Posts by Marc C
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
We live in the age of spin, mass manipulation and dumbing down, the mainstream media try to feed in with social media, and are setting new trends and reaching new levels, so no wonder we get nasty, self loving, insulting, loose cannon rich men like Donald Trump being considered a serious and valid contender for becoming the next US president.
The journey into the future has just become a little more dangerous.
-
Hard News: So what now?, in reply to Swan,
The current situation is very unfair to submitters who have called for upzoning. They are being treated as if their submissions dont even exist.
That totally contradicts what Council's planners and Penny Hulse said (in a text message a few days ago) or what was suggested. They (Council planners) said, we will withdraw from the hearing process, apart from perhaps presenting legal evidence, but then let the people and submitters live with the government driven up-zoning that for instance Housing NZ wanted.
So that does not sound like such submitters will lose any power in the hearing process, rather the opposite.
-
Hard News: So what now?, in reply to Swan,
To be honest, the whole hearing process has been a bit of a farce. Firstly in the consultation process up to the Draft version, only selected stake holder groups were consulted. Once the Draft was moderated, other issues arose. To make effective submissions one needs good legal and planning advice, how does an ordinary citizen get that, unless she/he pays experts to do it? The whole system is heavily favouring the large submitters with all their experts and representatives, lawyers, planners and what you have. Only those that managed to organise community groups could flex some muscle to represent residents' interests, but I know of many having had to stop taking part, they ran out of money for their representatives.
It is bizarre how some weep crocodile tears within Council's planning department, they were dominating much of the whole process, inundating other submitters with their evidence and other reports. Who as an ordinary mortal resident has the time and energy to read thousands of reports pages, hundreds of evidence statements, many close to or over a hundred pages, and digest this?
The Chair of the Panel has himself put the whole process into question, making such comments to submitters like, oh, we do not expect you to read all of Council's evidence, just state your concerns. How the hell can you submit effectively and with merit, when you do not know what Council has presented, in changes or whatever evidence? They basically have a dim view of ordinary individual submitters, letting them run in an open blade. I find it bizarre how some here blindly trust Council as being the fair player and the one submitter, same as plan presenter, to do it all right and in the interest of ordinary residents, when they have repeatedly ignored many submissions and concerns, with or without evidence.
The average Joe Bloggs has not got a leg to stand on against their lawyers and expert planners, who know all the ins and outs of the Plan and the law. So here we have some defend even commercial developers, with whom Council have on an ongoing basis held closed door consultations on the plan and their concerns.
I cannot believe the naivety or even dishonesty of some, defending Council as being the good faith acting vested interest party. They want intensification and growth, because they want more residents and more rates they can charge, to build their "Tower of Babel" of modern day proportion, nothing else, that is more like the truth than anything else. Growth is the mantra, population growth combined with economic growth, it is like an addiction, as without growth, that is quantity growth, they seem to have a failed economic project, which they do not want to admit.
What about telling people the truth, and that resources are limited? What about doing more with what we already have, instead of allowing the city population to nearly double, without sufficient resources being available to supply them with basic needs?
-
Hard News: So what now?, in reply to Swan,
Well it turns out if you use the actual definition of out of scope, instead of the definition they used in the conservative approach, effectively none of these zone changes are out of scope.
In practice this means anyone could have submitted against thouse submissions calling for the upzoning if they wanted to. You will have to ask them why they chose not to.
Wow, why were you not at the extraordinary meeting then, to offer legal advice on this?
And also, for a start, going through the thousands of submissions and various points under submissions, that can only be sorted by name or submission number, and not so much by property number or area submitted to be up- or down-zoned, it is a massive task to find exactly the various particular zoning requests by the also hundreds if not thousands of submitters.
Some are generic, some are more specific, but you would spend weeks or months searching through the Submission Points Pathway reports, to find all that one may object to. Who has the time, is this reasonable? NO!
As another commentator here writes, the website itself is not that user-friendly, which was also raised by submitters to the IHP early last year or even in 2014, if I rightly recall.
And the Independent Hearings Panel also published interim guidance, which kind of expressed an expectation that anyone wanting to present evidence and to be heard on rezoning topics, would have to show whether they consulted with the various property owners that may have been affected. So you would seriously expect a submitter, who objects to a suburban area to be up-zoned, to go from door to door of hundreds or more homes, to find the owner, to ask for their permission whether they would agree or object to their property being up- or down-zoned?
Good grief, the Panel itself seems to have set the guidance rather tightly, and I wonder if this is not unreasonable an expectation.
In my view the Panel have been given more power than they should have been given, to even consider out of scope matters. But we can thank Rodney Hide and the earlier National led government for that, as they have a dim view of democracy, just look at ECan and other examples.
-
Hard News: So what now?, in reply to Sacha,
NO mention of the elephant in the room, rather high level immigration, on top of natural growth and some fleeing the other less developed regions, to find work and do business in Auckland. It is incredible, we are supposed to be “powerless” when it comes to perhaps put more controls on demand, or to channel it through better regional development. I am not surprised the government does not mention the elephant, because without it, there would probably be rather little growth in the economy, so in order to avoid it looking to bad, they continue a laissez faire approach when it comes to population growth, and that includes Kiwis returning from abroad, and still many new migrants. The immigration economy, I suppose, after dairy prices crashed.
-
Hard News: So what now?, in reply to Sacha,
I have said it before, Auckland should never have been allowed to spread as it has over the last half century, and it should never have been planned to suit the motor vehicles now being driven around everywhere. I have not owned a car for years, yet live in the suburbs, and can get around by bus and at times by train, why can others not?
That is not dependent on intensification, I reckon, not in many suburbs within the majority of central and surrounding suburbs. Use buses, cycle, walk, but people are lazy, and even when you rezone, if people don't buy apartments, they will not be sellable, but then of course, the government prepares for more overseas inflow, will they not?
What I cannot believe is how some here seriously give credit to property developers, who put their own spin onto feasibility arguments, all working on the basis they need at least a 20 percent profit - loss margin (meaning really rather profit than loss of course), as otherwise they cannot build affordable homes. So much for "reality check".
The market is overpriced partly due to population growth, as I repeated again and again, and that is not just natural growth, while the government has stuffed up not even providing state housing to those in biggest need. We also have money to the billions laundered here by it being invested by foreign buyers, possibly using also local contacts, into property, and that and a building supply monopoly, other issues are what have driven prices up. The government in Wellington allowed it all to happen. They do not want a capital gains tax, they were reluctant to put into place other constraints, now we have the disaster.
We actually need a crash, that is the painful truth, to get back to affordable prices for more people, some will have to bleed to make that happen.
As for all this generational tension the young people that feel affected will also have parents, some of them will have property, it is not all that clearly cut and good and bad, old and middle class being all bad, all "nimbys", and young people all poor and struggling to get into affordable housing. I know enough older people who have only a state pension to live off, while still having their own home, thus not needing to pay rent.
Look at Council's evidence, there will be almost zilch affordable housing, no matter how much density they will allow under zone changes, that is what Mr Balderston's report revealed. And consider to reduce demand, by overseas buyers, by too high immigration. I mentioned we will not even have the water to supply more than another 45,000 households, unless we tap more from the Waikato River, which has now been before the Regional Council there for years, and not been granted, that is Council's application.
There are limits to resources, natural and physical, so increasing the population by another 700,000 to a million will NOT be sustainable, no matter what.
-
Hard News: So what now?, in reply to Swan,
There have been so-called "generic" or rather general re-zoning submissions, and there have been site specific or geographically specific re-zoning submissions. One major submitter was Housing NZ, who presented both types of submission points, asking for many property lots to be up-zoned or at least re-zoned. They also want up zoning more generally.
While Council may have used such submissions as reason to rezone what was differently zoned in the notified Plan, they have to be conservative of course, to avoid degrees of changes that may be deemed unreasonable. They also claim they followed certain principles set by earlier hearings (on the RPS and residential zone hearing topics), including such as certain zones to be within reasonable walking distance from centres or frequent or rapid transport networks.
But when looking at the maps, they have gone further than that, like for instance in areas in Glendowie, parts of Westmere and so, where none of the principles were properly followed, and where other submissions did only cover few properties to be re-zoned.
That was hardly "conservative", and by doing that, which Council planners themselves explained as "out of scope zoning", they did knowingly run the risk to stir up concerns, then anger and firm, resolute opposition by affected residents. It all has to be done with sound reasoning and within acceptable limits, and while overall zone areas may only have changed slightly, some areas were seriously impacted by their late evidence presented in January.
The IHP also has to consider natural justice aspects and adhere to the principles of that, so while the Panel let Council present their preliminary position and accepted their evidence, that does not equate to the Panel saying this is all acceptable and deserves to be recommended, what Council presented.
There is now a massive responsibility that lies with the Panel, having to apply natural justice (especially to those affected by any rezoning of their properties and areas) and to listen to all submitters, and then find the right balance.
Moderate out of scope zoning may have been ok, but Council did not do this, it affected about 30,000 properties, not just the 20,000 first talked about. That is significant, legally and from a planning point of view.
With your position you seem to say, that where any person says I want all of Auckland up-zoned, then such a submission gives Council the licence to go about and present submissions to do this. In any case consultation has to be allowed, but where is that when existing submitters do not have submissions on areas rezoned late by Council (i.e. out of scope), so they cannot represent the other owners and residents, and where the deadline for presenting evidence was 10 February.
This allowed no proper consultation and remedies to affected residents.
-
Hard News: So what now?, in reply to Swan,
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?
-
Hard News: So what now?, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
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.
-
Hard News: So what now?, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
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.