Mark Ford's take on Transition Agency job division...

One of the more interesting answers that Mark Ford - now head of the Transition Agency tasked with various roles in restructuring Auckland governance - gave in answer to NZ Herald questions was to this one.....

Q: What do you think is the hardest part of the job?

A: "It is a very tight timeframe. That is my skill. I have delivered projects and this is a technical process. This is not public policy. This is following project guidelines and delivering on time."

Having been in the business of public life for many years, Mr Ford knows exactly what he is saying when he says: "...this is not public policy..."

This is a significant answer. Some of us might think there will bejust a little public policy involved in sorting our service procurement arrangements when there is just one buyer. For example, at present roadside rubbish collection, footpath paving, pothole filling - etc, are services that are subcontracted at present by Auckland's four city councils. There are several service providers, in competition with each other, to win those lucrative contracts.

When there is suddenly just one buyer, the rather thorny issue of competition policy raises its head. Mega mergers tend to disable competition. The free-market gets threatened. There will be a need for a bit of public policy to think that one through....

But broadly, I'd like to agree with the sentiment expressed by Mark Ford. Whatever I might think of the whole governance restructuring thing, I definitely agree that the public policy objectives, purposes, goals and etc of that thing, must be the responsibility of Central Government. There should be no possibility of blame for this being dumped on the Transition Agency. In a sense it is acting as Government's hatchetman. Doing a job that must be done. Acting under orders. Government orders. Government determined public policy.

So how about letting us know what that is? So we all know.

It's called transparency. Or is there really no solid public policy behind this restructuring?

Is it being made up from week to week?

Government SuperCity Model Undermines NZ Law

For 20 years Auckland has developed and re-shaped itself following the 1989 Amalgamation. Legislative planks that have underpinned Auckland planning over that time are the Resource Management Act 1991 and the more recent Local Government Act.

Both of these Acts profoundly influence and enable the way that the public and communities are involved in Auckland planning.

It has taken Auckland's councils time and effort to properly engage with and adapt their institutional arrangements to fit these new laws. Among other things that delay, or organisational intertia has led to delays in implementing the Growth Strategy - which calls for more efficient and intensive development of parts of Auckland around mass transport corridors (like rail and bus and ferry), and less wasteful greenfield sprawl at the edges.

The LGAAA 2004, amended the Local Government Act and put more direction into what Councils needed to do, to give effect to the Growth Strategy.

And it has been happening: New Lynn and Newmarket are standout examples. And planning is underway for change in other parts of the region now: St Lukes and Milford shopping centres are examples that come to mind readily.

But Government's proposed changes risk halting that progress. Government's proposals will lead to centralised planning, and to just 20 councillors.

The public are only slightly aware of the important and significant role that District Plan changes and Designations under the RMA are to urban change. Nobody - not even Councils or Government agencies - can build something, or permit something to be built, unless the District Plan provides for it. Unless it is permitted by the District Plan.

Waitakere City's New Lynn project required a suite of District Plan changes. These will enable medium density and high density development around the railway station. These Plan Changes did not happen overnight. They are not like a resource consent permit to build a house. They are at the heart of planning. The RMA imposes a range of consultation requirements and obligations when changes are made to the District Plan. The public - even under proposed streamlining changes to the RMA - still have very significant opportunities for input to Plan Changes. Council has very significant duties to ensure the changes to the plan - and their implications - are well understood by the community.

The affected community includes local land owners. Some residential. Some business. And there are the infrastructure operators as well: public transport, roading, water, electricity....

Waitakere City Council carried out much of this consultation using Charrette processes. These are a form of consultation which is intensive, involving, creative, and which takes time. Experts were brought in to explain options for change. Meetings took place over an extended time period. Wall charts went up. People indicated their support for some things and not others. This process took a couple of years for New Lynn. And it's still going on as detail gets worked through.
Ultimately, the council proposed various District Plan changes. These are policy decisions for the council to take. Elected councillors make the final decisions. Most Plan Changes are heard by Councillors. They should be. While there is pressure to professionalise this process, and ensure that no politician is seeking to pork barrel over any aspect, there is no taking away from the reality that Plan Change processes are highly contested.

Public issues and public realm are at stake. Land development profit opportunities are evident. Development levies need to be calculated so infrastructure is paid for appropriately. Those decisions are taken under the Local Government Act, which is entwined with RMA decisions.

Plan Changes to District Plans take time.

They are the fundamental basis for Auckland planning. As are designations. These are needed for new motorways for example. Or other new public works like schools.

There has been much debate in the media about resource consent planning processes, and who will do those under the SuperCity. But resource consents are heard in terms of the District Plan. I am talking here about the District Plan itself. How it changes over time. How it needs to change to enable Auckland to develop in a more energy efficient and land efficient way. A more compact way. A way that is the agreed alternative to sprawl.

Auckland's future development is dependent on the District Plan. These are 7 of these now. One for each territorial authority area. They are changing all the time.

I am sitting on a plan change hearing now. There is a private plan change being heard for farm land at Takanini - Papakura. This Plan Change is problematic because it involves a shift in the MUL. However there are many other Plan Changes being considered across Auckland Region.

ARC's Transport and Urban Development Ctte was advised of a major Plan Change being prepared for St Lukes shopping area. This is another private Plan Change. Auckland City Council is the consent authority, as it affects its District Plan. Consultation obligations must be met and public participation is substantial.

Political decisions are required to ensure that the level of public consultation and involvement is appropriate. And that the Plan Change itself is good and fair to all parties affected. This work goes largely un-noticed by the public, yet it is fundamental to Auckland's direction, and to the implementation of the principles that underpin the Local Government and Resource Management Acts.

Abolishing the councils that do this work, and that manage the contest between public realm development and private benefit, puts much of what has begun to work well across Auckland at risk. Cutting councillors from their present level to just 20 will seriously undermine their ability to carry out the essentially political work that this process demands.

It will mean greater delegation to officers of this work. It will mean that councillors are removed from the reality and the impact of their decisions. This will not improve representation. Whether government likes it or not, elected council representatives are the people whose job it is to manage the awkward decisions that no-one else likes to make.

These need to be as public as possible. Because planning and Plan Changes are not a private matter. Less planning will not mean better outcomes.

Government changes will damage the implementation of New Zealand law. If we had a constitution in NZ, Government could not change these governance arrangements in so draconian a way. Government should take a long hard look in the mirror, and a deep breath before going further with these destructive plans.

John Key's 2006 SuperCity Private Member's Bill

Learned last week that John Key has more in common with Auckland governance upheaval than just being Prime Minister. Turns out that after the so-called mayoral coup in 2006 (where mayors Harvey, Curtis and Hubbard tried to tip over the ARC and went to Wellington for support), John Key MP put up his own Private Member's Bill about it.

It was called something like: "Auckland Governance Restructuring".

I haven't seen it yet. The Bill was not drawn. So it didn't get into Parliament. But it was ready to go into Parliament.

Of interest is that I am advised the Bill put forward two options for restructuring. One of these was that Auckland should be restructured into a Unitary Authority and 20-30 Community Boards. Sound familiar?

So John Key's idea is the one the Government are running with. Nothing to do with the Royal Commission. Not a lot to do with anyone else either. Has support from those wanting removal of public involvement and public participation (they call this: "red tape").

There are some similarities between this Bill and another idea that had strong PM support. That's the National Cycleway. From what I understand, John Key is an ideas man. Full of ideas. That's a good thing. Apparently the role that Bill English plays is knocking the ideas around a bit, testing them for survival. These two ideas have something in common: there is no policy basis for them, no thinking around implementation.

The Cycleway seems to have evolved into a series of great cycle trips. They may join up someday. I like the sound of that. But this one - abolish all Auckland's local government and start again, afresh, with a unitary authority and 20-30 community boards - well. It's an idea. But boy, where's the thinking behind it?

I'm trying to get hold of John Key's Auckland Bill. Time we knew more about the various agendas behind closed doors at Cabinet. Surely some Ministers in there are seriously uncomfortable with what's happening....

Jason (Queensland MP) visits Auckland to understand Super City ideas

A week ago I received an email at random. As you do. Out of the internet blue beyond. From Jason who's a second term MP in the Queensland State Government. It's a Labour led Government. Last term they voted in forced amalgamation of many of Queensland's Borough Councils. Didn't affect Brisbane - where Parliament sits - it was amalgamated in 1926.

He came to Auckland to have a chat with a few people who had opinions about what is happening in Auckland. Wanted to see if there were any ideas he could take home. Because the Government there has problems with what they've done. A major backlash in fact.

I told me much of the forced amalgamation happened around Noosa, Cairns and Port Douglas. Was a bit hard to understand the nuances of what he was saying. He said the Property Council of Australia was the main organising force for these amalgamations. It seems as if some parts of Queensland had been resisting high growth. Places like Noosa for example. And so a strategy got put together to amalgamate the "good" with the "bad" - the "pro-growth" with the "anti-growth". You might say, to eliminate inconvenient councils standing in the way of development.

The Trade Union movement also got involved and required employment protection contracts to be agreed to as a pre-condition of its support for the amalgamations.

So no-one got sacked, but there was quite a community back-lash. He wasn't that clear about what the backlash was over. Apparently the Labour Government generally reckoned there would be some grumpiness from some communities, but that it would die down quickly, after a few months.

They didn't bank on it getting bigger and bigger. Then along came the regular parliamentary election cycle. Jason's majority of 12% got cut to just 2%, and he swears the single reason for that was public anger over forced amalgamation. Then along came the local body elections for the newly amalgamated regional councils. he told me that the mayors who got elected were all candidates who had strongly opposed amalgamation.

Labour's understandeable concern is that the backlash will continue, and Jason, and many other Labour MPs will be history, as the LNP or main opposition party takes power.

This is very interesting. And particularly relevant to Auckland. Does the Government not anticipate a similar backlash here in Auckland? Does it really believe that it will get away without blemish from the fallout that will surely descend from such huge scale abolition, and merger?

Anyway. being a curious sort of chap, I've been doing a little research to get some independent insight into what was happening in Queensland. I guess the involvement of the Aussie Property Council was interesting. How was that influencing Labour? And why?

This from a March 29th 2008 posting to a website called: "Can Do Better" (byline: A website for reform in democracy, environment, population, land use planning and energy policy) :

"...Naturally, in 2007, with local governments such as the Douglas Shire Council and the Noosa Shire Council receptive to the wishes of their constituents to stand up to developers, the News Limited editorial writers gave their full support to the Queensland government's forced local government amalgamations inspired by the Property Council of Australia.

However, the hopes The Australian held out for in these amalgamations came unstuck when, on Saturday 15 March, anti-development candidates standing in the amalgamated shires were able to overcome the additional difficulties posed by their having to campaign in larger shires and were able to defeat candidates backed by developers. These included the Cairns City Council into which the Douglas Shire had been forcibly amalgamated and the Greater Sunshine Coast Council into which the Noosa shire had been forcibly amalgamated. In at least two other large local government regions, the Gold Coast City Council and Redland City Council, anti-development tickets won control in spite of extravagant developer-funded advertising campaigns against them...."

Very interesting, don't you think. Part of the reason for the website is to critique stances taken by the Australian newspaper (owned by Murdoch). Take this quote for example:

"...In response, on 18 March an editorial in the Australian entitled "Queensland faces a tougher job on regional development" was published. It commenced:

Queensland's local government elections demonstrate the difficulty that beset public administrators trying to manage the competing demands of population growth.

The 'difficulty' being that electors in those council areas were not prepared to put up with the further degradations to their quality of life necessitated by continuous population growth. As has become the established practice with the Murdoch Press, the question as to whether population growth is an issue over which affected communities should have any say, is not even posed, rather population growth is treated implicitly as a given over which no power in Heaven or on Earth can have any control:

... the Queensland (state government) must grapple with an influx of thousands of new residents each week and deliver, health, education and other public services.

In fact, the choice is being made, but instead of it being made by the affected communities, it is being made by politicians, like Queensland Premier Anna Bligh, who serve the same vested interests as does the Murdoch media. They include principally the aforementioned Property Council of Australia, whose members gain from population growth, through land speculation and property development, at the expense of the rest of the community, the environment and future generations...."

What is really interesting here, is that whole communities in Queensland are reacting against the effects of high levels of growth and development. Effects which are damaging the lifestyles of existing residents. That's a familar story here in Auckland. But not one which has much strong currency right now. But that could change quickly. If - for example - stronger regional government (a change which is very strongly supported by our very own Property Council of New Zealand), came to be associated with a destructive growth machine....

Going back to the "We Can Do Better" website we read:

On 22 April 2007 Queensland Premier Anna Bligh, then Deputy Premier, rejected calls for ending Queensland's population growth, claiming that it "would have a very serious impact on the construction industry that a lot people rely on for jobs."
A year later, on 25 April 2008 as reported in the Sunshine coast daily, town planning lawyer, Andrew Davis, similarly objected to the plans of newly elected Sunshine Coast Mayor, Bob Abbot, to cap the coast's population growth at 400,000 from the current population of 300,000. Davis claimed that Abbot's initial plan to reduce annual population growth from 3.5% to 2% would result in the loss of 8,500 of the region's 20,000 construction jobs. He also claimed that there would be further job losses in the transport, property and business service sector, with flow-ons to other sectors of the economy like retail, tourism, manufacturing.

Indeed, in a manner uncharacteristic for property developers' advocates, even Andrew Davis implicitly acknowledged that such a transition would be necessary when he said, “Turning off the tap of growth, without first achieving success in creating sustainable business, will cause enormous pain for everyone, whether you work in growth industries or not.”

Given that the region does not have adequate water resources, transport infrastructure, electricity generation, or health and education services to meet the needs of the existing population, many argue that it is urgently necessary to end growth now rather than to increase the number of people who will become dependent, for their employment, upon further growth. At the very least, a plan to end the region's dependence upon growth must be adopted without further delay.

The key thing to note about the characters named here, is that Bob Abbot won the Mayoral race, against a candidate supported by Property Council and Developers.

Could something like that be about to happen in Auckland?

NB: Website: http://candobetter.org/node/435

Owen McShane on Super City

Owen McShane can be relied upon to poo-poo the MUL, and generally challenge much of the planning effort seen in and around Auckland. He regularly writes, as Director, for the Centre for Resource Management Studies. I sometimes get and read the emails. This one, I wanted to share. The rest of this blog is an extract from Owen McShane. In it he refers to his correspondence with Wendell Cox about what's happening in Auckland:

"...The Political Outcomes of Large Amalgamations - Owen McShane.

I asked my friend and colleague, Wendell Cox, an international expert on local government and governance, if large scale amalgamations were typically driven from the left or the right. Here in Auckland we have the strange situation where the proposed Auckland Super-City was first driven by the centre left, but has now been adopted by the centre right.

Wendell Cox replied:
"...Regrettably the right and left are of virtually equal distatefulness on the issue. In Toronto, it was a right wing government trying to kill a left wing local government and merge it with more conservative governments, hoping to move things to the right (and get rid of a socialist mayor for whom they had particular dislike, and for whom I worked to try to stop the amalgamation). In the US, much of the consolidation movement ... so far getting nowhere (there must be a God) ... is pushed by the elitist left, with the exception of Indiana (our latest victory I might way), where it is a highly regarded Republican governor who is so badly advised on the issue that it is not funny. Often you will find the most vocal proponents of these policies are central city business organizations and central city leftist elites. Then, there are always the misled rightists who think that larger governments will employ fewer people per capita, not realizing that the larger the government the more personnel it needs and trade unions become even more powerful. As I like to say, the only economies of scale in government consolidation are for lobbyists.

Here are my main reports on the issue

Toronto
http://www.publicpurpose.com/tor-demo.htm
http://www.newgeography.com/content/00318-the-toronto-megacity-destroying-community-great-cost

Pennsylvania.
http://psats.org/local_gov_growth_report.pdf

New York.
http://www.natat.org/documents/government_efficiency.pdf

Indiana
http://indianatownshipassoc.org/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_download/gid,7/Itemid,/
I then asked Wendell whether the end result of such amalgamations was a shift to the left or to the right.

Wendell Cox replied:
"...You can bet that the left always wins. The left is better at power and governance (not in terms of quality but in terms of control) and thus routinely takes over the reigns of power. That much power should not be available in a municipal government. Bureaucrats tend to be elitist and generally more left wing, so the advice the councilors and the mayor receives will be more to the left. Democracy is diluted. Taxes are raised from a larger base and spending goes up... not just on personnel.

"Here is my commentary published by the "National Post" on the 10th anniversary of the Toronto merger. Interestingly, there was not a single letter to the editor posted in response... at that point Toronto was having severe budget difficulties."

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=790bcc66-f18a-4611-a8c2-11f2ff744c23&p=1

However, there is still room to get the best of all worlds out of the reform by ensuring the Super City and its Mayor focus on regional infrastructure, and by boosting the powers of the twenty or so "boroughs" of say sixty to seventy thousand population. Please – no "community boards"; there is no such things as "the community". And let the new Environmental Monitoring Agency write the environmental standards for the RMA plans.

These new "borough councils" could then do the jobs such truly local councils do best and most efficiently. And their might be a balanced distribution of political power through the region.

We just have to get the right horses for the right courses...." (End of quote from Owen McShane)

So. Interesting isn't it. All depends on who gets elected...

Rogernomes make their grab for Auckland’s planning tiller…

I don’t say this lightly, and I don’t have concrete evidence, but you have to admire the clinical purity of the Government’s deconstruction of Auckland planning institutions. First there was RMA stream-lining, now it’s Local Government stream-lining, state imposed infrastructure (SH20 at Waterview), and who knows what’s next….

The context couldn’t be more perfect, just as it couldn’t have been more perfect in the 1980’s where New Zealand’s financial crisis helped push aside opposition to a draconian cluster of reforms.

The context today includes: General Election, Royal Commission, Global Recession. That’s quite a triumvirate. Hard enough for Aucklanders to deal with one at a time, let alone all together. The uncertainty caused by these factors creates the perfect climate for an organised Government to make transforming changes.

And Auckland is like a possum in the headlights. Most Aucklanders get on with their business and lives vaguely disquieted or excited by talk of a super-city. Be great to live in a Super City – but what is it – really? Many citizens are sharply aware of what’s coming to them, what’s going to be changed or abolished, and are revolting in their own individual ways. Meanwhile Auckland’s Councillors sit at their meetings across Auckland trying to get on with their busy agendas, but there’s an enormous distraction, an enormous elephant in the room.

Some rather like it, and are cuddling up to it, hoping perhaps to influence its manners, tendencies and toilet habits. They don’t want to be shat on from a great height. Others are highly sceptical and worried, and would like to kick it out, but haven’t the collective strength and are not sure which end has the tusks. These councillors and mayors are easily criticised of course: “just protecting their jobs, out for themselves, don’t trust what they say…”

And then there’s the by-election. Top list MPs fight it out at Mt Albert where Government is testing its mettle by dabbling with the SH20 Waterview Connection. Stephen Joyce made a good impression on TV last night, debating with a local Community Board Chair and the redoubtable Michael Tritt. Good on you Michael, for being there, we liked your work making that DVD: “Auckland - City of Cars”. How did you manage to get in there on TVNZ as a local homeowner and citizen? Well done, boy. Well said.

But it was Stephen’s show. He sat there on the screen in the background smiling benignly, telling Auckland why that road has to happen and how it has to happen. I find politicians are at their most certain and convincing when they are actually at their most ignorant. Mr Joyce has been an MP and Minister of Transport for about 6 months now. He’ll have learned a few things in that time, but I know how little I knew about transport when I got elected as Chair of Infrastructure at North Shore City Council in 2001. And I’d been deputy chair 3 years before that.

Transport and Land Use and Community Development and Land Economics are all entwined. It’s hard to get your head around. It takes time and experience. When you’re a newby to Auckland transport and land use, you don’t know what you don’t know. And that makes it easy to appear convincing on TV. As he was.

Completing the SH network has always been a reasonable policy objective. Most cities have incomplete state highway networks. Like Auckland’s most were planned in the 1960’s. Just because something is incomplete doesn’t mean the world falls apart. When I chaired Auckland’s Land Trsnsport Strategy in 2005 I was advised the waterciew connection of SH20 didn’t even have a Benefit Cost ratio of 1. But it needed to hit “3” to cross the funding threshold. It has never been a high priority.

Of course it will deliver benefits and reduce congestion. Every road does. But that logic alone would suggest roads everywhere. So now Auckland faces a Government determined to build this bit of motorway. A Government that has stream-lined RMA processes, and yesterday passed an Act establishing a Transition Agency for Auckland with statutory powers to by-pass Council decision-making.

Guess what it’s first job will be. To get Waterview motorway planning decisions done. To cut throught the red tape. Get that project underway.

I wonder whether every Cabinet Minister is in the know. Probably not. But there’s a strategy of steel behind what is happening. In a calculated and clinical way, Government is rolling back the soft, delicate and inclusive fabric of Auckland civil society, environmental care and public participation. It’s rolling back the thin layers of civilisation that have tentatively developed across Auckland since 1989.

Reacting then against the social destruction of 1980’s Rogernomics, Auckland knew it could do better for itself, its people and its communities.

Reforms since then included the RMA in 1991, which provides for environmental damage fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment for seriously bad behaviour against the environment. But it also provided for much greater involvement by people and community groups in shaping their towns, places and cities. Through District Plans, through public plan change hearings and resource consent hearings. And all of these at local level.

In addition, after local government amalgamation in 1989, Auckland’s city councils embarked on a program of social and recreational infrastructure building and investment that Auckland had never seen before.

Community activities like: bowling clubs; swimming pools; ethnic support units; youth centres; meals on wheel support; environmental enhancement and protection groups; RSA Anzac Day Service funding; heritage building protection; life saving training; and Enviro-Schools were supported and funded. (You might now understand what the pictures are about. I was invited to Takapuna Normal Intermediate School to present their Silver Award. NSCC's Monique Zwaan and Cllr Ken McKay also attended.) And there are many, many more, such organisations and community partnerships with social infrastructure to match. All supported by ratepayers and regularly consulted over. And relied on by many.

This social and community fabric is thin in Auckland. It’s a thin veneer that links people, and is the safety net for many and also for an increasingly beleagured environment. It’s very much thinner in Auckland than it is in older, mopre civilised and exemplary European cities like Stockholm. It’s thinner than in Sydney and Vancouver. It doesn’t really get measured in those surveys that put Auckland right up there as a place to live. Statistics New Zealand is still figuring out how to measure social capital, even though other cities do it regularly. But whether we measure it or not - it’s an important part of a modern city.

And all of it is put at risk by Government’s planned and clinical approach to the de-construction of Auckland’s institutional arrangements for its environmental, social and infrastructural planning. These institutions – Acts of previous Parliaments and long established councils and community groups - are what underpin Auckland civil society and civilisation.

You can hear behind closed Government doors the calls to: “get rid of that red tape”… and …. “we’ve got to make it easier to get things done in Auckland…”. I sat beside a new Cabinet Minister on a plane to Auckland. He knew who I was. This was before the election. Before he was a Minister. He was convinced it was the right thing to get rid of the ARC and the MUL and “all that red tape…”.

As an aside here, I note in the Herald this morning that Government is looking at changing the way Councils can control the MUL. Something to do with low cost housing, the Minister said. Dr Nick Smith. Now that would be consistent with building more motorways. Let’s have some more sprawl. Get that land development engine going again….

You could never build a Waterview SH20 connection in Stockholm. Or London. Or Vancouver. But it wouldn’t be “red tape” that would be blamed. It would simply be the local community having the power to control its local destiny, and everyone appreciating that was the right way of doing things. Part of living in a civil society where continuity, social fabric, local environment was of greater importance than a motorway.

Public participation and engagement in community planning and local infrastructure planning is a pre-requisite for civil society. Its existence is a key sign of a healthy democracy. Public participation is actually measured in modern cities. But here in Auckland, the fact that public interest groups are partially funded – in some cases – by local councils, the fact their access to process is enshrined in the RMA, is seen as a bad thing. Again, you can hear some say: “..surely they’ve got better things to do with their time… they should be more productive… they’re just holding up progress… just a bunch of nimbys… time we cut off their water…”.

I don’t think all Government Ministers are bad people. But I do think there is a blissful ignorance about what this Government plans doing to Auckland. And it’s extremely destructive and risky. And it will roll back Auckland’s potential for a decade or more. And that is why it must be resisted strenuously.

Those of us who can do something – write, speak, oppose, support - will have failed Auckland if we don’t act now. This is not the 1980’s. It is 2009. Yes there’s a recession and it’s all a bit hard, but it is essential that we open our eyes and our minds to what can happen to Auckland and its communities through a combination of draconian changes to the RMA, Auckland Governance, and infrastructure planning.

Enviroschools have been growing in significance and importance across Auckland for the past 10 years. They would not happen without the support of City Councils and absolutely dedicated City Council staff. Students learn about the simple things: recycling, worm-bins, picking up rubbish. They do things: plant herb gardens and vegetable gardens and native bush areas for native birds. They extend their thinking into the community: travel plans to school safe safe-cycling routes and wys to improve local roads and footpaths. They bring their ideas home to the family: electricity conservation and recycling and composting. Some of this education is linked to National curriculum requirements.

Enviroschools are likely to fall through the cracks as Government changes Auckland.

In some countries Enviroschool stuff is called civics. It’s a big part of the curriculum. It’s valued. Students are taught skills to help them work together, and develop a sense of community spirit. Other countries have a constitution. We could do with something like that here in New Zealand. A consitution that would enshrine certain public participation rights and certain pieces of legislation. Like the principles of local government. Like the bottom line for public participation.

Until then. Revolt and resist.

Auckland Governance: Risks to Transparency, Implementation, Cost

Auckland is revolting. Whole communities and populations are mobilising against Government’s “Making Auckland Greater” proposals for local government. At the heart of these concerns are: the lack of transparency and honesty in the Government approach; risks that proposed reforms will threaten the implementation and delivery of Auckland projects and the Rugby World Cup; burgeoning costs of the new structure.

What started as a strategy of strengthening regional government under the Labour Government has been transformed into a program of local government abolition by the incoming National Government. Plans to streamline the Resource Management Act are now being extended to Auckland itself. But the Government desire to streamline Auckland governance carries huge risks. And the sleeping giant of Auckland is slowly waking up to this.

When “Making Auckland Greater” was announced just weeks ago it had the appearance of being a Government response to the Royal Commission’s recommendations. But I now understand that Department of Internal Affairs officials had been working closely with incoming Government Ministers for months before its strategy for Auckland was revealed.

Rodney Hide, Minister of Local Government, fronted government decisions on NZ Herald’s perspectives page (29 April), stating: “Auckland cannot become a world-class city without change.”

These words are sophistry because as many letters to ththe NZ Herald have atested, Auckland is already world-class, sharing top-rankings in several world-class city surveys despite issues that led to the Royal Commission.

Many of these issues focussed on the Auckland Regional Council. Most City Councils opposed the ARC’s commitment to the Metropolitan Urban Limit claiming there was a shortage of land. This opposition has persisted despite evidence of land banking by developers and support for the Regional Growth Strategy to limit sprawl and promote selective intensification. Others criticised the ARC for not being tough enough on city councils, and not using its statutory powers to require District Plan changes that would lead to progressive redevelopment of specific urban areas. And there has been continuous lobbying by those calling for institutional changes that will enable faster development of motorways and public transport systems.

Early morning at Mangawhai Heads. I go here to escape Auckland and the disappointment and concern I feel about Government's poorly conceived plans for Auckland.

During my eleven years serving the public as a local government representative I have witnessed considerable improvement and change. Exemplary regeneration projects in the past few years include Britomart Station, Newmarket Station and Central Transport Connector arterial upgrade projects run by Auckland City Council; New Lynn station and town centre project managed by Waitakere City Council’s development agency; FlatBush development at Manukau managed by that council’s professional land development CCO; and North Shore Busway project where that Council oversaw station and local arterial busway lanes delivered by a joint steering group.

There is room for improvement in Auckland governance arrangements. We can do better, but these exemplars are projects of scale that could not be delivered by a Community Board. Yet they are local projects. Each embodies significant character elements and connections that are locally authentic. Future projects like these will become impossible to implement without appropriate local government arrangements.

The Government has neither explained nor justified the fundamentals that lie behind its plan for Auckland, and big questions are being asked.

Questions like: Who, with the Rugby World Cup event coming in 2011, would knowingly abolish on the 30th of October 2010 almost all public organisations responsible for its successful delivery, and invite Rugby World Cup event service managers to re-apply for their jobs?

Rodney Hide writes: “Instead of eight rating authorities, eight long-term council plans, eight data systems, eight local transport entities, eight water and wastewater providers, there will be one of each. Instead of seven district plans there will be one. Instead of 109 councillors there will be 20.” However in fire-fighting criticisms over the loss of local democracy, Government is now facing pressure to establish 30 Borough-Council-strength Community Boards, each with its own plan and budget, and requiring the election of around 200 Community Board members on significantly higher remuneration than now.

Does Government really want to take Auckland back to that future? I don't think so.

Nobody speaks of savings now. The Prime Minister and the Royal Commission have been careful to down-play the likelihood of significant savings. This is not surprising because what is emerging are stories of increasing costs: new data systems; increased water charges and huge staff layoffs; re-organisation costs.

Government should front up to Auckland with a proper explanation of what its strategy actually is, what policy assumptions underpin that strategy, what its Auckland vision actually looks like, and how it will be implemented in practice. Auckland does not need another strategy that fails to recognise the implementation imperative. Auckland needs to get things done. And it needs to be allowed to develop as a multi-cultural city, with diverse places to live, work, play and grow up. It does not need the blandness that is a significant risk of excessive centralisation and institutional destruction.

Auckland needs the institutional tools and structure to get on with the job of city building and place shaping. Auckland has already grown in diversity and difference over the past twenty years.

Parts of Manukau provide places of choice for many Polynesian peoples. Some may criticise those communities, but speak to the locals, look at their tidy properties, local schools, and markets, and recognise it is their choice. Same for West Auckland. There is a distinctly West-Auckland character in the development and feel of Henderson and environs that is enshrined in Outrageous Fortune on TV. And North Shore, with its cleaned up beaches and emphasis on recreation and elite sporting provision is Auckland’s “Life Style City”.

Auckland has grown up in the past decade of development. Its communities have been shaped by the governance structures that have been in place.

And the future shape of Auckland will continue to be determined by the shape of its governance. Auckland needs some fixing. But don’t fix what ain’t broken.

ARC Officers recommend declining Puketutu for Biosolids

Got this news later last week. I haven't seen the ARC report to the hearing into Watercare's application to use part of Puketutu Island in the Manukau Harbour for biosolids disposal. But it does not support the application.

The hearing starts next week. It will be a big one.

I am opposed to using that place for biosolids disposal. Watercare argue that it is not disposal, it is "rehabilitation of the quarry", bringing it back to natural contours.

Yeah, right.

It is interesting to note that ARC carries the costs of maintaining the Hunua and Waitakere Regional Parks in pristine condition, so that runoff from those places, can produce the very pure water retained in Watercare dams for Auckland water supply. ARC and ratepayer carries those water purity related costs. Watercare does not pay them, and does not collect those costs in its water charges. This is an example of costs not being properly internalised. The same potentially applies to Puketutu. If that Island was a Regional Park, would ARC allow it to be used to dump biosolids? Probably not! If it did, you'd think there would be a good case for charging Watercare for each tonne of biosolids put there.

Right now, Watercare may claim that the cost of biosolids disposal there, is cheap. Because Watercare is not being charged a fair whack for the priviledge of dumping biosolids there. So when Watercare does a Benefit/Cost comparison of the Puketutu option, versus other options (which are presumably fully costed, all costs included), Puketutu will top the list as being the most cost-effective.

But that's because the true costs of using what might become a regional park, as a dump, are not included in the costs of the Puketutu dumping option.

This needs fixing. Watercare needs to think like other cities around the world when it comes to biosolids: allow less toxic trade waste into the sewers; get a cleaner biosolids product; apply it back to land. It's a resource, not a way to dispose of heavy metals waste.

I will try and find links to the ARC report, so you can read it yourself.

ARC's waterfront development objectives changed

This is a big one for me. I've been working on this issue for three years. You might think the result doesn't go far enough - but believe me - it will make a difference.

Before I go on more, this blog is about Wynyard Quarter / Western Reclamation / Tank Farm redevelopment. A central chunk of Auckland's waterfront. My issue with what has been proposed is that ARH (Auckland Regional Holdings) have been instructed by ARC to "...optimise revenue..." from the development. Those directions also go on about the development being "...world class..." without saying anything about the nature or purpose of any development.

Last week, ARC's Finance Ctte voted this way:

That the Chairman of the Finance Committee writes to Auckland Regional Holdings:

(i) requesting Auckland Regional Holdings to address any inconsistencies
in the draft 2009-19 Long Term Funding Plan, and to confirm that it will
provide the distributions specified in the Auckland Regional Council’s
2009-19 Long Term Council Community Plan.
(ii) requesting Auckland Regional Holdings to keep the Auckland Regional
Council fully informed of its leasing strategy for the Wynyard quarter,
and related financial implications;
(iii) advising that the previous objective in respect of the waterfront
investment property “to enable the creation of a world-class, mixed-use,
urban waterfront redevelopment incorporating high-quality and
accessible public spaces and high-quality private works” is amended to
“to enable the creation of a world-class, mixed-use, urban waterfront
redevelopment that becomes a visitor destination by delivering high quality
and accessible public spaces and attractions alongside high quality
private works”.

I moved the change that is in (iii) above. You might have to read it a couple of times to spot the difference. But this change should make a significant difference. It provides direction to ARH and Sea+City about the purpose of the development, and what needs to be provided to meet that purpose.

Greywacke pebbles on the beach south of Timaru. I like beaches and flotsam and jetsam...