Hard News: So what now?
219 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 9 Newer→ Last
-
Given Nick Smith's comments that the Auckland submissions are now 'nonsense' due to the withdrawl of justifiable zoning planning, I'd say we're headed to the Independent Hearing Panel without a strong voice for Auckland.
Should the 2040 lot put more pressure on the Councillors to reject the final plan that the Independent Hearing Panel proposes, it's more than reasonable to assume that the Government will not let six years of work from many agencies go down the drain because some people can't see beyond their own tiny slice of Auckland.
In that case, what happened to Canterbury will happen to Auckland. Government will appoint commissioners to oversee the plan and then the intensification happens anyway.
Burton and his troops may be celebrating, but that is characteristic of people who literally cannot see beyond the short term. They've actually lost, and lost hugely. They just don't realise it yet.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Burton and his troops may be celebrating, but that is characteristic of people who literally cannot see beyond the short term. They've actually lost, and lost hugely. They just don't realise it yet.
This is exactly what I've been mulling over.
-
In that case, what happened to Canterbury will happen to Auckland. Government will appoint commissioners to oversee the plan and then the intensification happens anyway.
Possibly, but that's not exactly a vote winner for them is it? I'd say the Unitary Plan process will get extended by at least 12 months, apparently there is provision in the legislation for an extension.
They'll also probably push the line of "Auckland has rejected going up so they must go out" and yes, I'm aware of the associated infrastructure costs with that approach.
-
John Palethorpe, in reply to
They seem to be relying on a National MP in a Government which has specifically asked for greater intensity suddenly changing their mind because of a small but vocal opposition.
There's a trace of amusement to be found in their apparent certainty that a small group of committed people can turn this Government's economic policy around (after all, no other protest group has managed it). A policy which outright rely on maximising the growth of Auckland while reducing infrastructure costs for the Govt. That means intensification.
I am considering erecting a deckchair and getting some popcorn for what happens next.
-
What now:
Government reaction this morning from Nick Smith and Bill English was swift.
From Smith on Morning Report:
@NzMorningReport
"The Auckland Council's submissions becomes something of a nonsense" Dr Nick Smith #UnitaryPlanEnglish is due to give a speech on Auckland housing later today and his reaction given this situation below will be interesting to watch:
@bernardchickey
This Auckland housing supply shortage is the major reason for NZ's housing affordability crisis and its financial stability risks. #carcrash
Okay so what now?
Well I have to go rewrite my evidence for the rezoning topic given there was out of scope changes made by Council in South Auckland. I am lucky I have a month to get an amendment through but others will not be so lucky.Transport Blog have outlined the process and the consequences with the professionals as well http://transportblog.co.nz/2016/02/25/unitary-plan-and-the-issue-of-scope/
But ultimately the long term damage is yet to be seen.
There are several avenues we can now go down:1) We continue as is and hopefully the Panel can make recommendations back to the Council in August. Now given the Panel has tended to more intensification in the past this leads to a rather interesting situation in August with the Governing Body of the Council. I'll go into this further down.
2) Government passes legislation to enshrine the recommendations from the Panel enmass once they have been made bypassing the vote from the Governing Body. Now appeals and Plan Changes can still be made but it skips a potential for a yesterday to repeat (also see below).
3) Government pre-empts off and installs Commissioners thus sacking the Governing Body until a predetermined time. Now both Labour and National have either sacked Councils or DHBs so the precedent is there. Now this is where 1 and 2 also come into the mix and a reason why the Government might just go for Commissioners.
The 13-8 vote was all about process right? Wrong. It was a cover for naked NIMBYism and Councillors protecting their seats this year like 2013. They are not interested in intensification in their area where the NIMBY squad will squawk as they did yesterday.
Now here is the risk. The Panel will now more likely go for even higher intensification than what the Council had put its evidence on as the capacity numbers must match the 60:40 ratio set out in the Auckland Plan. The current PAUP that is going through the hearings does not allow the housing required and we risk of more sprawl. It is the reason why modelling was done and Council subsequently submitted in its now defunct evidence more intensification was needed to avoid more sprawl (which Bill English even wants to avoid).
It can be thus concluded as a result (and despite Burton spinning faster than a washing machine) that Auckland needs to intensify more.
Now given 13 Councillors have basically voted against that increased level of intensification thus reverting back to the PAUP (where we have the mismatch) it can reasonably assumed that that 13 will vote against the recommendations causing the September 16 deadline to be missed (and the SHAs go null and void)
So does Government want that risk in September? Of course not. With political capital in their favour they could install Commissioners without major risk.
Also installing Commissioners means all of Council's evidence could go back into the Hearings relieving the pressure off submitters for a rewrite.
Where will we go though? -
Moz,
I put is more as "rather than suffer a defeat, they shot themselves in the head". They've just said to National "we don't care, do whatever you want", and frankly central government firing the lot of them would be entirely appropriate. They have a job to do and they've chosen not to do it.
You can look at the invidious choices Christchurch City Council has had to make over the last few years as a comparison, and that just makes the whiny toddlers in Auckland look worse. Faced with an actual dictator who was determined to implement National's agenda, they fought basically every step of the way.
-
John Palethorpe, in reply to
Not a vote winner but pragmatic and economically sensible. Given the wrangle over the CRL, imagine this Govt choosing an approach which will cost them billions more in transport and other infrastructure.
-
Matthew Hooton, in reply to
They seem to be relying on a National MP in a Government which has specifically asked for greater intensity suddenly changing their mind because of a small but vocal opposition.
The government will do what the polls in Auckland Central, Epsom, Mt Albert, Mt Roskill and Tamaki (have I missed any?) tell it to do. If I were a supporter or opponent of intensification (and I don't really care about the issue one way or the other) I would be commissioning every polling company I could to start researching this point.
-
John Palethorpe, in reply to
Have to disagree with you there, Matthew, based on the submissions by the Government that have already been made. They value the effective operation of the engine producing 1/3 of GDP. See: Amy Adams' submission here - http://www.aucklandcity.govt.nz/UPSubs/UPASEP000318.pdf
-
What seems bizarre to me is that it looks like our elected representatives on the council just voted to have the advice of the entire city council bureaucracy with all the talent (and shite) EXCLUDED from the next plan for our city.
If I understand that correctly it is insane.
And can we please have some of those bright informed young men and women on the next ballot paper so this old white male can vote for them????
-
Glenn Pearce, in reply to
Slightly hyperbolic, they've only withdrawn the Out of Scope changes as I understand it, everything else stands and the Council will still be represented at the IHP
-
Matthew Hooton, in reply to
You have greater confidence than I do in the integrity of the Key government sticking to a policy position.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
Slightly hyperbolic
Not if the govt appoints commissioners which seems highly likely. At that point the politically appointed commission will do whatever the biggest National party donor wants.
-
John Palethorpe, in reply to
The world really is turning upside down then!
What next? Winston advocating Green policies....
http://www.newshub.co.nz/environmentsci/winston-peters-phase-out-1080-2016022420#axzz414oEq3cV
Oh.
-
Isn't the port the ket to this and many other issues? Move the port's used-car and container operations to Marsden Point (and Tauranga) and you free up a whole lot of land for all sorts of housing and other development (including very significant open spaces).
And what is the economic, political or regulatory care against 50-100 story (high quality) apartments in the CBD? Or better use of Upper Queen Street and K Road (that Russell wrote about in his excellent Metro piece)? It seems to me vast intensification is possible in these areas (and in the 100m radius around train stations throughout the region) that would create mini-Portlands and mini-Manhattens for people who want them, reduce congestion and make the CBD and transport node areas safer, without causing disruption to suburbs.
It seems to me that even doubling the capacity on suburban sites really does't do much in comparison. If the population of Westmere were to, say, double, even that doesn't really represent "intensification" of the sort that would transform the city in the way people say they want.
At the very least, those who advocate intensification need to carry the existing residents of the areas planned for intensification. Its like the economic reforms of the early 1990s: it's really no use telling people what's good for them and that you know best. As Clark and Key have taught us, part of the effectiveness of a policy is how it is received and accepted by the public, rather than how it reads in a university or think tank environment.
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
You can look at the invidious choices Christchurch City Council has had to make over the last few years as a comparison, and that just makes the whiny toddlers in Auckland look worse. Faced with an actual dictator who was determined to implement National's agenda, they fought basically every step of the way.
Presumably you're talking about the post-Bob Parker City Council. Whatever long political game Lianne Dalziel is currently engaged in, she still occasionally emerges to give the impression that she hasn't yet succumbed to the standard Party insider's contempt for ordinary stakeholders as nuisance policial amateurs.
When you get an old Labour grandee longing for the good old days when dissenters were strung up by their thumbs, working outside the constraints of Party alignments seems like a sensible strategy to constructively outflank a dictator:
Former Deputy Prime Minister and Labour MP Jim Anderton agreed that Butler should have been charged, saying the decision not to do so was "outrageous"."It's not just because he's a minister - throwing things at people is not a good idea, and it's not legal to do it, so why don't we exercise the law?"
-
ed,
HT to the person who tweeted last night something along the lines of: "City Vision should change their name to Village Vision"
-
Matthew Hooton, in reply to
At that point the politically appointed commission will do whatever the biggest National party donor wants.
National Party donors are always trumped by the polls, especially in cases like this that directly affect people (voters) in places like Auckland Central which National considers the new jewel in its new crown. You don't seriously think the Key government's policy programme is one that the donor community would have written for it?
-
Sacha, in reply to
the Council will still be represented at the IHP
Did you catch Mr Duguid's promise that council's experts will refuse to testify to the original proposed plan which no longer conforms with later evidence they considered, to preserve their professional integrity with the panel?
-
Ben Ross, in reply to
Option 1
Withdraw out of scope changes from the council’s evidence· Addresses the concerns of some members of the public
· Results in a piecemeal approach as the evidence is completely integrated (geographic areas and in and out of scope)· A re-write of the expert evidence will be required; and there is no time for that to occur before the specific residential zone hearings commence on 3 March 2016.
· Results in a major disconnect between the zoning maps and the council’s evidence
· Disadvantages submitters who have not filed evidence on the basis they were happy with the council’s position
· Disadvantages submitters who have spent money and time putting evidence together after reading the council’s evidence
· No council planning witnesses to support piecemeal zoning as such an approach is contrary to planning best practice
· No council planning witnesses there to provide a view on Housing New Zealand Corporation’s request for substantial up-zoning
-
Sacha, in reply to
As Clark and Key have taught us, part of the effectiveness of a policy is how it is received and accepted by the public, rather than how it reads in a university or think tank environment.
Leadership sometimes involves putting longer-term evidence-based policy ahead of what the polls say right now. Good leaders work hard to bring enough people with them to get the change through.
-
Glenn Pearce, in reply to
Well I did hear Pirritt rather than Duguid say it might be difficult to get the planners to defend the previous version of the plan knowing the work that had gone into the revised version (although she also said the subject hadn't actually been broached with them). I didn't catch them saying the planners would "refuse", but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.
On that note I thought Pirritt/Duguid did a fine job of defending the Out of Scope changes in Takapuna when pressed by George Wood but they did a dreadful job of defending the Out of Scope changes in Glendowie when pressed by Cameron Brewer.
-
Sacha, in reply to
vast intensification is possible in these areas (and in the 100m radius around train stations throughout the region) that would create mini-Portlands and mini-Manhattens for people who want them
I doubt people are asking for high-rise ghettos like previous councils allowed on Nelson St. Medium-rise is the typology we are most missing.
-
Simon Lyall, in reply to
It seems to me vast intensification is possible in these areas (and in the 100m radius around train stations throughout the region) that would create mini-Portlands and mini-Manhattens for people who want them, reduce congestion and make the CBD and transport node areas safer, without causing disruption to suburbs.
You don't understand those areas are "villages" and Auckland 2040 is Penelope Keith standing up against evil developers trying to turn the local commons into an office park.
Seriously though standard walking distance is 5-10 minutes so this should be closer to a 500-750 metre radius and should also include places that are well served by buses (eg Dominion, Mt Eden and Sandringham roads). Except of course all that is completely opposed by those who seem to think Dominion Rd is a quiet country lane.
When 3 story buildings are demonized as skyscrapers and Hong Kong (dog-whistle) it is pretty hard to argue for 4-5 story apartments ( eg Turing )
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
Burton and his troops may be celebrating, but that is characteristic of people who literally cannot see beyond the short term. They've actually lost, and lost hugely. They just don't realise it yet.
Just wait till the housing bubble burst comes.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.