Posts by Marc C
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: So what now?, in reply to Kumara Republic,
That document found under the link in my last comment is OUT OF DATE, by the way, as there is upon past hearings now agreement between Council and some key large submitters on there being NO minimum dwelling mix, and for in general a minimum dwelling size of 30 square metres for all zones. Few keep up with what changes have been made, the notified plan looks very different to what Council has now proposed and pushed through (with developer and a few other submitters that agreed on most). This has nothing to do with this latest stoush re out of scope zoning, and was already ticked off in past hearings.
-
Hard News: So what now?, in reply to Sacha,
Come on, that is just plain silly. Richard Burton knows what is being planned, he was one of the select few that sat in meetings with Council and with developers, Housing NZ and a few others, to agree on changes to development controls and density rules for MHU and MHS zones, and more. Some do not agree with this extra input, and these extra agreements, besides of mediation, which was also run by mostly only the major players, and almost NO ordinary residents and home owners.
Re that picture in the Herald, that is the kind of glossy picture stuff that Council spreads around, making people believe that nothing higher and worse will be built. It is highly misleading, as during the hearing Council agreed with developers and a few others to increase permitted storey heights for apartment buildings from 4 to 6 to 5 to 7, and in some cases they may be higher, that is in THAB zones and MHU zones. Council never shows pictures of apartment buildings higher than three storeys, I notice. It is mostly only three storeys maximum, and I am struggling to remember the few pictures with four storeys.
So how honest are Council then, when “informing” the public?
-
Hard News: So what now?, in reply to Sacha,
I read both memos, there are some areas that need more legal clarifications. Council admit themselves, they need to look into this more closely and get back to the Panel. We got a lot of disaster talk from Council's leading planners before, I do not give every word they say all that much weight, also having followed the hearing, where they tended to change tune on an ongoing basis.
And besides of that, they have only themselves to blame, for trying to up-zone whole streets, where spot zoning by other submitters may only have justified a fraction of their harmonisation efforts to rezone.
So that is the price they pay, for being too bold in that regard. They should have done their homework before notifying a plan, e.g. capacity and feasible capacity modeling and so forth. Why did all that arise as an issue, the perceived lack of capacity, and why did this have to be done towards the end of the hearing process.
Council stuffed up, so now the can sob, while they try tidying up the mess.
-
Hard News: So what now?, in reply to Sacha,
From the IHP website – direct PDF link:
Panel’s response:
https://hearings.aupihp.govt.nz/online-services/new/files/GlkDeGat7zzO2rgdsTD8glD1qPa9LM2pn7OLmD3Sg1Gl
As I suggested in an earlier comment, from the Panel’s point of view it will be business as usual, and they will proceed with the hearing, leaving it to Council representatives to perhaps act within new limitations to their authority, as instructions from the relevant Committee or Governing Body may require. -
Hard News: So what now?, in reply to Sacha,
Yes, while there rests a lot of responsibility with Council, whose failings have become apparent, and whose idea of planning and process have also been shown (lacking), there lies one other MAIN responsible party in this, which continues to wash its hands in innocence.
Carrying on with the laissez faire approach, not using available immigration policy measures to adjust the inflow of new migrants, and especially leaving most regions to fend for themselves, with no significant planning, development and consultation, that is like a teen driver on steroids left in charge of a vehicle, while swinging a beer in one hand, and having the other one on an out of control steering wheel when speeding.
I wish that rather than just hammering on using generational issues and differences, on whether it makes sense to zone for more this or that residential development here in Auckland, more people should put their anger to the ones in charge in Wellington, just for a change. They even plan to sell thousands of state homes and land, to leave it up to developers and over-burdened, also limited finance holding “community housing” agencies to provide supposedly "social" and “affordable housing”, which will never bring the results under the given conditions we have.
We have a careless, irresponsible and even incompetent central government, that only steps in when it comes to vested business interests and looking after their better off voting mates, and that does not look at the long term future of the country and its people. Attack the government, thanks.
-
Simon Wilson has to some degree discredited himself, same as Bernard Hickey has, with these exaggerations about “heckling”, “shouting” and so forth, watch the video found via a link further above, and it will show that the actual atmosphere was tense, but definitely not at the described level.
I quote:
"And there they were, 150 of them piled into the back of the room, sitting and standing, shouting at every speaker they disagreed with, seething with anger: the insurrectionists of Kohimarama, just itching to storm the barricades. Well, not storm, exactly, because their average age was well into the 70s. Clamber carefully, perhaps."Good grief, so that is supposed to be balanced journalism? Bernard Hickey now makes the rounds claiming the vote by Council’s Governing Body means Council has gone back to the original notified PAUP allowing only capacity for 80-thousand developable homes. That is BS too, as there have been major changes to development controls in the THAB, MHU and even MHS and Mixed Use zone areas, allowing more density, also have greater heights been proposed during earlier hearing topics, all before the Panel to recommend on later in June or July. The feasible capacity modeling is continuing at the Council’s research unit, and they have in recent reports, that did not even consider the “out of scope” changes, already found more feasible development, much higher than the supposed 80-thousand.
It is astonishing that the journalists and various other commentators have only just now discovered that there is ample debate about the PAUP, notified and heard so far, as before we got stuff all from them about it. It is evident to me that most have not properly read the notified and since then changed text of the PAUP, that is why we get this poor reporting now, it is embarrassing, really.
But in the end, I understand, this is a theatre fitting dramatisation, based on a comparison with “Les Miserables”, so that is where Simon is good and talented at entertaining us.
Studying the minutes for that meeting, there is still room for Council to clear up it’s stuff ups, which includes the earlier committee’s decisions in November last year, and to instruct their planners to still tidy up evidence and work in cooperative fashion with other submitters and the Panel, who will after all have to decide, what should be recommended back to Council to do, and what perhaps not.
The show is far from over, indeed.
Watching the Nation on TV3, it seems even the Finance Minister is not that clued up about what all the consequences of Council’s Governing Body vote on last Wednesday may mean. But there was NO talk of appointing any Commissioner to sort this out here in Auckland, I wonder why?
-
I am not sure whether this has already been presented in one of the many earlier comments, but here are anyway the Minutes on the extraordinary meeting by the Auckland Council Governing Body on 24 Feb. 2016:
http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/Open/2016/02/GB_20160224_MIN_6533_EXTRA.PDF
Some questions may yet need to be clarified by legal experts, but the vote was clear, I think.
-
Hard News: So what now?, in reply to linger,
Thanks for the clarifications. As I already commented, we could start with some more proactive regional planning, thus enabling more jobs and business in regions. We can further incentivise the new migrants to move to other parts of the country, the government seems to have started with that giving more points for a move to other places than Auckland.
And for the rest, no country is forced to take in migrants, except perhaps a reasonable amount of internationally acknowledged refugees as a quota, so the government could tighten criteria, thus limiting immigration into the country. This approach has been used again and again, to perhaps adjust inflow, so it is economically and socially feasible to handle the flow of people. Naturally citizens and permanent residents with a right to return cannot be stopped, but if there is a great move of returnees from say Australia, other migration can be slowed for a while.
It makes no sense to enable growth in a city when there are likely to be serious limitations to water and energy supply that cannot meet potential demand, and we are likely to have just that kind of situation sooner than some may suspect.
-
Hard News: So what now?, in reply to Sacha,
I think they have kind of scored an own goal by that decision, and the arguments Council's planners stated do not convince me. They could still present evidence, or give a statement re what evidence will now be withdrawn due to the decision by the Councillors. Even if that is not possible, there has already been plenty of evidence presented by Council on residential zoning topics and other topics, which show where Council stands on all this, at least generally.
Then there will be submitters like Housing NZ, Mr Ben Ross also, and many others, who will present their evidence and views, some supporting intensification and more up-zoning in the form of re-zoning, others will oppose it.
It makes the hearing process a little less inclusive due to Council's withdrawal, but both sides and also affected residents (some also want up-zoning rather than the opposite) will be given a chance to be heard.
I think it is not perfect, but will not end in a total disaster either.
-
Hard News: So what now?, in reply to linger,
Is this the Godwin like version of a judgment for someone commenting critically and generally on immigration? But I thank you, that is exactly why nobody dares mentioning the "elephant in the room". New Zealand is now so PC mad, any critical comment does instantly get interpreted as being racist or whatever else one can think of.
You have proved this yet again, perfectly, putting words to my comments that I never mentioned and even considered. Immigrants are not simply "Asian", they come from many places, so your comment is just totally ridiculous, I fear.
By the way, we will also have limited natural resources that will at some point mean we should not have local natural population growth, not more than what is sustainable.
Countries like the UK and others, that have high populations, they can only supply and sustain them due to using fossil fuels for energy, and unless some magical new sustainable energy form is found, that can provide enough energy not just for lighting homes and streets, but also power cars and more, they will not be sustainable either.
Wind and solar and hydro energy there won't be enough to supply them with the present living standards, the same will one day apply to New Zealand.