Kiwiblog

Ports of Auckland have put out a PR around their plans to expand their current space:

In the context of the Auckland Plan process, the Port’s key interest is in protecting the current port zone, which has been through two public submissions processes and has been in place and public since 1987.

The zone effectively allows the option for port expansion in the future, but any actual proposals for expansion of Port operations would then be subject to widespread public consultation and Resource Consent processes.   

While I’m on POAL’s side when it comes to having an economically sane labour market, I’m very much against any expansion on their current site.

POAL say that their zone has been in place since 1987. That is in fact the problem. They were zoned for that area when the waterfront in Auckland was massively different to what it is today.

The same applies in Wellington. In 1987 the waterfront was a collection of sheds.

Waterfront space has become the most valuable space in urban cities. It is where people want to dine, drink, walk and shop.

In Wellington I am an advocate of shifting the port entirely from its current location over to Petone/Seaview. That will provide more jobs in Seaview, and open up the current port space to immense possibilities. Yes, it will cost money to shift – but a shift should be inevitable – when not if. The current port is an eyesore.

The same applies in Auckland. Ports of Auckland should not be relying on a 25 year old zone. They should be looking for a new site away from the centre of the city, as their long-term home. Sure you have issues such as rail and road links, but they can all be planned for also.

If you want to have your say and hopefully oppose Port expansion on its current site, go to Your Port Your Call’s page on Facebook or Twitter.

Dave Burgess in the Dom Post reports:

Celia Wade-Brown has failed the first big political test of her mayoralty.

She has long been a supporter of moves to bring the Wellington Waterfront development company under full council control, and tried to rally support against a proposal yesterday to keep it as a standalone council-controlled organisation.

This is a good thing. Council should sign off on the major decisions, but it should not be directly managing the waterfront. A reversion to direct Council control would just be a nightmare.

But by the time her amendment was introduced, it had been watered down, and she said was not willing to muster councillors’ support on the issue.

“In the end, it is up to each of us in our own responsibilities. I’m not into herding cats or sheep, or whatever particular species you feel you represent.”

Umm Celia – that is in fact the role of the Mayor. If you want something badly, then you fight for it.

Its possible of course that Celia isn’t too upset that she lost. Sometimes you have to promise things to your supporters, but you also know that implementing them would be a big headache.

Councillor Helene Ritchie said there was vast management experience within the council, which should have full control of waterfront developments and should not allow any more bars.

Good God. Why not? This is exactly why politicians should not be in control. It would be bye bye to Dockside, St Johns, Foxglove, Shed 5 etc.

The Herald calls for PPPs to hasten infrastructure projects:

Finance Minister Bill English calls his National Infrastructure Plan an important step towards better infrastructure management. “Even a small improvement in this area could reap gains worth billions – making our infrastructure dollars go further and ensuring a better return for taxpayers,” he says.

The multibillion-dollar sums sprinkled throughout the plan leave no doubt about the size of the commitment. Equally, the OECD’s view that investment in infrastructure, especially transport and communications, boosts long-term economic output more than other kinds of physical investment emphasises this is a road that must be travelled.

The Government, like its predecessor, does not seem sold on fixing this by adopting the bold option of build, own, operate, transfer (Boot) schemes, even though they have been widely used in Australia. The plan is not specific, talking only of PPPs expanding “the scope for innovation in design, construction and management of new assets”.

But it also pays attention to their potential downsides. These include the “reduced flexibility due to the long-term nature of the contract, and the cost that arises from unanticipated contract variations”. The latter can, of course, be mitigated by precise framing, so the private partner is in no doubt about the risk to itself.

Far more emphasis should have been placed on the advantages of PPPs at a time when, despite the squeeze on its finances, the Government is eyeing spending $8 billion to $9.6 billion on designated roads of national significance over the next decade. These pluses include not only the reduced cost to the Crown but the economic value of private investment decisions if they have to carry a fair share of the risk.

Transmission Gully would be a fine candidate for a PPP.

The Dom Post looks at waterfront democracy:

Democracy can be a messy, expensive and lengthy business, as Wellington City Council is finding as it tries to push ahead with its plans for the waterfront. It also provides the best chance of the public ending up with with something it finds acceptable.

Wellington Mayor Kerry Prendergast’s sense of frustration at the appeals against Variation 11 is palpable. In broad terms, Waterfront Watch and the Historic Places Trust believe the variation, which allows buildings under certain heights to go ahead on part of the waterfront without any public consultation, is not stringent enough, and will mean the loss of transparency in the process. Queens Wharf Holdings, on the other hand, believes the proposed restrictions are too stringent. …

Ms Prendergast hopes a solution can be found through mediation. That, based on past experience, is unlikely. The dispute over the proper role for the waterfront has dragged on too long and the positions are too entrenched to hope with any sense of realism for a negotiated settlement. Instead, it seems inevitable that both sides will remain in their trenches, lobbing legal grenades at each other. That is not ideal, but it is the price paid for having a democracy where everyone can have their say and test their case.

It’s ridicolous that after almost two decades we still have no agreed upon plan implemented for the waterfront.

The Press looks at the proposed driving changes:

Despite clear evidence that younger drivers are over-represented in crash statistics, successive governments had for too long placed the controversial issue of the driving age in the too-hard basket.

Finally the present administration has decided to act by accepting the recommendation in the Safer Journeys discussion document to raise the age to 16. And, in another welcome move, the Government has announced that there will be a zero-alcohol limit for drivers under 20. …

And the ODT also looks at the driving changes:

Fifteen is too young to be out and about on the road in cars.

Once, of course, cars in this country were a relatively expensive commodity, owned only after years of hard work and saving.

It might be surmised that a degree of maturity and good sense would have been inculcated in the individual in that time.

There were no cheap Japanese imports, the banks operated under much stricter lending criteria, and there were no such entities as finance companies as might be recognised today; certainly none especially designed to propel young men and women, barely past puberty, into the ownership of fast cars.

The Herald reports on Auckland options:

1. $23.9 million to remove the two 1912 cargo sheds and creating a cup village with temporary and hired structures
2. $27.7 million involves minor refurbishment of the sheds to provide covered space for the cup
3. $31.3 million involves significant refurbishment of the sheds with a focus on keeping one or both over the medium term
4. $97 million has a a $49.2m budget for a cruise ship terminal, plus $15.6m for wharf repairs

A dedicated website has the four options and allows feedback.

Meanwhile the Dominion Post reports on Wellington’s RWC plans:

A Rugby World Cup village on Wellington’s waterfront – centred around a yet-to-be-built wharewaka – will become the focus of celebrations at next year’s tournament.

More than 1200 partygoers will be able to pack into the building and a marquee next door, with the city council set to rent the wharewaka, or canoe house, its staff and its facilities for the event.

It will be the focus of Rugby World Cup celebrations, costing ratepayers about $150,000 – considerably less than a $100 million plan to build a party zone in Auckland.

Sounds good to me.

Poneke laments how Waterfront Watch’s campaign against the Wellington Hilton, has meant no waterfront development is likely for a decade. Instead we are left with those awful tin sheds.

Bruce Simpson at Aardvark covers the efforts of Associated Press to claim that even using their headlines is a breach of the US DMCA. This may be very significant if bloggers are not able to significantly quote articles in order to critique them.

Whale Oil detects more links between The Standard and Labour or more specifically labour.co.nz. The Standard responds. A great thread for those who get hot with talk of DNS and MX records

The Economist looks at the school system in Finland and Sweden.

And since I’m coming this far north, I want to take in Sweden too. That social-democratic paradise has carried out school reforms that make free-market ideologues the world over weak at the knees. In the 1990s it opened its state-education system to private competition, allowing new schools to receive the same amount for each pupil as the state would have spent on that child.

The Dim-Post has some solutions for the South Auckland crime wave:

• Limit numbers on all polytechnic courses teaching home invasion and armed robbery techniques.
• Increase existing levels of sedatives and oral contraceptives in Manukau water supply.
• Create an economic disincentive to homicide by amending the Emissions Trading Scheme to double carbon fees on vehicles used during a murder
• Introduce cultural sensitivity training to South Aucklands migrant communities teaching them to be more open and tolerant towards the kiwi tradition of random assault and pointless execution style killings.
• Point to multiple Asian murders as irrefutable statistical evidence for sending ‘em all back.

Also, finally not a blog but of interest to EFA watchers is this note of a meeting between Federated Farmers and the Electoral Commission over the EFA.

The Environment Court has turned down the proposal for a 5 star Hilton to be built on the Wellington Waterfront.

I was generally supportive because the current location is occupied by an ugly warehouse used for indoor sports which just doesn’t make any use of the stunning views of its location.  There may have been features of the actual proposal which made it undesirable -but  I haven’t studied it in detail.

Wellington has no top class hotels at all. The Intercontinental (which fought the proposal as they don’t want competition) is closest, but we will struggle to attract certain conventions and conferences without a five star hotel.