less emphasis on general infill throughout suburban areas .

The 1999 report noted: “Much of the region’s infrastructure (water supply, wastewater treatment, stormwater systems, refuse disposal, transport, power, gas and telecommunication networks) is already reaching design capacity, and needs upgrading to meet higher environmental standards as well as increasing demand. Any future growth will demand major expenditure on infrastructure… Equally important are the social services, networks and facilities that support people and communities…”

The report deemed cultural heritage areas to be central to our identity and help define
our place in history.

Despite the 1999 report, central government has done little to tackle Auckland’s problems seriously.

Initially, Labour made some effort to improve roading and public transport infrastructure, and undertook relatively minor housing initiatives at Hobsonville, Northcote Central, and parts of south Auckland. National, however, has been in denial about a ‘housing crisis’ and has smudged the issue, calling it a ‘supply problem’ and attempting to blame the RMA, the Auckland Council, and returning New Zealanders for the massive housing shortage and spectacular rise in house prices and rentals.

Both Parties have ignored the effects of the tsunami of immigrants and speculators, claiming that immigration boosts the ‘growth’ of the economy and failing to measure the economic, social, and environmental costs of excessive and poorly controlled immigration.

The Unitary Plan ignores or overrides the measures set out in the 1999 Auckland Regional Growth Strategy. It merely goes along with what is probably a directive from National government: accommodate massive population growth for Auckland or else!

Undemocratically, recklessly, and ruinously, the corporatised pretence of local government has been imposed on the people of the Auckland region, and a dictatorial, one-dimensional Unitary Plan has ignored and overridden the sensible, democratic Auckland Regional Growth Strategy.

13.3.17