Hard News: So what now?
219 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 9 Newer→ Last
-
Simon Lyall, in reply to
The video of the meeting/presentations are here. Flora and Alex start talking at 1h 2m
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
I went also for a walk through the Viaduct Harbour development, seeing all these nice developments for the filthy rich, who park their luxury yachts in the harbour outside. That is the “affordable housing” for those earning enough, at the upper end of course
Another reality check, Marc -- find me any city on the planet where waterfront residential property is cheap. Look, I don't think you're going to find anyone around here perverse enough to argue property bubbles are good things or easily deflated. But you really think yesterday's shenanigans are going to do shit about that? If anything (and I'm wide open to be proved wrong)the contrary appears to be the case. I'm not pretending the Unitary Plan was, is or ever will be perfect. Nobody is. But it was a series of meaningful steps in a much better direction that hoping unconstrained sprawl will magically create a liveable city for anyone other than those rich pricks you despise so much.
-
Simon Lyall, in reply to
She talked about all those lovely older homes in my area, and how nice it was, as she knew no such homes still existed in much of Sydney. Then I had to tell her that our suburb has in large areas been proposed to be zoned into Terrace Housing and Apartment Building zone, allowing up to five or even seven storey developments. She was gob-smacked and in disbelief, that we follow Sydney’s intensification that has led to homes being unaffordable in many inner suburbs and the centre for twin income earning young professional couples.
Where Marc is your little hidden piece of Auckland where "lovely older homes"are affordable still?
How much are these properties? Something a young couple on $100,000 between them and a $50,000 deposit could afford?
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
Waiting for the crash that will fix everything is a hopeless strategy. Ever increasing property value is baked into the economy at this point. People depend on it for their retirement.
Likely the same people who got burned in the 1987 sharemarket bubble burst, in an atmosphere of blind faith and irrational exuberance following financial deregulation.
And over-reliance on property for income – where NZ already ranks among the top of the table* – is no excuse to shut out everyone else. It’s a variation on countries that are over-reliant on oil exports.
*That article was published in 2009, when NZ’s total housing value to NZX ratio was 13:1. When Brian Gaynor revisited the issue in 2013, it had risen to 14:1.
-
Marc C, in reply to
Thanks for presenting a link to the video of the special Council hearing on 24 February. So Flora and Alex were shouted down, according to Mr Bernard Hickey, who was there but presented a flawed report on the hearing?
I see and hear nobody being "shouted down" or even kept from speaking, although there was the occasional interjection by some persons further in the back of the room. People were reminded of the rules and every person had a fair say.
I wish our media and other reporters would be reporting the truth, not pick what they like or dislike, or try to make an issue out of.
As for Alex representing the Youth Advisory Board of Council, as I think it is named, he may need to spend a bit more time on his law studies, because his explanations re natural justice seem to be a selective interpretation. Most certainly some residents facing up-zoning will face negative consequences if up-zoning affects their property. And it is nonsense to argue Council would be shut out of the hearing, when the extra up-zoning would have to be withdrawn.
During the hearings on the PAUP Council presented thousands of pages of submissions, hundreds of submission evidence reports or statements, appeared to rather listen to developers when making further changes and ignored many individual or community group submitters.
Young people also had the right to present a submission and to bring evidence to the hearing, but there were damned few that bothered. It is false that only property owners can submit to such a plan, every Aucklander can. Naturally those that have properties that were proposed to be up-zoned or re-zoned would tend to make a submission when they feel negatively affected, but even they did mostly only raise few submission points, just re that kind of concern. It was the major business, large organisation, developer, government (e.g. Housing NZ) instructed from Wellington and Council who dominated most hearings, including on the Regional Policy Statement, that Council likes to use now to justify the wider intensification.
You really need to make the extra effort to submit and present evidence, that scares many off doing so. And then you will deal with expert lawyers and other experts when at the hearings, those for Council paid for by the rate-payers. So I am not surprised that such rate payers that do not want to be a property developer or speculator or whatever, and do want to keep their neighbourhood as it is, that they would be furious at Council and their planners for what they tried without a Plan change.
During the hearings Council also regularly met with a number of large submitters, particularly also business and developer submitters. Discussions were ongoing, to seek resolution for their concerns and issues. I think few ordinary Auckland residents know this. As for community groups, I know that most had lack of resources to be heard, to afford their own representatives and experts. Council and some other large submitters though have lots of cash behind them.
A hearing dominated by Council (as major submitter on its own plan) and some very strong special, vested interest holding submitters like developers, that is hardly in the interest of the wider Auckland population, but that is what we got. I think Penny Bright and a few others made that clear, but of course, she is labeled as just an "activist" or "rent a crowd member".
-
Marc C, in reply to
It is not even part of the inner, Central Auckland suburbs, but even here ordinary units now cost around at least half a million dollars, and many homes near or around a million dollars or more.
People ignore the elephant in the room, that is continued high immigration on top of natural growth, internal migration from other regions into Auckland, and also some overseas buyers. The area I live in, which I will not name, has seem many homes sold over repeatedly over the last two to three years, a bit of paint splashed on, and sold on for a nice capital gain.
Also was it interesting to hear on the TV news last night (on TV One I think), that there is evidence of overseas cash flowing in to launder here, by investing it in property. One person was alleged or reported to have spent over 100 million in CASH to buy property here, possibly in Auckland, as I remember. And it is presumed that over a billion, possibly billions of dirty money have flowed into Auckland and New Zealand to be laundered here. That will have contributed to the property price explosion.
The government we have in Wellington has let all this happen, they also allowed the property prices to explode, so we now sit at over-priced, high levels, which cannot be allowed to fall, they say, because it would lead to a crash and serious banking and financial issues affecting the whole economy.
With that in mind, how are we supposed to get affordable housing in Auckland now? As the government did not act, or act too late and too little, they will not admit to their failures, and will simply try to keep things as they are, also allowing more immigration and foreign property investment, as otherwise the market will sooner or later collapse.
Rather than get angry at individual property owners, who I admit may need to be taxed more in some ways, we should look at the criminal kind of politicians in Wellington who created this damned mess we now have. NOTHING built under given conditions will fall into your affordability target, under given circumstances, nothing, unless perhaps tiny apartments in very high rising developments, where there is damned little room to move in, but 30 square metres seems to now be the proposed minimum size, which may in some cases still have the odd exception allowed, given the proposed flexible development controls that Council last presented.
-
Swan,
Glenn Pearce they withdrew the entire submission, I got clarification by a councillor.
Whether the proposed changes were out of scope or not is very relevant. If in scope (which they were) there was no secrecy, as it was within the scope of relief sought by submitters. If the council voted to revoke in scope change proposals, then it is nothing to do with process. They disenfranchised the submitters who called for the chamges (there were many who did).
-
Marc C, in reply to
Well, watch and listed to that video presented by someone further up in this discussion thread, some have clearly tended to exaggerate, which is what I observed. The groan or occasional angry comment from some to the back in the meeting room were audible, but they were swiftly told to keep silent, so order was maintained and all had a chance to speak. As for Flora, she seemed more nervous about speaking in front of large crowds like at this meeting.
If she feels a burden, that is understandable for her and Alex's stated reasons, but I did not see or hear anyone shouting her down, that is total BS, and I was there as an interested person, having followed the discussions.
Here is the video on YouTube:
And there were no racist taunts or shouts that I noticed, which someone in the media reported.
-
Glenn Pearce, in reply to
It would interesting to know which councillor told you that.
The wording of the motion they voted on clearly stated all changes submitted on 2 specific dates (that I don't recall) and there was a late alteration during the meeting to exclude minor changes that were error corections.
It covered all the out of scope (blue).
-
Glenn Pearce, in reply to
Sorry, I see what you're getting at, yes because the motion specified 2 dates it would have included some in scope changes but the late alteration to the motion should allow those to proceed if they were error corrections.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
but I did not see or hear anyone shouting her down
Uh, on reflection I think we might me talking past each other. I'm pretty sure I've never said anyone got "shouted down" but I'm not proud to admit you can do an awful lot of unpleasant sledging without getting picked up by microphones sitting directly in front of people. Again, Marc, I'm going on people I've talked to I trust -- and aren't prone to drama queening.
-
Leanne Pooley, in reply to
There have been a number of pieces on the Money Laundering issue on Rod Oram's Interest.co.nz site. It has an impact on house prices here, no question.
-
Swan, in reply to
Glenn,
This is what was said by a Councillor:
"We could not easily partly withdraw our evidence with the IHP so the revocation withdraws it all. The planners integrated so much material that this was the cleaner way."
Remember, the blue isn't out of scope, the council used an incorrect definition of scope in determining that.
-
Glenn Pearce, in reply to
Well if that is what has happened (and I don't think anything has happened yet, the council issued a statement saying they are working through it) then they have taken an action contrary to the motion that was voted on.
-
Swan,
Hi Glenn, do you have a link to the wording of the resolution? Thanks
-
Marc C, in reply to
The comments re being "shouted down" and even "racist taunts" were not mentioned by you, but they were mentioned by the media yesterday. And one of the ones who seem to have made such claims was Bernard Hickey, who was there, so I was astonished how he could make such comments.
Of course, when you are in a room that is filled with mostly opposing residents having different views, any person may feel less confident and secure to present a position that most may not agree with. I am not defending the residents that may have murmured or made unsympathetic comments, I am simply trying to put things into a real perspective. The video shows there was no significant disturbances, and there was no disruption that occurred when the Youth Panel members spoke.
But as it is with anything political, those with strong views of whatever kind will swiftly try to put their spin onto something, so they can discredit the other side. The meeting was about the out of scope changes in Council's evidence and process, as the Mayor repeated again and again, same as Councillors present.
Intensification, building types and heights were NOT the topic and issue that was discussed, nor was affordability, although this is all linked to zoning, of which there was already much new intensification being enabled through the hearing process.
The ones with egg on their faces are not only the leading planners working for Council, it is also the ones that sat on the Auckland Council Development Committee hearings, who gave instructions or guidance to the planners when making earlier decisions.
Council stuffed up, and to make all this now an age, generation or a pro or against PAUP issue is a desperate attempt to defend some of which could not be defended. I am astonished how some try to defend a Council no matter what they do.
-
Glenn Pearce, in reply to
At 6 hrs 11 minutes in the Video linked to above it is displayed on the screen.
Just re-read it actually, it only mentions the "out of scope" changes, I believe there was an alteration to allow out of scope that are error cortrections to proceed.
-
Swan, in reply to
Thanks Glenn,
It is a very interesting resolution and quite different to what had been conveyed to me. It is interesting that it refers to "out-of-scope", and not specifically the blue bordered areas on the maps. This indicates they are asking for things that are actually out of scope to be removed. The reality is out-of-scope hasn't been determined yet, but it is likely that most of the changes are actually in scope. In order for the council to enact the resolution, I am guessing they need to get a judgement on what is and is not in scope. It may turn out that 99% is in scope and so the whole thing is moot.
-
Swan, in reply to
The irony of this is that the council sought to be "conservative" in determining what was in and out of scope in order to push more things out of scope to give people more appeal rights.
Now that this has happened the council may be forced to take a more balanced and correct definition of scope. This will render all these properties in scope and people would then lose those appeal rigths. Pretty much the opposite of what they were hoping for.
-
Marc C, in reply to
Well you have a peculiar view on this, as the discussion during Council's extraordinary meeting on this seemed to make clear that the blue bordered amendments on maps were considered to be "out of scope". There appears to have been enough agreement for Councillors to cast their votes, and had they not been given all the clarifications and explanations to do so, I am sure that some Councillors would have demanded more explanations.
Re appealing any environmental and RMA related plan recommendations and decisions, well the filing fee for the Environment Court may not be the main hindrance for most:
http://www.justice.govt.nz/courts/environment-court
http://www.justice.govt.nz/courts/environment-court/formsWhat may be more of a concern to an elderly couple living in their own property on a fixed income, same as to many others, may rather be the cost of being represented by these kinds of people:
http://www.rmla.org.nz/
http://www.simpsongrierson.com/expertise/environment-planning-resource-managementI wonder how much Council have paid them per hour and for their work.
Without any legal representation this talk about "appeal rights" is ridiculous, as the ordinary Auckland resident will have insufficient legal expertise to appeal a decision by themselves. Council have deep pockets, so do developers and some large institutions and government agencies or departments.
So who can head off and just make a casual appeal and see this through on their own, unless they also have deep pockets?
-
In/out of scope is kind of irrelevant it's the scale of the late changes that has people upset, most (including many of the Councillors) would have been expecting limited changes from the Notified version.
It's certainly a shambles
-
Swan, in reply to
Its very relevant Glenn. The councillors, particularly the swing councillors like Darby were hanging their desicion on "process". The issue is noone has a chance to submit on out of scope changes, but they did have a chance to submit on in scope changes (or more specifically the submissions calling for said relief). So it goes to the heart of what was debated.
Similarly in my discussion with Denise Krum she specifically said it was not about the scale it was about the process.
-
Legally relevant perhaps but I still think the same level of uproar would have occurred had they been labelled Out of Scope or not
The phrase "Out of Scope" is sort of inflammatory in itself though, it implies not justified or secret it some way.
-
Swan, in reply to
"Legally relevant perhaps but I still think the same level of uproar would have occurred had they been labelled Out of Scope or not"
No doubt many people would have roared no matter what. I have seen many "uproar" comments in the current debate referring to zoning from the PAUP itself. The point is swing councillors interested in process accept the process overall, but not the out-of-scope bit.
-
Swan, in reply to
Well you have a peculiar view on this, as the discussion during Council’s extraordinary meeting on this seemed to make clear that the blue bordered amendments on maps were considered to be “out of scope”.
No it didn't. If you listened to the planning officers they said that they had taken a "conservative" (read incorrect) definition of scope when making the maps. Here is what they said in their report:
"23. While the council has taken a conservative view of scope, and sought to rely on specific submissions for scope, we note that scope is determined as being anywhere between the position in the PAUP as notified and the relief that is sought in any original submissions on the PAUP – whether that original submission is specific to a property address or street, or whether that original submission is more broad and general in nature."
Socpe is determined by the IHP. And a number of submitters have already (pre this meeting) challenged the Councils "conservative" view.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.