Frog on RMA
December 12th, 2008 at 11:14 am by David FarrarFrog is upset about Rodney Hide wanting to restrict appeals from deecisions of consent panels to directly affected persons.
Frog thunders:
And in a society governed by rule of law, the citizens should be able to appeal the decisions of council hearing panels to the courts. But I guess all Act’s talk about ‘rule of law’ is only when it suits them not when it might stand in the way of making a buck at the expense of the environment.
This sounds superficially appealing, until you realise Frog is not talking about being able to appeal against what Councils do with public land but appeal against what citizens do on their private property.
Does Frog then think I should be able to appeal to the Enviornment Court his or her decision to paint their house a particular colour? Even when I’m not a next door neighbour, but live 1000 kms away?
Those who are affected by a resource consent should be able to follow the legal process around that consent. But I don’t see why me in Wellington should be able to delay for months and years a resource consent in Dunedin, if it has the support of everyone in Dunedin.
December 12th, 2008 at 11:32 am
“But I don’t see why me in Wellington should be able to delay for months and years a resource consent in Dunedin, if it has the support of everyone in Dunedin.”
Do you have an example of that happening?
The question of “directly affected persons” is a significant one, and one that Councils have trouble with when they decide to make Resource Consent applications non-notified. There have been a significant number of cases in the Environment Court around this issue.
Vote:December 12th, 2008 at 11:44 am
from “The Housing Bubble and the Boomer Generation” by Robert Bruegmann
“……starting about 1970, there was an explosion in regulations on the use of land including tighter zoning and building codes, regulations governing environmental matters, historic preservation and land conservation, growth and building caps and growth management schemes. It became harder to build at the urban edge because of the environmental rules and efforts to limit “sprawl.” It also became harder to build at the center because of substantial down-zoning and other regulations to “preserve neighborhood character,” particularly in affluent neighborhoods. This aspect of the 1960s progressive agenda has led to grumbling about NIMBYism but has otherwise generated surprisingly little negative commentary.
Nevertheless, this movement has created one of the most paradoxical legacies of the 1960s as programs justified in the language and logic of “rights,” have turned into bulwarks for the status quo and a mechanism to transfer wealth from younger families of modest income to more affluent older families…..
“……. Starting in the 1970s, though, particularly in some of the most desirable markets in the country, the same people who most benefited from the developments of the early postwar years turned against those development practices. They advocated regulations for many things that most people, then as now, would agree were desirable – conserving scenic areas and wetlands, protecting coastlines and animal habitats and preserving open space, historic buildings and neighborhood character.
Yet the net effect of all of these regulations was to limit severely the supply of land for urban uses. Even more important, existing homeowners, what I have elsewhere called the “Incumbents’ Club,” created a political system that allowed them to dictate how much growth and what kind of growth would be permitted in their cities.
This shift of decision-making about development from private developers and individual property owners to public planning bodies, almost always controlled by homeowners, was hailed by many observers as a triumph of democratic process. The community rather than the developers, so this line of thinking went, would henceforth dictate the growth of the community. The problem with this equation was that it failed to consider who was speaking for the community and whose voices were not heard or to calculate the costs and benefits of these policies.
For existing homeowners in affluent communities like Boulder Colorado, or Nantucket Island or San Francisco, this regulatory rush turned existing land ownership into pure gold. By limiting the supply of land for development and driving up the costs of development where the land was available, it pushed up the perceived value of all houses, including their own…..
“……These land use regulations and real estate tax policies have made possible, at least in certain highly regulated markets, one of the greatest transfers of wealth in American history. The primary beneficiaries have been existing landowners including a very large percentage of affluent boomers. The ones who have paid have been less affluent renters, younger people and all future generations of prospective homeowners.
The existing homeowner in the Bay Area could watch the value of his house soar from a few hundred thousand dollars up into the millions without lifting a finger. Meanwhile the dramatic rise in land prices, because it has not been accompanied by a corresponding increase in salaries, has devastated the prospects of young couples, many of whom were forced to either leave the area or obliged to take on huge mortgage debt just to afford an entry level house. These same people are now bearing the brunt of the steep decline in housing prices and the wave of foreclosures washing over the country.
One of the most remarkable things about this enormous transfer of wealth has been how little most people were aware that it was happening or what caused it……
“……This leads us to the great challenge we face now keeping families in their homes. The sad truth is that in areas where housing prices have vastly outstripped incomes there may no easy way to do this. In many markets either housing prices will need to fall quite a bit further or income will have to rise substantially, and there is little likelihood – particularly with this weak economy – of the latter happening any time in the near future.
One good thing that might come out of the current crisis, though, is a recognition that regulations, however well-intentioned, can come at a price, sometimes a high one, for some parts of society. I doubt very much that the boomer generation ever intended to create the current housing bubble or enrich itself at the expense of less affluent families and generations to come……..”
http://www.newgeography.com/content/00452-the-housing-bubble-and-boomer-generation
Vote:December 12th, 2008 at 11:45 am
The proposed reforms will almost certainly re-introduce standing.
Vote:At present anyone can object to anything anywhere and does not need to demonstrate a direct adverse effect.
You can just claim that you do not like the idea. Like the 2000 people objecting to the Te Arai development even though most of them hardly even knew where it was.
December 12th, 2008 at 11:49 am
So, there we have it.
The Left, including the “Green” Left, wrings its hands over decreasing social mobility and increases in inequality, and calls for more compensatory “income redistribution; meanwhile the number one reason for the problem having got so much worse in ther first place, is their wonderful ideal of “democratically empowering” “the community” regarding development.
“……These land use regulations and real estate tax policies have made possible, at least in certain highly regulated markets, one of the greatest transfers of wealth in American history (NB: same goes for NZ). The primary beneficiaries have been existing landowners including a very large percentage of affluent boomers. The ones who have paid have been less affluent renters, younger people and all future generations of prospective homeowners….”
Vote:December 12th, 2008 at 11:51 am
And of course having claimed the right to object to anything and everything they bleat like crazy if they lose and have costs awarded against them.
Vote:December 12th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
“Frog is upset”….gee, poor old frog, should we take any notice that Frog (and one assumes the entire Green party) is upset about this given that they amount to not much more than 6% of the population when Frog did not give a toss that 87% of the population were up in arms about the anti smacking bill?
There are many good things about being on the winning side of an election campaign, seeing the words “Frog is upset” is one of them.
Vote:December 12th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Frog wants control.
But Frog is in the losers party.
Poor Frog.
Send in the bulldozers, lads….
Vote:December 12th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
And I thought the RMA was about protecting the “environment” – something all of us share and have an interest in as a community – not merely protecting private property rights….
Vote:December 12th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
So many words when waaa waaa was all that was needed.
Vote:December 12th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
It’s sometimes difficult to remember that the legislative goal of the RMA, is to achieve or encourage the sustainable use of natural resources. It’s hard imagining that the colour we paint houses in, is going to matter one iota in 25 years time, or 100 years.
The RMA was not intended to be a giant democratic exercise where everyone and their dog was allowed to object to anything, irrespective of whether a direct effect existed. I think there is more than enough evidence that the delays and costs associated with working through objections, has not been of much benefit to the environment or the economy.
Vote:December 12th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Perhaps the word “Diddums” is appropriate here….
Vote:December 12th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Well the thing is that on an issue as minor as what colour is someone’s house the application wouldn’t be fully notified. There is provision for non-notification and limited-notification (what Rodney’s talking about) already. If councils are fully notifying applications that should only be limited notified then that is their mistake, not the fault of the RMA. I think the Greens are justified in worrying about limiting the ability of people to submit upon fully notified applications.
Vote:December 12th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Frog (and the rest of the Greens) supported the restriction of a citizens legal right to promote a country-wide political stance during an election year. Justifying that it was still okay to speak freely as long as you only talked to the people in close proximity and so the Greens claimed that free speech was not damaged.
Act wishes to restrict a group from making a country-wide legal stance through the Resource Management Act. Act will presumably claim that we are still allowed to object through the RMA, as long as you are in close proximity and so legal protections are not damaged.
More things change, the more they stay the same.
Vote:December 12th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Dean – your holding yourself out to be a lawyer yet fail to have read the RMA before commenting.
Now as a refresher I suggest you read the purpose of the RMA (section 5 – I’ve pasted it below if you don’t have access to a copy of the RMA).
The RMA is not actually about the environment, it is about sustainable management of physical and natural resources. That sustainable management to include enabling communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural well being.
So no, not about the environment. I like the bit about economic well being, not sure if many people realise that is a component of sustainability. Thats the great thing about a word like sustainablity, people can cherry pick the meaning they want it to have.
Don’t think I will be hiring you for an opinion in the near future.
Philbest- have to say you keep coming up with great articles of interest – do you have your own website that provides links to past articles? Regards WWHS
Resource Management Act 1991
Purpose
(1) The purpose of this Act is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.
(2) In this Act, sustainable management means managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing and for their health and safety while—
(a) Sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and
(b) Safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems; and
(c) Avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment.
Vote:December 12th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
And this sounds unreasonable, until you realise that the grounds for appeal are things that have significant public or environmental impact.
These are by definition, things that affect communities, and which they should be able to appeal against. Rodney wants to take away that right completely.
Vote:December 12th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
You are confusing- and defending- the process without considering the outcomes. The RMA was intended to be outcome driven. Local authorities still have a statutory obligation to achieve sustainability. Nobody is getting a free pass on development. We just may be able to achieve the goals of the RMA without having to suffer long delays and expensive court action, based on whimsical and opaque declarations of costs no-one can quite define.
There is a need to curtail the ability of competitors and agenda-driven NGOs to use the RMA in a ‘war of attrition’ against things they don’t like.
Vote:December 12th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Duplicate… sorry.
Vote:December 12th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
The Environment Court is a pretty expensive process, and costs are often awarded against vexatious appellants anyway. As I said above, councils have plenty of scope to non-notify or limited-notify applications. Limited notification appears to have become increasingly popular in recent times, usually when a directly affected person refuses to give affected party approval. This is fine, it gives that directly affected person the chance to put their case – which I doubt anyone would be against.
For fully notified applications (and these are a pretty small minority of applications actually) there is still plenty of opportunity for “nonsense submissions” to be discarded. This doesn’t really add much cost, as chances are a hearing is necessary anyway for fully notified applications. And finally, as I mentioned above, a vexatious submitter is really taking a risk if they appeal something to the Environment Court. For larger applications, in recent times a lot of these have been “called in” by the Minister anyway, taking them straight to the Environment Court and saving a lot of time and expense – I don’t see the point of changing the RMA when this ability already happens. The Minister for the Environment just needs to use this power more frequently.
Finally, regarding competitors, I don’t see how you can change the laws to prevent this kind of stuff. Take the Wairau Road Pak N Save as a classic example, Progressives didn’t appeal to the Environment Court on the grounds that their profits would be harmed, they appealed on the grounds that the Pak N Save would have unacceptable environmental effects. While we know their true motives, what can one do about it. Ban competitors from submitting at all?
Vote:December 12th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Another thing that could be done is to increase the cost of environment court filing fees. At the moment, the figure is a ridiculous $55, which makes it easy for a vexatious litigant to cause headaches and delays.
If you made it $500 or $1000 (IE: in the order of the High Court) you might weed out some of the more egregious abuses of Environment Court.
http://www.rmaguide.org.nz/rma/statbodies/envcourt.cfm
Vote:December 12th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
You lefties want a real life example of the RMA bullshit And remember Im one of those bastard free marketeers.
For 20 years PaknSave has been trying to build a supermarket on Wairau Rd on the Northshore. They even got approval and built the bloody thing .but it stands empty Know why arseholes
Cause their competitor Progressive owner of Foodtown has spent the past 20 years blocking on all sorts of bullshit reasons.
Even to the point where the bloody Court couldnt decide hence the fully built but not yet opened store
So do you arseholes that bleat about the market really support a competitor using the RMA to block competition
Well I dont But them Im not an pig ignorant leftie who doesnt know shit from clay like you lot
Vote:December 12th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
This just in.
Being endlessly litigated against by a minority group of people has seen a blow back phase of epic proportions begin, reports of more squealing and moaning to come.
Damm GD That’s the example the sticks in my mind when i think of RMA bullshit, unbelievable how long they have been held up and litigated against just so rival supermarkets can engage in protectionism.
Vote:December 12th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Apologies for the rant but geeeez sometimes the bleeding obvious is too much for some If all else fails use common sense
Vote:December 12th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
The Wairau Road Pak n Save case is a good example of the competitor problem, however what can you do about it? Do you make it impossible for a trade competitor to submit at all? What if they do have a valid concern? The only reason it’s gone on so long was that North Shore City screwed up their original consent on multiple occasions.
Vote:December 12th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Jadbury
In my opinion it needs to be a more democratic process, if a competitor has valid concerns against the construction and there is enough public interest then i see no reason why the should be barred from submitting a complaint. An example being when North shore council wanted to turn the Glenfeild shops into a bus depot, the local public bitch slapped the proposal and it was sent to the dustbin.
Vote:December 12th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Surely the start point is – if it’s your property you should be able to do whatever you like with it provided you dont negatively impact on other’s property rights.
Vote:December 12th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
The RMA is a complicated, drawn out process. If applied it can almost be an infinite cost fudge added to the cost of any development.
What Act wants to do is keep the RMA a complicated, drawn out process but restrict enforcement to “directly affected persons” (in practical terms – a few close neighbours and the state). This should be a concern to everyone, because ultimately the viability of each new project will be decided by how heavily the state decides to lower the RMA boom.
Wouldn’t it be better to reform the RMA to get rid of some of the bullshit and let everyone place their objections like they do now?
Vote:December 12th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
WWHS
To be fair to Dean Knight “environment” has an extensive meaning and covers most of the s5 matters
Environment includes—
(a) Ecosystems and their constituent parts, including people and communities; and
(b) All natural and physical resources; and
(c) Amenity values; and
(d) The social, economic, aesthetic, and cultural conditions which affect the matters stated in paragraphs (a) to (c) of this definition or which are affected by those matters:
Vote:December 12th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Screw Frog, little commie tosspot. Whenever laws like RMA get put under the spotlight and are weakened, Frog and his ilk start frothing at the mouth and throwing their toys out of the cot. I would bet in reality Frog and his fellow two bobs secretly get off whenever laws are changed. Especially when new laws are introduced that actually offer some real hope to the people that make this country work. Rodney Hide, Act and National will be vilafied by the Melons but the truth is the Melons live to be upset about something if not everything, they really need to get over themselves.
Vote:December 12th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
The RMA needs to be ditched in its entirety. Period.
Funny how life went on before it.
Enviroment this, Enviroment that. ETS, Tax, Beurocracy, Knuckle dragging, clip Board waving nonsense.
Vote:December 12th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
So Glutaemus Maximus who should pay when groundwater used by people for domestic supply is contaminated by surrounding land use? Your man Key wants tourists but do they want to see great columns of smoke over canterbury plains from land use? If nitrates and phosphates from land use pollute lake taupo, like the rotorua lakes, who should pay and should we wait until it happens or prevent it from happening?
What do you suggest?
Vote:December 12th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
WWHAS:
Thanks. A comprehensive analysis of the purpose of the RM Act is perhaps a little complex to endeavour to submit on a comment on a blog. Forgive me if the gist of my original comment was somewhat brief.
I think you’ll find that the RM Act is about the “environment” (broadly defined, as it is in the RM Act). Although, of course, I can’t quibble with your recital that the text of the purpose is the promote “the sustainable management of physical and natural resources” – a complex statement in itself set in aspiration terms.
However, you examination of the definition of sustainable management in section 5(2) misses the point. We might think of the definition in two parts:
- the management function
- the ecological function
the relationship between which is controlled by the connector “while”.
The management function (“use, development, protection”; “natural and physical resources” “enables people and communities to provide for their [wellbeings]“) effectively tries manages the human demand for resources arising from the human pursuit of their own wellbeing. In a neo liberal sense, the RM Act is meant to empower people to pursue these interests, not control or plan their achievement.
The ecological function – the balance of section 5(2) – sets out what some have described as “environmental bottom lines” or matters to be balanced against the achievement of those wellbeings. Three different types of things to be protected: (a) an intergenerational (sustainability) element; (b) an ecological element; and (c) a residential environmental element (“avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment”).
I think it’s pretty fair to say, therefore, that the purpose of RM Act *is* about the protection of the environment (which doe include us as people). Not in a vacuum independant from well-beings of communities. And not to the exclusion of private property rights. But clearly in emphasis the protection of the environment is more emphasised than private property rights.
Vote:December 12th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
“And in a society governed by rule of law, the citizens should be able to appeal the decisions ”
and didnt we call it a general election?
we won, you lost – eat that!
Vote:December 12th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
I’m still yet to be convined what’s wrong with the RMA legislation when it comes to non directly affected people making submissions. For a large development, plan change or notice of requirement (basically a consent application for a designation) the effects are likely to be potentially widely spread, or would be of interest to particular organisations like DoC, regional councils or the Historic Places Trust – for example. While these organisations (and those neighbours nearby) might have a greater reason to oppose (or support) a development, that doesn’t mean that the wider public isn’t affected either. Maybe a proposed factory will pollute somewhere I take my kids every Saturday morning? I may not be obviously “directly affected”, but I would consider myself still affected – and therefore I should have the right to submit.
As I said above, councils have the ability to ‘limited-notify’ applications. This means that those directly affected get a letter but there is NO public notice. Only those notified can make submissions and the process is quickened up because of that. Maybe councils need more central guidance regarding what should be fully notified and what should be limited-notified? Maybe there needs to be more National Policy Statements so that councils actually get their District Plans right in the first place? All of these issues can be addressed without the need to mess with the RMA, which in my opinion is a pretty clever piece of legislation.
Vote:December 12th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
You’ve created a wonderful strawman there David. If the development had the support of everyone in Dunedin, it would be very likely to go ahead (unless the submitter in Wellington was to provide compelling evidence of environmental impacts).
If it had the opposition of everybody in Dunedin, on the other hand…
Which is the point – approvals made can be reviewed. What is false, and it is a perception deliberately propagated by people like yourself, but especially by libertarians and property developers who support ACT, is that it is expensive, slow, frivolous, unnecessary, and applied to a large percentage of developments. Reviews of the process have shown that only a small number of potential cases see the Environment Court, most of these are processed quickly, frivolous objections are dismissed, and that for most applicants the process is not particularly costly.
It does add some cost and uncertainty to large developments (and potentially disruptive smaller ones), but this is a price that most New Zealanders consider worth paying, in exchange for a robust process and democracy and sustainability. Except of course if you believe in the superiority of the developer over the interests of others. It is also worth noting that internationally the model has been admired and adopted widely, which is normally strong evidence of a good policy.
Vote:December 13th, 2008 at 7:00 am
The Greens can’t hide their controlling desires and aspirations to teach us how to live our lives.
I’ve said many times and will continue to do so: the Green Party uses the environment as a pretext, an excuse, to attract gullible followers, but in fact their leaders are hard-core socialists and communists.
Frog is a good example of their perverse way of thinking.
Vote:December 13th, 2008 at 9:06 am
Let us be clear.
Vote:The proposed reform is to re-introduce the common law of “Standing”.
This was in the old Town and Country Planning Act.
To participate in the process (which allows people to limit the property rights of others) you must be able to demonstrate having “an interest greater than the general public”.
Naturally this will vary from case to case. So if the issue is the height of your carport only those immediately adjoining the property have standing. If it is about the diversion of a river then anyone in the region has standing and even a national society of canoists would have standing.
The reason standing was dropped from the RMA was the drafters believed this was the end of zoning and land use planning (the words zone and planning are nowhere to be found in the Act) and that the Act would focus on soil water and air and genuine environmental issues. They were wrong and the act is now used to restrain my human right to live where I chose provided I do no harm. The incumbents now claim the right to determine where newcomers may live and claim this right through consultation. The problem is that no one consults with the newcomers waiting in the wings. The only people who represent the newcomers are developers and we know that they are evil greedy rapacious people who for some reason have been responsible for building all the great cities of the world. Planners on the other hand give us Moscow, Brasilia and the English New towns.