A second bridge will never ever be built because North Shore has differing opinions as to where the bridge should go from the opinion of Auckland.”

So you’re saying if there was just one council we would not have differing opinions on the suitablility of major roading projects and therefore no opposition?

This is exactly the reason I believe merging the cities is a bad idea. The reason there are still separate cities is because they represent the interests of their residents. Look at the extreme view- local government entirely abolished and everything contolled (even more so) out of Wellington. I somehow doubt in this scenario that local representation would be of a very high standard.

In actual fact I believe it is currently ARTA and Transit that have the majority of sway on the develoment of transport infrastructure planning in Auckland anyway. Maybe they just need to pull their thumbs out and start showing results.

Auckland and the western/central part of Manukau City ought to merge into one city. Perhaps also with some of eastern Waitakere City. Part of Waitakere should merge with the North Shore. the south of Manukau should merge with Papakura. Franklin should join Waikato. Rodney should join North Shore.

You want the third one now?

The big issues never get resolved in greater Auckland because there is never consensus between the different Councils.

A second bridge will never ever be built because North Shore has differing opinions as to where the bridge should go from the opinion of Auckland.

That isnt even on the agenda but the amount of time wasted consulting neighbouring councils on infrastructure issues is absurd.

One Council governing from Bombay to Albany would help to streamline the process.

I am comfortable paying my rates for North Shore City council, rather than having wild-eyed lefties running the show as is sadly the case over the bridge.

Auckland’s cities are close, but very different demographically. North Shore has a right-wing majority in council. Incidentally we also get consistently lower rate increases than Auckland City and the highest rate of business growth in the country. The city is also geographically small enough to be able to see where your rates are going.

I’m all for the status quo.

Similar comments apply to any other political coalition in any sphere e.g. Promises broken by National when they went into coalition with Winston Peters.

So far I haven’t seen anyone use the damn thing, but it sits as a reminder of how to waste money.

As for Melling, Petone and Other SH2 improvements, they are solely Transits problem. I think the Cross-Valley link is 60% Transit funded as well. As a Waiwhetu Rd resident (about 100m north of the Epuni Baptist) I am very keen to see it proceed.

http://subs.nzherald.co.nz/search/story.cfm?storyid=737F641A-39E2-11DA-8E1B-A5B353C55561

He also promised a review of what he called a “disgraceful rating system” – which I note has not occured yet.

http://subs.nzherald.co.nz/search/story.cfm?storyid=4B755876-39E2-11DA-8E1B-A5B353C55561

hubbard quote from the GABA election meeting was:

Hubbard: I am concerned about aged. My mother, 78, pensioner, had a 42 per cent rates increase in last few years. Those with high valued properties had virtually none. It’s a disgrace, needs to be addressed. Will be looking at rates release for elderly and those struggling.

http://subs.nzherald.co.nz/search/story.cfm?storyid=4773FBE2-39E2-11DA-8E1B-A5B353C55561

I note that the 42% rates increase Hubbard was referring to included ARC rates, and thus was a disingenuous remark on his part. For the record, Mrs Hubbard’s (and many other elderly ratepayers) rates increases for Auckland City rates have been significantly higher under Dick Hubbard than previous councils.

LOL

Now let’s all place ourselves in Logix’s make-believe world and pretend that the above doesn’t apply to Auckland….

Interestingly Hutt and Auckland are of a similar age though.

One issue is that the present council has also shown itself to spend money on things that are demonstrably not core-business or infrastructure, such as social housing or pork barrel politics like silly grants. For example, the council wasted $5 million in penalty fees alone over the Queen St trees thanks to its failure to consult properly. Neither does it give confidence to the ratepayer that rates rises are being spent wisely when Christine Caughey spent $600,000 to be “invested” into “sustainable housing” companies that don’t pay any dividend to the city, or paying for social housing that is central government responsibility. After all – that’s why we have a housing corporation.

A second issue is one of equitable rating. I believe its wrong to whack the rates up based on a persons property values, when the owner of the property may not necessarily have an income that matches the property value. For example, this is most often the case with the elderly, or those on fixed incomes. Hence why user pays, uniform annual charges, or new revenues outside of property based rates ought to be relied on more, so that less of the burden falls on property values. It’s also more equitable, because why should a person pay 25% more in rates one year if they don’t get any extra services? Another related factor to consider is that elderly property ownersy have spent a lifetime contributing towards city infrastructure already. Why should their rates be dramatically hiked over the next 10 years to pay for infrastructure they will never use or see?

It’s also on the nose that Auckland has not received its fair share of transport funding from petrol taxes. The money that should have gone to Auckland over the better part of a decade that has instead gone into the central coffers would have made a significant difference to rail, bus and road improvements in the Auckland region. If Auckland has indeed been shortchanged (it pays 35% of the petrol tax, but only gets 28% back) then there’s a compelling case for the govt to pony up to compensate Auckland. A lump sum to electrification of rail and double-tracking of some of the rail corridors would be fantastic.

The sports grounds will need drainage, seed and fertiliser, all three.

Now the HCC is involved in some form of company that is investing in broadband internet. Grrrr!

Still Chris and Roger do try and keep Ogden in line!

My gripe is that councils spend money on trips overseas, sister city relationships and crap like that, but close the sports grounds when they get wet because they worry about the damage to the grass. Spend less on crap and more on grass seed so my Under11 rugby team can actually play some games of rugby this season.

Not much point building a new bridge at Melling until decisions are made on the intersection with SH2.

There is probably a stronger case to be made with a better cross link lower down the valley, rather than at Melling. Somewhere between the Ewen bridge and the Seaview one.

HCC spends absolute loads on Dowse, has more swimming pools per captia than anywhere I know, Petone, Hutt, Stokes, NaeNae, Eastbourne are the ones off the top of my head. There are also significant libraries in pretty much all of these places too!

HCC main woes was a previous council who spent millions on a PARKING BUILDING! Go figure! That has pretty much been dealt too.

Personally, I have been disappointed in David Ogden, since I voted for him. However the council is still definitely headed in the correct direction compared to the previous two mayors, (Terris and Evans) IMO.