Posts by Marc C
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: So what now?, in reply to Simon Lyall,
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.
-
Hard News: So what now?, in reply to Simon Lyall,
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".
-
Hard News: So what now?, in reply to Matthew Hooton,
I met a woman from Sydney, Australia, when waiting for a bus to take me to that Council meeting (as an interested person). 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.
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. Even recent Council research unit models - taking into consideration all changes so far made to the PAUP - offer damned little affordable homes, as even small studio apartments cost hundreds of thousands per piece to build.
Somehow we are on the wrong track in this country, where the rich have gotten even more rich, own their nice patches and more, and where most struggle to afford their homes, which ever more of them can only rent. This country is stuffed, and neither central government nor Council seem to have the answers.
And nobody dares mention the elephant in the room, continued high immigration, that comes on top of natural growth, and regions that are not growing much, hence more and more New Zealanders move to the cities, particularly Auckland.
-
Hard News: So what now?, in reply to Sacha,
So a refusal is the same as being "excluded"?
-
Hard News: So what now?, in reply to Ben Ross,
And how is your submission for unlimited heights in Manukau and elsewhere going, for the Super Metro Centres?
Have you not a vested interest in intensification, as I suspect?
Which developers have you consulted with over recent months?
-
I heard the first comments by government today, reported on by the media. If it is correct that Bill English sent signals that the government may step in to force more intensification in Auckland, or to push Council to allow for this, then it shows me yet again, that we no longer have a true democracy in New Zealand.
Such arrogant actions as already taken re ECAN are nothing short of dictatorial. Perhaps we should let the government go ahead with it, and I would like to see whether they will get away with it here in Auckland. I rather suspect that many Aucklanders will be up in arms re that, should it happen, and the days of this rotten government will finally be numbered.
-
The media reporting on this is shockingly incompetent, biased and misleading. I was there, not as a so-called "nimby" (I support some intensification in suitable areas in the right manner), but as an interested observer. I know some people who submitted as ordinary residents of Auckland, who are concerned about the plan put forward.
What was voted by the special meeting of the Auckland Council yesterday was that Council withdraw the so-called out of scope re-zoning, which was never part of the notified Unitary Plan. They introduced these towards the end of the whole hearing process, apparently just trying their luck to add more rezoning in the form of a submission.
There have been various models run by the research unit of Council, re what feasible capacity there is for intensification and further residential development. Kyle Balderston presented the latest as evidence (on behalf of Council) on Topic 081 Rezoning and Precincts (Geographical Areas) in January. Those models that were run did not include the late changes proposed by Council and have significant develop-able capacity upon some earlier changes (abolishing density rules in MHU and for also larger sections in MHS zones) to the Plan, reached by mediation and some additional expert advice.
It is simply total bullshit what Bernard Hickey and some others claim now, that the now possible capacity is only another 80thousand homes. It is far more than that, go and read the evidence on the Independent Hearing Panel website:
https://hearings.aupihp.govt.nz/hearingsIt is total nonsense by Hickey and some others, TVNZ repeated the nonsense, same as John Campbell on RNZ tonight, that now there will be 200thousand homes less that can be developed, due to the vote by Council last night.
This is not so, again, read the evidence reports by Council planners and expert advisors that is all on the above website!
It has become clear to me that the media journalists and also Bernard Hickey have not read the Plan itself (maybe they read a few bits of it, but not all), and they have NOT read the evidence by Council and various other submitters put forward.
Council's planners were yesterday making embarrassing claims and giving ridiculous explanations what supposed "disaster" it would be to withdraw the additional rezoning evidence. Councillor Casey asked them repeatedly what a withdrawal would mean, and Council planners were reluctant to accept that evidence can be rewritten or considered by ignoring the additional out of scope zoning proposals.
Council is NOT excluded from the hearing and can still represent itself and their interests, simply they now have to leave out the out of scope zoning requests or suggestions.
It was total BS by Council's planners to say that affected property owners could try and get access to the hearing through other existing submitters, as this is simply not that easy, as submissions will in the view of the Panel only be heard on what submission points were initially presented. So adding new arguments on newly zoned or suggested re-zoned areas would not strictly fall into that scope.
And evidence had already been presented by 10 February, now that deadline has passed. So how are people supposed to present additional evidence when the Panel set that deadline already?
Councillors were clearly embarrassed yesterday, as their planners had gone and taken a risk without considering the consequences, and that is what Council has to carry now.
Of course this will be seen as a victory by those opposing intensification, as Councillors will now have to tread more carefully when voting for or against the new Plan, once recommendations are received from the Panel.
Corin Dann, John Campbell and Bernard Hickey and others had enough time to read the actual plan as notified, had the time to follow the changes proposed since then, and time to read other persons' and Council's evidence. Clearly none of them have done that, so their biased and stupid reporting and comments have totally discredited the media in my eyes, of which I have already had a very dim view.
Talk about what you know and do not make stuff up, dear journalists, you are not worth to work and report in the positions you have, it is an utter embarrassment.
P.S.: And re those claims that young representatives were "shouted down", that is not true either. There were one or two young representatives of boards or so, and later a man talking for Generation Zero. As some made some comments re the "older members of the public" that in their view were the only public members present, that was resulting in some disapproving comments from the audience, which was then silenced by the Mayor. The young persons, including Generation Zero, were able to present their concerns as did all others!
-
Speaker: How is Government evaluating…, in reply to Rosemary McDonald,
So we had the first two days of the trial of the accused Russell Tully now, and today he was taken from the courtroom and thus silenced, as he was .in the view of the judge not talking re what mattered and out of order.
What I get as an impression is, that we may have something that looks more than a show trial, where the verdict has more or less already been made, and where the accused is not allowed to speak, as what he says is deemed to be inappropriate or irrelevant.
This is where we are now in this country, the likely victim of a draconian, inhumane, biased and unjust WINZ welfare regime is labeled a "manipulater" and "threatening", while the executer of the system goes off without being held to account.
In my view this is not much different to what we have had in many dictatorships, and the media do not scrutinise what goes on either.
Shame on this government, for not offering transparency on welfare practices, giving us NO evaluation at all, even where it had been promised, where ministers get away with misleading Parliament and the public, and those "low life beneficiaries" that act against the law, as they see themselves pushed over the limit, are going to be sent to jail or are otherwise trespassed, discriminated against and denied any say.
The Crown presented as argument that Tulley was unreasonable, was demanding and had to be trespassed as he dared to go into the WINZ Office making claims re his rights, which were denied him. Hence he was trespassed, which appears to have escalated into what happened.
I will watch with interest where this "trial" will take us, it does so far look embarrassingly bad what is going on. And the public does of course not care a shit, as it was just a beneficiary who acted allegedly illegally.
-
Speaker: Correcting Auckland 2040's…, in reply to Glenn Pearce,
Funny that, Penny Hulse sending that to Ben Ross, author of this post. He consulted Council on various occasions, has himself asked for very high levels of intensification and rezoning, particularly in Manukau, and seems to have some vested interests.
The whole hearing process, and the position of some Councillors, deserve to be more scrutinised, as to who is linked up with whom and who bears what kinds of interests in all this.
Of course Penny Bright raised her concerns, the "anti corruption campaigner".
-
"Auckland Council votes against housing density changes"
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11594924
I went there out of interest and followed discussions until close to 5pm. It was clearly stressed by most speakers, this was about process, not about intensification, heights and other issues, and so did the Mayor.
Various groups and some board members and councillors spoke, and there were of course diverse, contrary views. It was good this meeting was held, as it allowed the air to be cleared. The critics made clear, that in their view Council and their planners made a mistake and should front up to having proposed up-zoning at too late a stage in the hearing, without proper consultation. Many felt a plan change was more appropriate to achieve what they may have sought.
Younger representatives, also Generation Zero, stressed their concern about affordable housing, also of choice, and that was ok, but not really the issue to address.
So there must have been a lot of soul searching among some Councillors, and also considerations re future elections, hence the result.
The arguments by Council's representatives were nothing more than legal gymnastics, trying to stretch legal considerations, which made little sense. They should have gone about it differently, now they have to redraw their position and evidence, I suppose that they will feel a bit demoralised, having been put into their territory.
But all the claims that this would be a disaster are far fetched nonsense, as the hearing will go on, as stated positions and most evidence will stand, and will have to be weighed up by the Panel, who will have the final say as to what to recommend. Then it is back to Council anyway, and it will be interesting what will be accepted and what not, and how it will go from there.
It was in my view a bit rich of Council planners and representatives to try and argue that there was a legal remedy against what they proposed, should submitters not like it. They tried to suggest piggy backing on other submitters, which was nonsensical as evidence deadlines for the relevant topics expired by 10 Feb., and as there are disagreements as to whether out of scope new submission or evidence points may be considered anyway. Auckland 2040 made clear, they would not feel that they would be able to represent those that may at this stage want to raise issues and present evidence, due to lack or resources, and some legality concerns.
Also the explanation by Council that submitters or affected residents that were feeling they were not being heard, to go to the Environment Court, was received with contempt and anger, as few felt that they would have the resources to do this.
So we will have to see where this goes to from here.