Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: Footpaths, not manifest destiny

85 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last

  • Rich of Observationz, in reply to Bart Janssen,

    a track record of making Auckland a pretty decent place

    Well, if you like spending several hours a day commuting to work. And spending 15 times average annual wages to buy a shack in a ghetto.

    Back in Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 5550 posts Report Reply

  • Moz, in reply to Rich of Observationz,

    if you like spending several hours a day commuting to work. And spending 15 times average annual wages to buy a shack in a ghetto.

    You only have to look at Christchurch to see how much better National are at these things. The rebuild has been appropriately paced, unhindered by bureaucracy and produced a result that Aucklanders could only dream of. It's just a pity they didn't take the path they took with the Canterbury Regional Council, really, or things could have been even better!

    Sydney, West Island • Since Nov 2006 • 1232 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel, in reply to Moz,

    You only have to look at Christchurch to see how much better National are at these things. The rebuild has been appropriately paced, unhindered by bureaucracy and produced a result that Aucklanders could only dream of

    You don't live in Chchch do you Moz?
    I'm running a magnet over this, but I'm missing the irony...

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 7947 posts Report Reply

  • linger, in reply to Ian Dalziel,

    I’m missing the irony

    I’d say that filing’s full of it; or more accurately,
    the comprehension gulf there is a sarchasm.

    Tokyo • Since Apr 2007 • 1931 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel, in reply to linger,

    where's a spanner when ya need it...

    the comprehension gulf there is a sarchasm

    Damn, I gave up 'filter feeding' as a new year's resolution
    - oh well back to reading between the lines it is then...
    :- )

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 7947 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to Ian Dalziel,

    I’m running a magnet over this, but I’m missing the irony…

    I'm sure it's ironic. It .... well, it must be.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22839 posts Report Reply

  • Kumara Republic, in reply to Ben Ross,

    The Centre Right is fractured in Auckland between the pragmatics and the ideologues.

    I'd say the issue of housing affordability is too big to ignore, and that it's single-handedly sorted the pragmatists who recognise the value of smart intensification, from the ideologues who want to prevent the 'riff-raff' from weakening their property values at any cost. The latter have basically made themselves look like self-centred rentiers.

    The southernmost capital … • Since Nov 2006 • 5433 posts Report Reply

  • Moz,

    I was hoping for irony.

    Sydney is a bad place to look for ideas, we have a right-wing state government that is privatising some of the rail (that is in Labour electorates), merging councils and using the interim "appointed managers" to privatise council assets and services, and so on. Many councils have right-wingers on board and some of them are terrifying, but ultimately powerless over the bigger forces that are making councils very hard to run effectively. Australia has a lot of "push the responsibility down but keep the funds" going on, and councils wear a lot of the impact.

    Sydney, West Island • Since Nov 2006 • 1232 posts Report Reply

  • linger, in reply to Moz,

    push the responsibility down but keep the funds

    So interposing a federal level between national and local govt is just adding a layer of muddle management (as Kiwis'd call it)?

    Tokyo • Since Apr 2007 • 1931 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel, in reply to Moz,

    I was hoping for irony.

    Sorry, I've started the year a tad jaded and cloth-eared I fear...
    I now see and take your point(s)...

    as you were,
    talk amongst yourselves
    :- )

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 7947 posts Report Reply

  • Moz, in reply to linger,

    adding a layer of muddle management (as Kiwis'd call it)?

    Australia has a lot of that. We get five levels of elected representatives (except in Queensland where they only have four), and often competing bureaucrazies at state and federal level (public schools are mostly funded by the states, "private" ones get a lot of money from the federal govt. And so on). The "who pays for this road" discussion can to truly insane in places with council, state and federal authorities in different areas all having a dog in the fight. Any problem NZ has in that area gets a bonus "times 50% more layers of government" to complexity.

    Sydney, West Island • Since Nov 2006 • 1232 posts Report Reply

  • Bart Janssen, in reply to Russell Brown,

    You guys have forgotten your chemistry papers - you did actually go to the lectures didn't you?

    Not all Fe complexes are magnetic, hence your magnet failed.

    Moz did indeed highlight the fact that while Auckland ain't perfect it could be managed a LOT worse. that said I'd still like to see the number of managers paid over $150k reduced somewhat.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 4460 posts Report Reply

  • Bart Janssen, in reply to Ian Dalziel,

    jaded

    Well you are from Te Waipounamu after all.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 4460 posts Report Reply

  • linger, in reply to Bart Janssen,

    Chch governance is one ugly motherlode of Fe and loathing.
    It just makes it easier to get lost when someone’s taken the compass.

    Tokyo • Since Apr 2007 • 1931 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Rich of Observationz,

    a shack in a ghetto

    looxury

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19728 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel, in reply to Bart Janssen,

    Suffer and steel...

    Not all Fe complexes are magnetic, hence your magnet failed

    Damn, does that make it a compound error?

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 7947 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel, in reply to Bart Janssen,

    Well you are from Te Waipounamu after all.

    Nephrite first time!

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 7947 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel, in reply to linger,

    Ferrous the key...

    Chch governance is one ugly motherlode of Fe and loathing.

    or in PR speak : Chchch is the result of 'Pitchblende', which decays day by day, forever....

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 7947 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Ian Dalziel,

    Suffer and steel

    zing

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19728 posts Report Reply

  • Stephen Judd, in reply to Ian Dalziel,

    Damn, does that make it a compound error?

    Not surprising in a comment on transition mettle.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 3122 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Todd, in reply to Phil Lyth,

    Yes, Phil, you’ve nailed it in one. The adoption of STV in multimember wards is clearly the way to go in Auckland. I would be very disappointed if Simon Wilson has discussed the problem of effective local representation in Auckland City without mentioning STV as (at least part of) the solution.

    From 2019, the Auckland Council could be elected from two 7-seat wards and one 6-seat ward, using the local board population figures set out at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auckland_Council. The population of Auckland City was estimated to be 1,570,660 as at 30 June 2015. Each councillor therefore represents an average of 78,533 residents. That being the case, the three wards could be something like this—

    North-western

    Rodney/Albany/ North Shore/Waitakere – population 539,000 / 78,533 = 6.86 councillors

    Isthmus

    Whau/Waitemata and Gulf/Albert-Eden-Roskill/Orakei/Maungakiekie-Tamaki – population 512,660 / 78,533 = 6.53 councillors

    South-eastern

    Howick/Manukau/Manurewa-Papakura/Franklin – population 519,000 / 78,533 = 6.61 councillors.

    While this would give 7, 6 and 7 councillors, respectively, it is obvious that fairer representation would be achieved by each ward electing 7 councillors.

    Three 7-seat wards would enable all significant political factions in Auckland, particularly C&R, Auckland Future, Labour and the Greens, to obtain fair and equal representation on council. Each successful candidate would only need to attain 12.5% of the votes to be elected, which would ensure that each ward would be represented by councillors from at least three, but most likely all four, of the above-mentioned factions. (Under this system, there would be no need for C&R or Auckland Future to “make way” for the other.) In addition, at least one independent candidate would almost certainly be elected from each ward.

    Also, under this system, there would be no safe seats for individual councillors. If a councillor representing one of the four factions mentioned disappoints voters, that councillor could be replaced with someone else from the same faction. There would be no need to vote against the faction to get rid of the errant councillor, as is necessary under FPP.

    I’ll leave it at that (for now); I just wanted readers to see what a proper electoral system in Auckland could look like.

    Wellington • Since Jul 2013 • 125 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel, in reply to Stephen Judd,

    metamorphic spirit rocks!!

    Not surprising in a comment on transition mettle.

    I wasn’t always easily lead…
    ;- )

    I really like ‘transition mettle’
    that could be a Chchch meme…

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 7947 posts Report Reply

  • Rich of Observationz, in reply to Steve Todd,

    Wouldn’t that just ensure that each ticket would be guaranteed a councillor per ward whether they got 12% or 40% of the votes? Why not a genuinely proportional system?

    Back in Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 5550 posts Report Reply

  • Keir Leslie,

    I would be curious to see whether a ward of 500,000 would pass the community of interest test under the Local Electoral Act.

    My gut feeling is that it would struggle to, although the LGC did approve a ward of ~100,000 in Dunedin. Will be interesting to see where the LGC comes down on the proposal to abolish wards entirely in Dunedin this year.

    The LGC said in 2010 that “we have concluded that, for Auckland, wards larger than those electing two members are undesirable.”

    There is a weirdness here in that the voting system is determined by the Council or referendum, but the electoral map will almost certainly be determined by the Local Government Commission.

    Putting aside perfect electoral system design concerns, next term’s representation review for the Auckland Council will be amazing to watch – hugely complex, politicised, and consequential.

    [ETA: ps: the Auckland right will have to deal with the loss of the Franklin/Rodney distortion embedded in the original Act - those wards will have to drastically change unless LGC uses a different path to allow a variance greater then +/- 10%, which would be very debatable.]

    Since Jul 2008 • 1452 posts Report Reply

  • George Wood,

    Attachment

    Perhaps Ben Ross should look at the close vote in the Auckland Council's 2015/2025 long term plan finalisation. The vote only passed by the slimmest of majorities when two councillors got cold feet. I feel that they voted for the motion to pass the plan against their better judgement.

    Leadership is the ingredient that is missing from the current council.

    North Shore • Since Jan 2016 • 2 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.