Kiwiblog

The NZ Community Trust have pointed out:

NZCT, one of New Zealand’s largest funders of amateur sport, is urging Auckland Council not to implement a sinking lid policy for gaming machines, as this will reduce community funding and do nothing to address problem gambling rates.  Instead, NZCT proposes Council set gaming machine numbers according to the risk assessment of problem gambling in each ward, and allow machines to be relocated out of high risk areas. 

A targeted approach does seem more sensible than a blanket sinking lid.

NZCT chief executive, Mike Knell, says he can understand the Council’s desire to reduce problem gambling, but evidence shows that reducing gaming machine numbers does not change problem gambler numbers.

“Statistics from the Department of Internal Affairs and the Ministry of Health show that since 2007 the country has lost over 2,000 pokie machines, but problem gambling rates have remained low and relatively static,” says Mr Knell.  “The only thing a sinking lid policy will achieve is a reduction in funds available for gaming trusts to distribute to sports and community groups. 

Pokie machines get used by problem gamblers. But do they create them?

“We believe that implementing a policy which allows gaming trusts to relocate gaming machines out of high risk areas, and sets machine numbers in accordance with risk factors would be a better approach.  A sinking lid is a blunt policy instrument that could severely impact the financial viability of hundreds of Auckland’s sports clubs and community groups. 

The NZ Community Trust gave almost $38 million to amateur sports and other activities last year. We do need to be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Bernard Orsman writes in the NZ Herald:

The Auckland Council hasn’t done any work to compare urban and rural infrastructure costs as it asks Aucklanders to adapt to a new way of life that includes a mix of residential intensification and urban sprawl.

The council is commissioning an “Auckland cost-of-growth study” that doesn’t begin until after feedback closes on a new planning rulebook which has huge implications for the city’s urban, rural and coastal environments.

One would have thought you’d commission such a study before you even draft the plan. This strongly suggests to me the plan is based on ideology, not evidence.

Councillor Dick Quax said it was unbelievable that the council was only now seeking evidence that the compact city being promoted was better in terms of infrastructure to “peripheral expansion”.

“I would have expected that before plans are drawn up to change forever the way people in Auckland live … there was some hard evidence to guide council. Sadly this has not happened and is another failure of the draft Unitary Plan,” he said.

I have no doubt there are extra costs with new subdivisions further away from the centre. But what we don’t know, is how much extra cost. For my 2c I think any extra costs should be borne by those deciding to live out there. People should have the choice on where to live – but to get that choice, you need to move the urban-rural boundary.

Dr Blakeley said it was well established that infrastructure costs for new “greenfield” developments were higher than the costs for urban “brownfield” developments. One Sydney study had put greenfield costs at more than twice those of brownfields.

As I said, those costs should be met by developers and home-owners. But give them the choice.

John Roughan writes in NZ Herald:

The little church basement where the Campbells Bay Community Association holds thinly attended public meetings was packed on Tuesday night. People were polite to the Auckland planners and patient with the deceptive language that planning employs.

A man at the back, English by his accent, lost his composure when it was confirmed that three-storey apartments could be built on either side of him and he would have no right to object. The rest of us absorbed the news quietly, as New Zealanders do.

Just about all our properties were zoned for this prospect on a map projected on a screen at the front of the room. Mine was in a strip designated a special environmental area, which appears to mean the trees could prevent multi-unit developments, but most were not so fortunate.

The man with the English accent declared that he was going to sell to a developer as soon as he could, in case his neighbours did so. …

I haven’t seen real suburban unrest before. This isn’t a “rates revolt” where people come to public meetings and sound off about an additional hundred dollars as though it matters. There is a deathly quiet about this plan.

The impact of higher rates is tough on people, but not devastating. Losing your view and being forced out of your family home does instill as Roughan says, a deathly quiet.

The debate over the containment of Auckland’s sprawl appeared to be about whether the bulk of the additional population projected by 2040 could be accommodated in suburbs that have a railway station.

I’ve been criticising this notion for years, arguing that people come to Auckland primarily for its climate and coastal attractions and that planners who want to reshape the city to support public transport are swimming against the tide.

The Unitary Plan was designed by town planners for town planners. It is of huge benefit for them and for the Council as an institution. But not so much for actual Aucklanders.

The mayor has stressed that the plan is a draft and will be changed, but it would be dangerous to rely on that. It is the careful and deliberate work of members of a profession who believe fervently in what they do.

They have been producing this sort of scheme for a blessedly powerless regional body for the past 40 years. They knew that every time a council tried to impose their desired densities on a place such as Panmure, the residents rebelled. But they persevered, convinced that urban planning should not be led by the plain preferences of ordinary people.

Nimbys, they call us. We prefer that our backyard not be overlooked and shaded by apartment blocks next door. If that is too much to ask of Auckland’s planners then I think the rumbling in the suburbs is going to become an eruption that will have its way.

An eruption. Words that may well come true.

Stuff reports:

A bid by ethnic communities to have a decision-making role within the Auckland Council appears unlikely to succeed any time soon.

The ethnic advisory panel that reports to the council asked Mayor Len Brown for a “decision-making” role on council committees in its quarterly report, given the growing ethnic population in Auckland.

It is inevitable that if you have seats reserved for one race, that other races will want seats also. That is why I think Maori seats at national and local government is a bad idea, albeit well intentioned.

I also note that there are two Councillors from the Pacific community. So why do you need ethnic communities to have a decision making role on Council committees, when members of those communities are being elected to Council in their own right.

The Herald provides a guide to the Auckland Unitary Plan:

Height is at the top of many people’s minds with the Unitary Plan.

Whether it’s walls of apartments on the ridges overlooking Browns Bay or 18-storey high rises in Newmarket, the council is facing a chorus of complaints.

Buildings in central Auckland will have no height restriction, and 10 metro centres such as Takapuna, Henderson, Botany and Newmarket will have an 18-storey limit. In another 37 town centres, the limit will be eight, six and four storeys, and in local centres, such as Mt Eden, it will be three or four storeys.

To prevent a canyon effect, any buildings of four storeys or more will have to be set back from the street and require resource consent.

After nine weeks of saying the maximum height of “small scale apartment buildings” in the residential “mixed housing” zone was two storeys, it emerged last week that the height limit is three storeys.

That omission of the real height limit is what has destroyed a lot of trust.

The days of “shoebox” apartments are back with plans to reduce the minimum apartment size from 35sq m to 30sq m, plus a minimum balcony space of 8sq m.

I’m not sure there should be a minimum size at all. If someone wants to live in a 25 square metre apartment, then let them.

The proposed rewrite of Auckland’s tarnished heritage rules leaves power in the hands of unelected bureaucrats and shuts out the public.

This is the view of the Character Coalition – a group of heritage and community organisations – that called for Auckland to follow Brisbane, which prevents demolition of pre-1945 houses unless the owner can make a case. The public have a say in the process.

On a visit to Auckland in March, Queensland Government architect Malcolm Middleton said the Brisbane model had been considered radical when introduced 15 years ago, but was now largely accepted and worked for the amenity and value of character suburbs.

The rules in the draft Unitary Plan will see council or consultant planners using case law to decide if applications to demolish or remove a house would be publicly notified or not. The council says more applications will be publicly notified. When this method was used by the former North Shore City Council, two of 17 applications were notified in eight years.

The council has proposed widening the heritage net to pre-1944 houses outside the existing heritage character areas and requiring owners to obtain a resource consent for demolition. The council, however, says the public will have no say in this process and officers will make the call because many landowners bought in these areas knowing they were not heritage areas.

Mayor Len Brown and chief executive Doug McKay are refusing to release the documents of a political working party, that meets behind closed doors, used to draw up the heritage rules.

The documents should of course be released, before submissions close on 31 May.

I think extending the definition of heritage to all pre-1944 houses is daft. Old is not the same as heritage.

Michael Goudie, a 28-year-old councillor, was picked by Mayor Len Brown and Penny Hulse to fire up young people to counter the views of generally older “Nimbys” – Not in My Backyard.

But instead of a legitimate campaign to get teens and 20-somethings to jump on social media with their views, Brown and Hulse turned a blind eye when Goudie promoted an anonymous blog labelling the elderly as “selfish, arrogant and narrow-minded” who should “just hurry up and die”.

Charming.

Marnie Hallahan at Stuff reports:

Rethink the plan or rethink the council. This was the unanimous message from 500 Aucklanders gathered tonight at Takapuna Grammar School to discuss Auckland Council’s intensification plans.

The number of people attending these meetings is growing.

Founders, Richard Burton, a resource management consultant, and Guy Haddleton, argued that contrary to what the council was claiming, 56 per cent of the residential area in Auckland would be zoned to allow apartments.

That’s intensification alright.

Following a city-wide resident revolt over the last fortnight, Mayor Len Brown has already announced that four areas of the plan would be revised.

But those present at the meeting were unanimous in calling for the entire plan to be revisited and looked at ‘‘from the ground up”.

Any revisions would be the minimum they can get away with. Starting again with a new Council would be the best way to make sure the plan reflects what Aucklanders want.

The lone voice in support of the plan, councillor Ann Hartley, was shut down by angry residents who booed her claims that the council was willing and ready to listen to public feedback.

Not sure her chances of re-election are looking too good.

The Herald reports:

After nine weeks of telling Aucklanders the maximum height of “small-scale apartments” in neighbourhoods was two storeys, the council admitted to the Herald on Friday the height limit was three storeys.

And they wonder why people no longer trust them?

A presentation from Mr Burton said three-storey apartments would appear in 49 per cent of residential Auckland and four, five and six-storey apartments in a further 7 per cent.

“We accept there has to be intensification in Auckland.

“The real issue is how and where,” he said.

The meeting unanimously passed a resolution to rethink the Unitary Plan in order to balance intensification with infrastructure capability and urban character.

I wonder of the Council is still insisting the Government fast-track the plan into law?

The Character Coalition – an umbrella group of 58 heritage and community groups – announced at the meeting it was joining forces with Auckland 2040.

Spokeswoman Sally Hughes said it shared the same concerns about the future of the city’s neighbourhoods.

That’s a lot of groups!

The Herald reported:

Auckland Mayor Len Brown is backing down in the face of a citywide revolt against high-rise apartments and infill housing in a new planning rulebook for the city.

Mr Brown says the council will reduce heights proposed in some coastal suburbs and around town centres where apartment buildings butt into residential streets.

“We have had a lot of feedback and concern expressed going from a one- or two-level home to a four- or five-level apartments right on the boundary,” he said, adding better rules were needed.

He dropped hints that the coastal suburbs of Milford and St Heliers could see a reduction in eight- and four-storey buildings respectively. The Herald understands Mt Eden could be spared four-storey apartments tucked behind the self-styled shopping village.

Any back down will probably be the least they can get away with.

Nick Smith announced:

An Auckland Housing Accord has been agreed today by Housing Minister Dr Nick Smith and Auckland Mayor Len Brown to urgently increase the supply and affordability of housing in Auckland. …

The legislation, to be introduced to Parliament as part of Budget 2013, will enable Special Housing Areas to be created by the Auckland Council with approval of Government. In these areas it will be possible to override restrictions on housing put in place by Auckland’s eight predecessor Councils, like the Metropolitan Urban Limit.

Qualifying developments in these Special Housing Areas will be able to be streamlined, providing they are consistent with Auckland’s Unitary Plan, once it is notified, expected in September this year. New greenfield developments of more than 50 dwellings will be able to be approved in six months as compared to the current average of three years and brownfield developments in three months as compared to the current average of one year. The streamlined process will not be available for high rise developments that will need to be considered under existing rules until the Unitary Plan has been finalised in 2016.

“This is a three year agreement to address these housing supply issues in the interim until Auckland Council’s Unitary Plan becomes fully operative and the Government’s Resource Management Act reforms for planning processes take effect.

“The Government respects in this Accord that it is for Auckland to decide where and how it wishes to grow. The Government is giving new powers for council to get some pace around new housing development and is agreeing on aspirational targets to ensure Auckland’s housing supply and affordability issues are addressed.

“The Accord sets a target of 9,000 additional residential houses being consented for in Year 1, 13,000 in Year 2, and 17,000 in Year 3. This is a huge boost on the average 3,600 homes that have been consented each year over the past four years and the 7,400 a year over the past 20 years.

The only way one can reduce the price of housing in Auckland is to reduce demand or increase supply. Now assuming you can’t start deporting Aucklanders to Gore, that means increasing supply.

39,000 houses in three years compared to 3,600 homes a year is massive.

And best of all it doesn’t involve the Government borrowing hundreds of millions of dollars to try and become a large scale property developer itself.

Congrats to Len Brown and Nick Smith for working together to do something meaningful in this area.

The Herald reports:

Auckland rates will rise on average by 2.9 per cent this year – an election year for local politicians – under Mayor Len Brown’s inflation-sensitive budget to be put to the council tomorrow for approval.

Annual inflation is 0.9% at the moment.

NBR (paywall) reports:

Under-fire Auckland mayor Len Brown has been accused of hypocrisy for living on a spacious lifestyle block outside the urban limit while pushing for a “quality compact city” full of small high-rise apartments.

The mayor lives on a bush-covered 6970 sq m (0.688ha/1.7 acre) property at Tiffany Close on the outskirts of Manukau, just outside the current Metropolitan Urban Limit (MUL).

His house is a spacious 406sq m and he has a pool in his backyard, for which resource consent was granted in October 2002.

The property was a bare section when Mr Brown bought it with his wife Shan Inglis in 1995 for $180,000.

It now has a rateable value of $1.2 million, including land value of $495,000 and improvements of $705,000.

Critics say the mayor’s housing choice shows he is not practicing what he preaches when it comes to high-density living. 

If the Mayor was allowing Aucklanders to make their own choices about where to live, then his personal choice would be of no interest.

But the refusal to significantly shift the MUL or urban-rural limit is depriving Aucklanders of those choices. Almost all new houses will have to be within the MUL as part of his intensification plan.

Some people want to live in apartment blocks – as I do.

Some people like to be able to have a section with a back lawn that the kids can play on.

We need a plan for Auckland that will enable both choices.

That means freeing up more land. Otherwise sections will massively increase in value, as Len’s has.

Bernard Orsman at NZ Herald reports:

Restaurateur John Palino has put his hat in the ring to challenge Auckland Mayor Len Brown at October’s local body election.

Mr Palino, a New Yorker who has appeared on the TV3 show The Kitchen Job, is the first centre-right candidate to challenge Mr Brown, who stands as an independent candidate but is a member of the Labour Party.

The businessman, a New Zealand citizen, has come forward only days after National Cabinet minister and Pakuranga MP Maurice Williamson said he was considering standing for mayor.

Last night, Mr Palino said he opposed Mr Brown’s draft Unitary Plan for intensification of residential areas in north, west and east Auckland. Instead, he planned to turn the industrial and commercial area of Manukau into the most liveable modern city in the world, and allow for business growth outside the CBD.

Good to see the race warming up.

The Herald reports:

Free entry is being blamed for overcrowding so bad that disappointed swimmers are being turned away from Auckland pools.

This is no surprise.

The Herald must be very worried by the thought of Maurice winning, to devote an editorial to trying to scare him off. They say:

The policies and planks of Mayor Len Brown should be subjected to the challenge of a worthy rival in October. Only then will the advancement and assessment of alternative ideas, part of the fabric of a healthy democracy, take place. Unfortunately, such an opponent has not emerged. It is not John Minto, the Mana Party candidate for Manukau East at the last general election, who announced his bid yesterday. Nor is it the National Party’s long-standing Pakuranga MP, Maurice Williamson, who is considering running. In both cases, these are the wrong men wishing to be the mayor for the wrong reason.

I guess we know who the Herald is backing.

The Herald reports:

The political right is already hailing the prospect of Maurice Williamson as Mayor of Auckland as a potential “circuit breaker” for local government in the Super City after the National MP yesterday confirmed he was considering running.

MP for Pakuranga since 1987, Mr Williamson yesterday told the Herald he was “getting a lot of approaches from a lot of people wanting me to stand for the mayoralty”.

“At this point I’m doing nothing other than just giving it some consideration. I have made no decisions whatsoever.”

But centre-right councillor Cameron Brewer was enthusiastic about the possibility Mr Williamson would run against current Mayor Len Brown this year, a prospect he said had been talked about for some time before yesterday.

“It would really energise the centre right and could be a game changer and a circuit breaker for local government in Auckland.

“One thing Maurice has got that people look to in mayors is experience and he’s got 26 years’ experience.” …

That experience included stints in several ministerial portfolios pertinent to the mayoralty in Auckland such as building and construction and transport.

“He’s been around, he’s got a huge following in the southern part of the region, he understands the issues, and he would be a clear alternative to Len Brown,” said Mr Brewer.

I think Maurice would be an excellent Mayor. He is a people person and hugely energetic. I think his nick-name used to be Tigger. And 15 years experience as a Minister would serve him rule in over-seeing the billion dollar Auckland Council. His tenures as Building and Transport Ministers would be exceptionally useful for Auckland in confronting those two issues.

The Herald reports:

Aucklanders face paying to drive on city roads unless they are prepared to swallow hefty rates or fuel tax rises.

On Monday, an advisory group assembled by Mayor Len Brown is set to announce its recommended solutions to plug a $12 billion funding gap and fix the city’s ever-growing traffic jams.

The mayor says he will back whatever the “consensus-building” group recommends, even if that means tolling motorways or charging motorists to use arterial roads by 2021.

The principle is that users should pay for the costs of their transport. Hence tolls and/or congestion charges are my preferred approach.

Petrol tax is a form of user pays. It is imperfect, but much simpler to impose and collect. As technology gets better I’d like to see more congestion charges and toll roads and a lower level of petrol tax.

Rates are my least preferred method of funding transport projects. Motorists and public transport users should fund transport projects – not homeowners.

Whale asks whether Maurice Williamson should run for Mayor of Auckland?

As Building and Construction Minister, Maurice would be a very credible candidate standing on policies to make Auckland a more affordable place to live – in contrast to the policies of the left which are to make land as expensive as possible.

And as his speech becomes a global sensation, it is a reminder of what a formidable speaker and debater Maurice is. As an economic and social liberal he would be a very good fit for Auckland.

The HoS reports:

Veteran activist John Minto is asking his political party to approve a run for mayor of Auckland. The trade unionist and teacher said Mayor Len Brown had disappointed him.

“What has Len Brown done which is different to what John Banks would have done if he were in? You struggle to find many significant things.”

Sources said the Mana Party was initially keen on the idea to dispel perceptions that the party was solely about its leader, Hone Harawira. “If I did run it would be as an official Mana candidate,” Minto said ahead of this weekend’s Mana Party AGM in Tokoroa. “Mana’s considering it.”

Minto said Brown had failed Auckland’s poor. “The business community and people on high incomes in Auckland are very happy with Len Brown, so I don’t know whether they’ll bother putting up a candidate,” Minto told the Herald on Sunday.

“He is a corporate candidate, effectively.”

It will be interesting to see how many votes Minto gets, if he does run. He can’t and won’t win of course, but he may help split the vote.

In another story it is revealed that the Council under Len has spent $60 million on communications in the last two years including 143 comms and PR staff!

I’m not sure if this includes the six spin doctors directly working for Len.

Len Brown and his city planners seem to think that you build a city to fit in with your transport plan, rather than build a transport system to fit in with where people want to live.

Their master plan is to force as many people as possible into apartments. But not just CBD apartments (which I am quite fond of), but massive apartments everywhere – up to 18 stories in height.

Yes Len and sidekick Penny have not just proposed 18 story suburban apartment blocks, but are demanding that the Government fast-track their plan to do so. Labour seem to be backing them.

The Herald reports:

Communities are rebelling against high-rise and in-fill housing, Aucklanders are struggling to follow the complex document and nine of 20 councillors have written to the Prime Minister urging him to slow down the process. …

Auckland-wide community meetings have sparked angry reactions to plans in a draft copy of the unitary plan for high-rise and in-fill housing in more than half of the urban area. …

Meanwhile, St Heliers residents turned out in force last night to oppose more “concrete monstrosities” destroying the character of the seaside village.

I understand there were almost 500 people at the meeting.

Len and Penny want a height limit of 18 stories not just for the CBD (which is fine) but also for:

1. Albany
2. Botany
3. Henderson
4. Manukau
5. New Lynn
6. Papakura
7. Newmarket
8. Sylvia Park
9. Takapuna
10. Westgate/Massey

In 13 other town centres they want 8 stories, or 33 metres.

There is no doubt that Auckland needs to grow both upwards and outwards. But the majority needs to be outwards, not upwards to reduce house prices and give Aucklanders more choices over where they live.

Auckland already has a higher urban density than Sydney and Melbourne.

Nick Smith said:

It is essential that more land is made available for housing to improve supply and affordability in Auckland, Minister of Housing Dr Nick Smith said today in releasing the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment report ‘Residential Land Available in Auckland’.

“This report shows a worrying trend of reduced land availability and soaring section prices in Auckland over the past decade. It highlights that with projected population growth, Auckland will need about 13,000 additional homes per year over the next three decades and that with changing household make-ups, the biggest growth in demand will be for smaller households,” Dr Smith says.

So how is the Council doing?

• The number of new sections available to be built on today is 1900 – significantly less than the 15,000 previously reported.
• The land ready to be subdivided has a capacity of 14,500 sections, compared to the Council’s development strategy target of seven years supply of 32,550 sections.
• The land in the pipeline for subdivision has a capacity of 54,500 sections, with the Council’s development strategy target being 20 years supply of 103,500 sections.
• “This report shows Auckland needs double the supply of land to meet the Council’s own targets.

That last point is crucial. They are not even on target to have half the land they need for their own targets. And their own targets are well below what is needed also.

The draft unitary plan projects:

• 280,000 new homes within the current urban limit
• 90,000 new homes in greenfield areas outside the current limit

So they are not on track to have even half the land they need for their draft unitary plan. But how realistic is it to have 280,000 new homes within the current urban Auckland?

The Government’s further concern, detailed in this report, is that Auckland’s plan will require the building of 4000 high-density dwellings every year for the next decade and 10,000 per year after that. This compares to 830 higher density dwellings consented last year and an average of 2674 per year over the past decade.

Does anyone think Auckland Council can consent 4,000 high-density dwellings a year let alone 10,000 a year?

Officials are cautious that this can be achieved, particularly when previous intensification targets set by Auckland planners a decade ago were not met.

In other words they’ve failed to meet even past modest targets, so its madness to think they can meet their targets either for intensification or for greenfield developments.

Bernard Orsman at NZ Herald reports:

Brown claimed space for 15,000 homes but now concedes just 2000 sites ready.

Auckland has 2000 new sections ready to build houses on, says Mayor Len Brown, who last month claimed there was enough land for 15,000 homes.

As debate grows about housing and land supply in Auckland, Mr Brown is no longer claiming the city has enough new land to build 15,000 houses “right now”.

Instead, he is saying there is capacity for 15,000 homes on ready-to-go greenfield land in areas such as Flat Bush, Takanini and Hobsonville, but only 2000 sections have reached the building stage.

That’s a big reduction, in fact an 87% reduction.

Councillor Dick Quax said Mr Brown had proclaimed to all who would listen that Auckland had 15,000 sections ready for houses to be built on “right now”.

“The mayor is now having a big helping of humble pie as he acknowledges that there are just 2000 sections ready for construction to begin.

“What this means is Auckland runs out of land to build on in May,” Mr Quax said.

The latest admission, he said, showed just how dire the land supply was and an acknowledgement the council had got it seriously wrong.

They have.

Auckland has a higher urban density than every major city in Australia. Moving the urban limit outwards is just common sense. Town planners don’t like it, because they want everyone to comply with their views on where people must live to make their job easier. But frankly I think the rights of home owners trump the rights of town planners.

Cam at Whale Oil has been blogging on the silly antics on the Howick Local Board, where the Chair has been trying to sack the Deputy Chair. You’d think they’d have far more important things to focus on, than who the hell is deputy chair of a local board.

Anyway a reader has sent to me an e-mail where C&R Howick have cancelled a planned meeting and drinks for prospective candidates. They advised:

I am sorry to inform you that our meeting for Wednesday 23 January 2013 at 7:00 PM in the Billiard Room of Fisher House night is cancelled due to an urgent incident. The meeting will be rescheduled for another time. I hope that the cancellation of the meeting has not caused any problem on your part.

The meeting was for:

You’re invited to join us for Candidate Drinks, an opportunity for existing C&R Team Howick members to meet with prospective new candidates.

The event is to be held on Wednesday 23 January 2013 in the xxx.

It has been a busy time for the Howick Local Board, developing a 10 year plan for our area. All nine board members have past local government experience, which has been helpful.

I believe that we as the majority team on the board must have a succession plan to continue to bring in new people with fresh ideas both in 2013 and in future election years. Now is the time to think about who those fresh faces might be.

I hope you can make it along and if you would like to nominate any other prospective candidates, please let me know. 

C&R need to sort their stuff out, at least in Howick. They should be focusing on the big issues such as rates, council accountability, infrastructure rather than infighting. If they don’t it will just help Labour and the Greens take over via their City Vision and other sock puppets.

Bernard Orsman at NZ Herald reports:

The Auckland Council is considering a region-wide ban on demolishing tens of thousands of heritage and character homes unless owners can prove they are beyond repair.

The proposed new rules are based on the Brisbane model and would apply to all pre-World War II houses. Unlike now, every application to demolish or remove a house would be publicly notified.

This is nuts. There is a difference between heritage and old. Just because a house is more than 70 years old does not make it a heritage house.

The rules would apply to 23,344 houses in the existing character zones of the inner city suburbs, Devonport, Birkenhead and Northcote, plus thousands more pre-World War II houses being identified in other parts of the city.

This is a massive theft from existing home owners. Suddenly their houses are not their property. The Council should buy the 23,000 houses if they really think they are of heritage value.

A blanket rule making every pre WWII house a heritage building is just the Council being lazy. Heritage buildings should be identified on a case by case basis and should have some special character about them.

The Herald reports:

Te Atatu MP Phil Twyford is crying foul over proposed public transport zones making it cheaper to travel to downtown Auckland from the North Shore than from other areas an equal distance away.

He claims the scheme discriminates against residents of lower-income western and southern suburbs, making it reminiscent of racially segregated “Alabama, 1955″.

I have no view on what the zone charges should be, but really I think the hyperbole is a but hysterical.

Bernard Orsman at NZ Herald reports:

 Seven chief executives and their staffs plus 49 directors are responsible for 75 per cent of the Super City’s services.

Auckland ratepayers are spending $13.1 million a year to pay for seven boards of directors, seven chief executives and seven executive teams who run much of the Super City.

The seven council-controlled organisations (CCOs) run about 75 per cent of Super City services at arm’s length from the democratically elected Auckland Council.

I don’t know about you, but $13.1 million for governors, CEOs and executive teams seems pretty reasonable to me. The Herald doesn’t state how many staff are on the combined executive teams, but an average of under $2 million per CCO for a Board, a CEO and a senior executive team does not seem unreasonable. The combined Auckland Council spends $2 billion a year.

The chief executive salaries range from $330,000 for the head of Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development, Brett O’Riley, and Auckland Council Investments’ Gary Swift, to about $710,000 for Watercare boss Mark Ford.

The Herald estimates that Mr Ford’s salary is the equivalent cost of Aucklanders taking about 9.5 million showers.

This is the part I really wanted to blog on. I’m sorry, but what the fuck? How is this a useful or relevant stat? Tell me what his salary is as a percentage of Watercare revenue. Is the Herald now going to write about the salaries of Telecom CEO in terms of the number of e-mails of the same cost? Or the salaries of a newspaper editor in terms of the number of website ads served?

If the comparison had been to the number of days water to a household, I’d find that semi-useful. But unless you know how much of your daily water use tends to be a shower, then the comparison is useless. The suspicion is it is used to just make the salary sound really bad.

The Herald surveyed chairs of local boards in Auckland how they think the Council is going. The story is here and the raw responses are here. I’ve collated the scores below.

So the two elements that get the highest average scores are the model itself, and the CCOs. This is worth noting as Labour fought against both. Labour wanted no local boards, but instead larger bodies around the size of the old Council. They also fought against the CCO model, and that is the aspect local board chairs say is working best.

Mayor Len Brown is a bit lower on 3.2/5. The Council’s long-term plan is 3.1 and the Council (as in the Councillors) are 3.0.

The three happiest board chairs are Whau, Maungakiekie-Tamaki and Devonport-Takapuna. The three least happy are Orakei, Howick and Albert-Eden.