Discussion: Regarding Auckland
318 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 13 Newer→ Last
-
...which one assumes is code for having them contract out all their operations other than rubber-stamping paperwork for building plans
Indeed. From what I've read, the community boards won't have any say over planning and resource consents.
And, presumably, 20-odd councillors will never have the time to look at them either. Not when they have to deal with consents for the entire region.
Which leaves....who exactly?
-
Danielle
San Antonio is a very odd place. There are some really neat things they've done, The Riverwalk is a loop of the local river made into a canal lined with cafes restaurants etc. It could have been really great but in the end San Antonio is in Texas which is in the USA. So the cafes and restaurants are chains and it just didn't have a feel to it. Combine that with The Alamo and Six Flags and ... well it was a fun place to visit but I wouldn't want to live there.
-
Which leaves....who exactly?
Um I'm pretty sure that I've never seen a councilor in any of the planning departments that I've been into (which isn't that many to be fair) and I didn't think councilors bothered themselves with resource consents either. They're busy people after all - meetings to go to and er meetings and...
So my guess is the answer will be ... exactly the same bureaucrat who does it now.
-
Is anyone else wondering whether the Supercity could be the first step in a plan to centralise control of public assets and services prior to hocking them off into private (corporate) ownership.
I oft think that, especially with the process that has been adopted. No referendum,ignoring the Royal Commission recommendations and ignoring our indigenous people suggests exactly where the true interests really lie. Also, if (as it seems) this will be, we don't need no Wellington candidates, we have Aucklanders! :)
-
So what are the PA thoughts on the Maori seats
Good, bad or mad
Just interested forn a southern point of view -
Fletcher - it was (the nice but ditzy) Christine Fletcher (surprised you forgot that one) as the incumbent, and Matt McCarten split the vote to let Banks in.
Once in power, he then created a false "financial crisis" (Nick Smith taking notes, perhaps) and introduced an agenda and approach that pissed everyone off. Now he has the same agenda but a less confrontational approach and no-one is noticing.
I doubt he has much support in West or South Auckland but bet the Wayne Mapp and Murray McCulley voters will get out in force. And lets face it, it's the old fogies who are the ones who vote in local elections - to keep rates down and bugger the infrastructure.
Auckland really needs a cheerleader along the lines of a Mark Blumskey or a Bob Harvey. Someone who can appeal across cultural lines and not just represent the power brokers of East Auckland.
Auckland needs someone who has a vision for Auckland as a city, rather than as a financial statement.
Auckland needs someone who can create an environment that contributes to a sense of self-worth for the city that both Wellington and Christchurch have in abundance (esp Wellington) through Mayoral support for cultural events and development (and that includes architecture).
Auckland has been woefully led and severely mismanaged since Robbie left by the Cit-Rats who have under-invested in infrastructure and taken us down a path of narrow-minded, conservative approaches instead of working to build what could be a truly great city from a city that has all the potential in the world.
Yes, I'm pissed off.
-
We need someone to clean up this town and put a stop to waste, extravagance and endless consultation.
Oh - isn't that what John Banks stood for?
-
MARK GRAHAM FOR SUPERMAYOR!
You've even got a radio show! =)I think part of the problem Auckland faces is that years of underinvestment now requires the dreaded rates rises simply to catch up. The last 10yr plan actually required double-digit rates growth just to be delivered on.
But try selling that to anyone - haven't you heard there's a crisis going on and BMW aren't selling enough 7 series? -
Auckland needs someone who can create an environment that contributes to a sense of self-worth for the city that both Wellington and Christchurch have in abundance (esp Wellington) through Mayoral support for cultural events and development (and that includes architecture)
We do not have architecture in Auckland. We have property.
-
As this is about saving money and (cough) improving services to Auckland we have decided to move the new council's head offices to Wellington.
There is precedent for this. Surrey County Council (the local body for an area SW of London) has its offices in the London suburb of Kingston, which hasn't been in Surrey for over 40 years. Moving has always been considered to difficult and expensive.
-
-
Couple of things.
1) Under-paying political figures is a sure-fire way to encourage corruption. Especially when they have parts to play in decisions surrounding spending private-sector money, such as determining the shape of the district plan. We do not want to go down that route. Much as I think that MPs are overpaid for what they deliver, their position in the very upper levels of the national income distribution does make them quite hard to bribe. After all, they make considerably more than most business owners.
2) I'm not sorry to see the Maori seats go. It's not "acceptable" to say so, I'm sure, but I'm not. If Maori want representation, they can stand alongside all the other candidates. There's no shortage of qualified Maori with high profiles. How many Maori councillors on Manukau City Council? Isn't Len Brown Maori? Consultation with iwi and hapu for any kind of decision that impacts them is already required. If they want more influence they can ensure that their candidates are the best ones for the job, rather than seeking to manipulate race. I bet there'll be at least one Pacific Island councillor, and at least one Asian, and they'll get there without any special preference. -
Um I'm pretty sure that I've never seen a councilor in any of the planning departments that I've been into (which isn't that many to be fair) and I didn't think councilors bothered themselves with resource consents either.
Apologies Bart - I didn't put that very well. And you're right (I think): they don't get involved in the day-to-day building consents, but I'm pretty sure they do - or have - been involved in large scale planning consents.
At any rate, my (badly expressed) point is that, from what I can see, more and more decisions will be made without directly involving the people (or the people's 'representative') they affect.
-
It could have been really great but in the end San Antonio is in Texas which is in the USA. So the cafes and restaurants are chains and it just didn't have a feel to it.
Hey, Texas has a feel to it. It may not be a feel that people particularly like, but it's a feel. ;)
Seriously, I think Texas has an amazing folk-art thing going on, particularly stuff like the annual Art Car Parade in Houston. And they really know how to do badass rockabilly youth culture in Texas, too. You just have to get past all those chain restaurants and billboards. Look at Auckland: the Sky Tower and the vileduct kind of suck, TBT. No one would say they had 'a feel', unless that feel was 'soulless and icky'. Yet we send all the tourists to them in droves.
-
PAS may be interested to know that parliament is debating the RC report... they've clearly been following the lead here...
-
I'm not sorry to see the Maori seats go. It's not "acceptable" to say so, I'm sure, but I'm not. If Maori want representation, they can stand alongside all the other candidates. There's no shortage of qualified Maori with high profiles. How many Maori councillors on Manukau City Council?
I don't think it unacceptable to think that. I am sure you are right with regard to high profile etc but what I find all too common is the assumption that "they" are all in South Auckland, Manakau being suggested,Ngati Whatua are on the waterfront, Eastern Suburbs and I feel that is what we will face as soon as this happens. Goff is debating this on TV now so I gotta go.
-
Thanks for your vote Gareth (and your ears :))
Don't forget the slight of hand move the Cit-Rats and Banks made on Auckland last time - separating out rubbish charges and splitting off water and waste water charges - both adding substantially to householders' costs but not acknowledged as 'rates rises'.
And Cit-Rats campaigned on a 0% rates increase in 2001 but we ended up with an 'inflation' rates rise which this time around has transmogrified into a 'council inflation' rates rise.
Moody's has Auckland on a downgrade watch because they're anticipating that the city is going to have to spend lots of money at some stage soon because of deferred maintenance. Who's going to get hit with that one?
And, by no means least, let us not forget the charges councils have to pass on because of legislation passed through central government that has resulted in increased costs for them.
So...supercity? Why not? And while we're at it, let's experiment with changing to our pathology testing to a whole new system in one massive jump - that's never been tried before, either.
Jesus - it all smacks of late 1980s economic liberalisation. Where ARE the cost savings? It's bullshit. It looks like they're doing something to fix things but it's all smoky mirrors and moving cups (to mix metaphors).
-
Urgent Debate, The Government's decision on Auckland governance. Parliament TV now.
-
But they will do just that and they will have a budget. And my guess is that budget will not be small and it will employ lots of nice folks to keep the local area clean/pretty/artistic/etc/etc/etc
You are right in part Bart... the local boards will get a allocated budget from the central council and they will nbe able to lobby for the aplication of local targeted rates (similar to mainstreet rates that we have for some town centres now), but they are precluded from employing any staff. All staff support will come from the centre after passing through the filter of the central council and the Auckland Chief Executive.
And, presumably, 20-odd councillors will never have the time to look at them either. Not when they have to deal with consents for the entire region.
Which leaves....who exactly?
Richard... that leaves independant commissioners or staff delegations for almost all resource consents, but I guess that you knew that.
-
Richard C. No apologies needed :) I get your point. In some ways I was making the same point. At the moment the people actually making the day to day decisions are the (mostly very hard working and well intentioned) folks in planning depts. But does anyone know or care which area they live in?
The high level overarching decisions are the responsibility of the councilors, but from what I've seen those decisions are passed off to consultants - who again may live elsewhere.
So how do you involve people who live there in the decisions about the local environment? Especially if they don't much care.
-
Will there be any recourse for submissions to the Local Govt Commission as they build the details for this?
A big driver of Local Board success will be exactly which services they are tasked with providing. -
I heard Michael Barnett (??) on the TV this morning (and I've been up in Auckland for the last two days at the NZ Computer Science Research Students' conference, kept awake by the all-night drone (why??) of air conditioning on the roofs of all the blocks around, so I was awake early!) and he seemed happy that: (1) the plans would not save, indeed are not about saving, any money; and (2) it is going to achieve the (only intended?) goal of making "doing business" in Auckland easier.
Simple, really.
-
In regard to the mayoralty there has been some discussion of campaign limits of $70k. This would present a significant problem... as to put a single letter with a stamp in every letter box in the region would cost in the order of $250k... so $70k is never going to do it.
But that is only the start. There would be absolutely no point in capturing the mayoralty if you did not have a ticket of councillors to give you a majority on the council.
So you need to fund the mayoralty, plus 8 'at large' campaigns, plus selected ward seats. This would inevitably require a national election party campaign, but with no (as yet suggested) ratepayer funded media buy.
-
Sofie, certainly no assumption on my part that all, or even most, Maori live in Manukau City. Manukau is the second-largest of the constituent cities, though, and the one that's routinely billed as having the highest population of Polynesians, so it's the obvious target if one's looking for evidence that Maori can get themselves elected to local bodies without any racial preferment.
I've asked someone I know who works at Parliament to see if the Parliamentary Library has information on councillor ethnicities on the present councils. It would take an absence of non-Maori under the current system to convince me that they need special treatment.
-
Will there be any recourse for submissions to the Local Govt Commission as they build the details for this?
It is very definately going to be on the (very) fast track, but the Commission has the task of setting the ward and local board boundaries. At this point it is to be assumed that there will be consultation on this in line with the existing law.
The announcement set the wards at 12, but it does give discretion to the Commission for the number of local board areas minus Gt Barrier and Waiheke Island that get their own
Post your response…
This topic is closed.