In the run up to Auckland Council elections, and immediately afterward there has been significant media commentary on the low turnout, suggestions that postal voting is over and that internet voting will make a difference and so on.
With few exceptions this commentary has ignored the elephant that looms ever larger in the room of New Zealand Local Government. And that is that Local Government has made itself less and less responsive to the needs of local communities, and is less and less responsive to their concerns.
Almost without exception reforms to Local Government legislation over the past couple of decades have been to increase its role and function as a smooth lubricator and enabler and funder of economic growth - sustainable or not, and to increase the efficiency of delivery of local services deemed necessary to support economic growth. Sure Councils manage to fit in parks, libraries, swimming pools, and community halls - but this and other aspects of the community development side of traditional Local Government activity is static at best and in decline at worst.
The emphasis of and for Local Government has been steadily and systematically shifted to supporting the delivery of economic growth objectives, and we are seeing the consequences of this.
Origins
I saw the political origins for these changes when I lived in London from 1976 to 1991. Two experiences standout in my memory. The first of these was in the early 1980's toward the beginning of my experience as a campaign video maker for a company I set up there with two partners (Team Video Productions). We applied for and got a grant from the Greater London Enterprise Board (GLEB for short) to make a video for trade unions about the effect of new technology in the workplace and how to organise for appropriate conditions. It was a documentary drama. GLEB was the economic development wing of the Greater London Council (GLC).
Now some might say - what the hell was Council doing that for? Well - there's an argument to be had about that. At the time the GLC had developed what amounted to "The London Plan". It was an economic development strategy for a changing city. The strategy was about more than economic growth.
However it was an economic development strategy that was not acceptable to Maggie Thatcher's Government. And she set about abolishing the GLC. The GLC under Red Ken Livingstone didn't take this lying down of course and ran a memorable billboard campaign. One of the signs I remember well, read "SAY NO TO NO SAY" - I blogged about this a few years ago......
When Team Video signed the production contract with the GLC/GLEB one of its conditions read: 'The words: "SAY NO TO NO SAY" shall not appear anywhere in any material produced under this contract.' Interesting that.
The other experience happened when I made a couple of videos for the Church Urban Fund - which was a sort of liberation theology wing of the Church of England as it slowly decided it had role to play in resisting the most socially damaging impacts of Thatcherism. I'm not a church-goer. We got chosen to make their videos because they wanted a campaigning style. Anyway. I digress.
We investigated case studies of churches working in North Eastern communities where unemployment following restructuring was up round 50%. And we referred to "Social Workers" who were helping. Our editorial committee advised that we should drop that wording in video captions. And we were reminded of Thatcher's statement: "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SOCIETY..."
My point here is that there is no point in improving the voting system without improving what people actually vote for. If people believe that don't really have a say with their vote in how their community develops (their local society), then why would you expect them to take the vote seriously?
How Local Government Used to Be
I was first elected to North Shore City Council (NSCC) in 1998. After a while I learned that NSCC was itself a new organisation - having arisen from local government amalgamation and reforms in the late 1980's. Living in Devonport I was very aware of the Independent Devonport campaign that ran long and hard for years. (There are still Independent Devonport banners visible in windows around the village).
At the time I didn't really appreciate what had been lost in that restructuring.
A certain amount of local power and autonomy was retained in that re-structuring. I sat on the Devonport Community Board for six years. We had power. Among other things I recall the establishment of a controversial skate ramp in the middle of the closed Ngataringa landfill; there was the decision to stop medium density housing on the Bayswater reclamation; the Community Board drove through the cycle lanes on Lake Road; and it stood up when it mattered over Navy base developments.
And it had other planning powers that were more below the radar. Board Members had roles as planning commissioners on resource consent applications which included delicate projects like house extensions, decks, garages, tree removals - the sorts of renovations that rock the local boat.
Many of these decisions were controversial. They mattered to local people. They were important to local people, and communities, and so they had an interest in them. The local newspapers were aware of this - the best of the local reporters were anyway - and they followed these developing stories - attended meetings of importance and reported what was said. And local people read the local newspapers because matters that interested them were reported there, and the letters pages were vigorous.
So What Has Changed?
The Devonport and Takapuna Local Board has been one of the more effective Local Boards established by the SuperCity reforms. The Devonport Flagstaff has faithfully followed the meetings that were held locally - though many were held in Takapuna and other parts of the board's jurisdiction. There's been the Library, the land at 27 Lake Road, the Ngati Whatua land claim, and the crumbling wharves.
The North Shore Times struggled to find stories. Though there's always the Takapuna Camping Ground and the NOWSC proposal that refuses to go away.
Probably the biggest sign of change though - and one which has yet to really bite - is what is happening with Auckland's land use planning system. The Unitary Plan and the Spatial Plan.
Together, these plans embody a fundamental shift in planning power from local to central. These are not really even Auckland regional plans - though they purport to be.
The Auckland Spatial Plan is fundamentally driven by the Central Government Infrastructure Plan. Central Government holds the purse strings - as we have seen - for transport projects. These are an essential component of the Central Government plan for Economic Growth.
The Unitary Plan - particularly its implementation - is being driven now by Central Government imposed Special Housing Areas - which are mostly in greenfield areas. Again. These development areas are an essential component of the Central Government plan for Economic Growth.
While the local newspapers and local boards across Auckland have reported and attended public meetings until the cows come home - they have no actual, legitimate power to influence local outcomes.
Not any more.
What Does This Mean?
Because people are not stupid. and because they sense what is going on around them, they are continuing to act entirely rationally, even if the systems and institutions that they previously tolerated and generally relied upon have been undermined and taken away in the interests of economic growth.
Grassroots campaigns like Vision 2040 and other so-called "knee-jerk" or nimby reactions to intensification (for which read opening up the land market and removing red tape to economic growth) are rational and predictable community responses to the threat of property value loss and uncertainty.
It has always been thus.
What Turkey has ever voted for an early Christmas?
Those who advocate changing the voting system, making it by internet, whatever are not seeing what is happening. People are losing confidence in the planning system because it recognises their interests less and less, and those of economic growth more and more. And if Local Government is about anything it is - or should be - about local planning.
What Could be Different?
This is a big question. A couple of things. I spent some time in the US recently, wondering around some cities. And the thing that struck me was how many physical polling stations there were sign-posted. Pretty much every public building had a permanent polling station sigh on a lamp-post outside. They vote regularly about local issues in US cities. It's part of life.
And they vote about the things that matter. What projects are undertaken. What money is borrowed.
Councils can't undertake a project without a public mandate. Called a proposition. Proposition 12 for example. And the City Council can't spend money it doesn't have without a bond issue or loan facility, which has to be supported by a popular vote at a polling station.
The local newspapers there are full of stories, articles, letters, public opinion pieces, about local propositions and borrowing proposals that are to be voted on by the public.
When I tried to market a few Team Video educational videos about Human Rights into Californian Schools I was forced to learn a bit about their curriculum. About 25% of it was civics. They teach civics at school in a big way. Students expect to be able to vote locally about projects and budgets that will affect their communities. And they are not voting once every three years. They vote on each issue.
New Zealand is at risk of losing local democracy in its institutions, but it will never lose the desire for local self-determination among its people.
Civilised society recognises this. So does civilised Government.
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Waka on Wellington Waterfront
Bound to be a place at Wynyard Quarter. But is that suitably central? Captain Cook Wharf - now that's a name to conjure with for a waka storage and launch facility....
Who Steers Auckland Transport?
The Auckland Council election is over and it's the start of a new term. Nobody had the chance to vote for Auckland Transport. That's to be expected as it is a "Council Controlled Organisation" - CCO for short. That is a bit of a misnomer because a lot of what Auckland Transport can do is effectively controlled by Government Ministries that fund much of what happens in Auckland, and by Government institutions that decide New Zealand and Auckland transport priorities.
But that "control" issue doesn't apply to many Auckland transport problems.
Take Auckland's waterfront for example.
Auckland Council - in its vision for Auckland - as set out in the Auckland Plan, the Waterfront Development Plan, and the Auckland CBD Plan - has been clear that there is a need to stitch together the various parts of downtown Auckland. Nowhere is this more evident than the need to join up the public waterfront with Auckland's downtown CBD.
There are so many barriers. The famous Auckland Harbour Board Red fence, the traffic and heavy truck friendly Quay Street, the huge amounts of car-parking on Princes Wharf, the water between Wynyard Quarter and CBD, and the traffic-filled spaces of Fanshawe Street.
Thankfully Auckland hasn't built a motorway standard road between downtown and the waterfront, but there is work to be done, and it is recognised, by the three Council organisations that are immediately affected and responsible. Auckland Council, Auckland Transport and Waterfront Auckland. It is critical to the success of any changes that these three organisations work together effectively. That is why an informal coordinating Harbour Edge entity has been established.
Yesterday it was my pleasure to observe the "Auckland Waterfront Planning Intervention" presentations of the University of Auckland Masters in Urban Planning students. Their projects were based upon a careful morphological analysis of the urban form of their study area, an examination of the problems there, an exploration of possibilities, and then a carefully articulated design solution or partial solution. I was struck by how many of these presentations focussed on the need to establish pedestrian connectivity and to open up public spaces. Students showed a keen awareness of the need to connect Victoria Park with Daldy Street up through to the proposed parks and headland park on Wynyard Quarter. An approach to the public mistakes made on Princes Wharf and the Auckland Harbour Board HQ building, and their poor relationship with Quay Street was far-reaching. And designs that opened up captain Cook and Marsden Wharves for development, linking across Quay Street to Britomart were sensible and attractive.
Students also addressed what's happening on Queens Wharf. Concerns were expressed that it might be heading the same way as Princes Wharf. Another public failure perhaps. (A few days ago this post about Queens Wharf appeared on Auckland Transport blog.)
A number of matters have come to my attention that suggest that Auckland Transport is a significant roadblock to transforming downtown Auckland, and an obstacle to implementing the vision.
1) Jellicoe Street on Wynyard Quarter has been widely praised for its urban design, character, and pedestrian emphasis. It is not like any other street in Auckland. In fact I understand that Auckland Transport has pretty much dis-owned this street. Says it won't have anything to do with it, and that it's Waterfront Auckland's responsibility. For the past few months Waterfront Auckland has been consulting and designing streets that intersect with Jellicoe - including Daldy and Halsey Streets. The relationship with Auckland Transport has been a challenge - but Waterfront Auckland - as significant land owner and lead developer - has persisted with designs that will deliver the vision. But the nearer these designs get to Fanshawe Street, the less happy Auckland Transport appears to become.
Where to draw the line?
A little bit of Viaduct Harbour Holdings (VHHL) gossip has leaked out. These guys own the land between Pakenham Street and Fanshawe Street, while Waterfront Development Agency (WDA) owns the land North of Pakenham Street. Gossip is that VHHL is grumpy "because WDA is only building its streets halfway..." So VHHL is blaming WDA for what's happening. Daldy and Halsey will be beautiful, landscaped and pedestrian friendly to Pakenham Street, and then BANG back to Auckland's normal car friendly design the rest of the way to Fanshawe Street.
The problem here is that Auckland Transport is unwilling or reluctant to embrace the new world of transport planning that is about more than cars. And like Faulty Towers, "don't mention zee pedestrian connexion wiz Victoria Park..." Come on Auckland Transport get engaged.
2) The Queens Wharf progression toward being another carpark and dedicated passenger terminal has been tracked for a while. I wrote about this a year and a half ago. Without evident effect. Transport blog's interest in the matter bears more than a passing relationship with the fact the Sustainability Expo was held in the cloud last week, and so was Generation Zero's Micro Conference. A lot of new visitors to Queens Wharf will have been unpleasantly surprised by what they see there.
Again. This is squarely in the in-tray of Auckland Transport. Nothing is being done.
3) This list is a long one, but my real beef is with the lack of creative engagement and output from Auckland Transport in how to change Quay Street. Sure there is modelling for Africa about traffic movements and bus movements and public transport patronage. But the more I see of this - and the more I recall what Auckland's Traffic Modelling was good at modelling (from my years at Auckland Regional Council where the model was developed) - is that it is useless at modelling the future that is at the heart of Auckland's pedestrian friendly waterfront plan.
We need to use the right tools for this job.
I am aware that the transport plan for Wynyard Quarter requires 70% of the trips made there to be walking, cycling or by public transport, leaving the balance - 30% - to be by motorised vehicle. This is the opposite of urban Auckland where - on a good day - only 70% of the trips are by motorised vehicle. To use the planning tool that is based on a 70/30 split - to model how streets would work with a 30/70 split is too much of a stretch. This is a classic garbage in=garbage out scenario.
Auckland Transport needs the political steer and the design tools to think itself out of the traffic-centred box that Auckland has been stuck in for decades.
No time like the present. Get on with being part of the solution to the waterfront stitch.
But that "control" issue doesn't apply to many Auckland transport problems.
Take Auckland's waterfront for example.
Auckland Council - in its vision for Auckland - as set out in the Auckland Plan, the Waterfront Development Plan, and the Auckland CBD Plan - has been clear that there is a need to stitch together the various parts of downtown Auckland. Nowhere is this more evident than the need to join up the public waterfront with Auckland's downtown CBD.
There are so many barriers. The famous Auckland Harbour Board Red fence, the traffic and heavy truck friendly Quay Street, the huge amounts of car-parking on Princes Wharf, the water between Wynyard Quarter and CBD, and the traffic-filled spaces of Fanshawe Street.
Thankfully Auckland hasn't built a motorway standard road between downtown and the waterfront, but there is work to be done, and it is recognised, by the three Council organisations that are immediately affected and responsible. Auckland Council, Auckland Transport and Waterfront Auckland. It is critical to the success of any changes that these three organisations work together effectively. That is why an informal coordinating Harbour Edge entity has been established.
Yesterday it was my pleasure to observe the "Auckland Waterfront Planning Intervention" presentations of the University of Auckland Masters in Urban Planning students. Their projects were based upon a careful morphological analysis of the urban form of their study area, an examination of the problems there, an exploration of possibilities, and then a carefully articulated design solution or partial solution. I was struck by how many of these presentations focussed on the need to establish pedestrian connectivity and to open up public spaces. Students showed a keen awareness of the need to connect Victoria Park with Daldy Street up through to the proposed parks and headland park on Wynyard Quarter. An approach to the public mistakes made on Princes Wharf and the Auckland Harbour Board HQ building, and their poor relationship with Quay Street was far-reaching. And designs that opened up captain Cook and Marsden Wharves for development, linking across Quay Street to Britomart were sensible and attractive.
Students also addressed what's happening on Queens Wharf. Concerns were expressed that it might be heading the same way as Princes Wharf. Another public failure perhaps. (A few days ago this post about Queens Wharf appeared on Auckland Transport blog.)
A number of matters have come to my attention that suggest that Auckland Transport is a significant roadblock to transforming downtown Auckland, and an obstacle to implementing the vision.
1) Jellicoe Street on Wynyard Quarter has been widely praised for its urban design, character, and pedestrian emphasis. It is not like any other street in Auckland. In fact I understand that Auckland Transport has pretty much dis-owned this street. Says it won't have anything to do with it, and that it's Waterfront Auckland's responsibility. For the past few months Waterfront Auckland has been consulting and designing streets that intersect with Jellicoe - including Daldy and Halsey Streets. The relationship with Auckland Transport has been a challenge - but Waterfront Auckland - as significant land owner and lead developer - has persisted with designs that will deliver the vision. But the nearer these designs get to Fanshawe Street, the less happy Auckland Transport appears to become.
Where to draw the line?
A little bit of Viaduct Harbour Holdings (VHHL) gossip has leaked out. These guys own the land between Pakenham Street and Fanshawe Street, while Waterfront Development Agency (WDA) owns the land North of Pakenham Street. Gossip is that VHHL is grumpy "because WDA is only building its streets halfway..." So VHHL is blaming WDA for what's happening. Daldy and Halsey will be beautiful, landscaped and pedestrian friendly to Pakenham Street, and then BANG back to Auckland's normal car friendly design the rest of the way to Fanshawe Street.
The problem here is that Auckland Transport is unwilling or reluctant to embrace the new world of transport planning that is about more than cars. And like Faulty Towers, "don't mention zee pedestrian connexion wiz Victoria Park..." Come on Auckland Transport get engaged.
2) The Queens Wharf progression toward being another carpark and dedicated passenger terminal has been tracked for a while. I wrote about this a year and a half ago. Without evident effect. Transport blog's interest in the matter bears more than a passing relationship with the fact the Sustainability Expo was held in the cloud last week, and so was Generation Zero's Micro Conference. A lot of new visitors to Queens Wharf will have been unpleasantly surprised by what they see there.
Again. This is squarely in the in-tray of Auckland Transport. Nothing is being done.
3) This list is a long one, but my real beef is with the lack of creative engagement and output from Auckland Transport in how to change Quay Street. Sure there is modelling for Africa about traffic movements and bus movements and public transport patronage. But the more I see of this - and the more I recall what Auckland's Traffic Modelling was good at modelling (from my years at Auckland Regional Council where the model was developed) - is that it is useless at modelling the future that is at the heart of Auckland's pedestrian friendly waterfront plan.
We need to use the right tools for this job.
I am aware that the transport plan for Wynyard Quarter requires 70% of the trips made there to be walking, cycling or by public transport, leaving the balance - 30% - to be by motorised vehicle. This is the opposite of urban Auckland where - on a good day - only 70% of the trips are by motorised vehicle. To use the planning tool that is based on a 70/30 split - to model how streets would work with a 30/70 split is too much of a stretch. This is a classic garbage in=garbage out scenario.
Auckland Transport needs the political steer and the design tools to think itself out of the traffic-centred box that Auckland has been stuck in for decades.
No time like the present. Get on with being part of the solution to the waterfront stitch.
Friday, October 4, 2013
Standard & Poor's Likes Council Debt
In the NZ Herald today there is a report of a mayoral campaign debate last night. Part of the debate related to the Auckland Council debt - which apparently has increased from $3.9 billion at the start of Auckland council's first term in operation - to $6.7 billion now.
If the NZ Herald's report of what Mayor Len Brown said about Council debt is accurate, and that it reflects Mayor Brown's view of the world of bank loans, then Auckland has a serious problem....
This sort of language may be useful when talking about a commercial business, but it's not appropriate when talking about a local council, which is reliant upon property rates (property taxes) for revenue. Sure there's a lot of rhetoric along the lines that "council services should be run like a business" - Watercare has proudly retained in its Statement of Corporate Intent a performance target that reads something like: "To be a successful business" - and we can all agree that Council should be run efficiently.
But is going into debt on a huge scale businesslike behaviour - let alone being in the best interests of Auckland ratepayers?
As individuals we are all advised that our top financial priority should be to pay off debt. Especially the mortgage on the house. And if push comes to shove we can sell the house - and pay back any mortgage.
But could Auckland Council sell its Mangere Waste Water Treatment Plant to pay off a billion in debt? Could it flog off Queens Wharf? Or some of its arterial roads. Or a couple of Regional Parks?
Not unless it wanted a riot. That is why talking of a "low debt-to-equity" ratio is meaningless. Council's equity is public equity - assets that have been built up over generations. Talk of "low debt-to-equity" ratios is the same as saying: "my policy is to sell off Council assets". Really? Don't think so.
Then there are the words: "case of using a strong balance sheet to build appropriate infrastructure...". This is another way of saying: "low debt-to-equity". Auckland Council's "strong" balance sheet is strong because of the fair value of public assets: parks, road networks, stormwater networks, sewer networks, water networks and supply and treatment infrastructure, buildings, land, wharves, the Port, and so on.
But would we sell them? Would we sell any of them? To pay off the odd billion dollar bank loan? Don't think so. Well - I don't think we would plan to sell them off.
And this brings me to the heart of my concern with Mayor Brown's statement and point of view. These are the words: "a high AA credit rating from Standard & Poor's..."
And here I quote selectively from Jason Hackworth, The Neoliberal City:
In plain language: for Auckland Council to stand a decent chance of getting a loan at a reasonable interest rate, potential investors need to get a good report from Standard & Poors.
So how does S&P go about preparing their report? Back to Jason Hackworth, The Neoliberal City:
Two or three decades ago, Council loans came from local banks which tended to benefit from positive political and economic conditions in the local council and within the geographical area it serviced. But after some of those municipalities defaulted on their loans (eg in the USA), the Council loans business has shifted to other institutional creditors, keen to invest, Keen to benefit from the "safe as houses" interest revenues from "businesslike Councils", but reliant upon the reports from the likes of Moody's and S&P.
Another change in the last two decades is the pressure on Councils to become entrepreneurial, and generate growth related revenues to supplement rates revenues. This pressure is partly due to increasing costs of Council services, inability of ratepayers to pay ahead of inflation increases, and desire of investors to put their money where the return is greatest. Hence the rating reports.
The Mangawhai fiasco is a case in point. Kaipara District Council required a loan to develop sewage infrastructure. It took an entrepreneurial risk, assumed a high rate of development growth in Mangawhai with associated revenue streams, went to market, got a good rating report(the rating agency "liked" the plan), found an institutional investor, and took out the loan.
In that case, both the rating agency and the bank assumed that the rating revenue base for Kaipara District Council was in effect the collateral or security on the loan. Hence the "safe as houses" assessment.
The reason Auckland Council has got an AA credit rating from S&P is because Auckland Council has adopted a high growth strategy (like Kaipara District Council did), and is spending money (bank loans) like there is no tomorrow. And of course the investors love it, as does Standard & Poors. They "like" Auckland Council. They "like" that investors can make a good return out of Auckland.
Is it fair to commit Auckland Council and ratepayers to a high risk entrepreneurial growth path and the debt that goes with that? By all means borrow money for essential infrastructure projects that are demonstrably supported by ratepayers - and maintain a good credit rating by keeping the level of borrowing low. But don't turn Auckland into someone else's business opportunity, their profit centre, so they can milk ratepayers.
If the NZ Herald's report of what Mayor Len Brown said about Council debt is accurate, and that it reflects Mayor Brown's view of the world of bank loans, then Auckland has a serious problem....
"He maintained it was within a low debt-to-equity ratio of about 12-13 per cent, a high AA credit rating from Standard & Poor's and a case of using a strong balance sheet to build appropriate infrastructure...."
This sort of language may be useful when talking about a commercial business, but it's not appropriate when talking about a local council, which is reliant upon property rates (property taxes) for revenue. Sure there's a lot of rhetoric along the lines that "council services should be run like a business" - Watercare has proudly retained in its Statement of Corporate Intent a performance target that reads something like: "To be a successful business" - and we can all agree that Council should be run efficiently.
But is going into debt on a huge scale businesslike behaviour - let alone being in the best interests of Auckland ratepayers?
As individuals we are all advised that our top financial priority should be to pay off debt. Especially the mortgage on the house. And if push comes to shove we can sell the house - and pay back any mortgage.
But could Auckland Council sell its Mangere Waste Water Treatment Plant to pay off a billion in debt? Could it flog off Queens Wharf? Or some of its arterial roads. Or a couple of Regional Parks?
Not unless it wanted a riot. That is why talking of a "low debt-to-equity" ratio is meaningless. Council's equity is public equity - assets that have been built up over generations. Talk of "low debt-to-equity" ratios is the same as saying: "my policy is to sell off Council assets". Really? Don't think so.
Then there are the words: "case of using a strong balance sheet to build appropriate infrastructure...". This is another way of saying: "low debt-to-equity". Auckland Council's "strong" balance sheet is strong because of the fair value of public assets: parks, road networks, stormwater networks, sewer networks, water networks and supply and treatment infrastructure, buildings, land, wharves, the Port, and so on.
But would we sell them? Would we sell any of them? To pay off the odd billion dollar bank loan? Don't think so. Well - I don't think we would plan to sell them off.
And this brings me to the heart of my concern with Mayor Brown's statement and point of view. These are the words: "a high AA credit rating from Standard & Poor's..."
And here I quote selectively from Jason Hackworth, The Neoliberal City:
"bond-rating firms, such as Moody's Investors Services and Standard & Poor's (S&P), are perhaps the single most influential institutional forces in determining the quality, quantity, and geography of local investment in the developed world..... Cities... depend on the bond market for the provision of basic infrastructure, services and economic development. Their ability to enter this market is determined almost entirely by bond-rating agencies that draft credit reports for investors..."
In plain language: for Auckland Council to stand a decent chance of getting a loan at a reasonable interest rate, potential investors need to get a good report from Standard & Poors.
So how does S&P go about preparing their report? Back to Jason Hackworth, The Neoliberal City:
"Bond-rating agencies evaluate the creditworthiness of municipalities and other public authorities trying to issue long-term debt. The bond-issuing authority (in this case Auckland Council) hires an agency (eg S&P) as soon as a decision to issue debt is made.... the agency will request an internal financial statement from the issuing city and combine this information with its own databases to arrive at a rating. The ratings are based on the municipality's financial history (past and present debt), its economic outlook (whether growth is going to occur), and its administrative structure and history (whether there is a history of mismanagement). The final rating is meant to be a reflection of how likely as given municipality is to repay its debt in a timely manner...."
Two or three decades ago, Council loans came from local banks which tended to benefit from positive political and economic conditions in the local council and within the geographical area it serviced. But after some of those municipalities defaulted on their loans (eg in the USA), the Council loans business has shifted to other institutional creditors, keen to invest, Keen to benefit from the "safe as houses" interest revenues from "businesslike Councils", but reliant upon the reports from the likes of Moody's and S&P.
Another change in the last two decades is the pressure on Councils to become entrepreneurial, and generate growth related revenues to supplement rates revenues. This pressure is partly due to increasing costs of Council services, inability of ratepayers to pay ahead of inflation increases, and desire of investors to put their money where the return is greatest. Hence the rating reports.
The Mangawhai fiasco is a case in point. Kaipara District Council required a loan to develop sewage infrastructure. It took an entrepreneurial risk, assumed a high rate of development growth in Mangawhai with associated revenue streams, went to market, got a good rating report(the rating agency "liked" the plan), found an institutional investor, and took out the loan.
In that case, both the rating agency and the bank assumed that the rating revenue base for Kaipara District Council was in effect the collateral or security on the loan. Hence the "safe as houses" assessment.
The reason Auckland Council has got an AA credit rating from S&P is because Auckland Council has adopted a high growth strategy (like Kaipara District Council did), and is spending money (bank loans) like there is no tomorrow. And of course the investors love it, as does Standard & Poors. They "like" Auckland Council. They "like" that investors can make a good return out of Auckland.
Is it fair to commit Auckland Council and ratepayers to a high risk entrepreneurial growth path and the debt that goes with that? By all means borrow money for essential infrastructure projects that are demonstrably supported by ratepayers - and maintain a good credit rating by keeping the level of borrowing low. But don't turn Auckland into someone else's business opportunity, their profit centre, so they can milk ratepayers.
People's Waterfront of Baltimore
You can see the Inner Harbour area on the map. This is the downtown area which I show in this posting. You can see that pretty much the whole harbour has been developed with dock areas, wharves, and it was the site of heavy industry, manufacturing, power stations, and gas works.
For two centuries this harbor has seen a lot of industrial development. Much of the harbor was the site of polluting activities. That has been changing over the past 50 years. Now - much of the industry has been shut down - and slowly, area by area, the city is changing its waterfront, and redeveloping it. The city has also embarked on an ambitious program to make the harbour environment clean, healthy and alive.
I met with two waterfront planners while I was there, and they described the changing policy approach to the inner harbour waterfront area. They explained that the high-end destinations - costing maybe $5 to $10 per person to visit - and around $50 for a family visit - were not affordable for many Baltimore families. So the Council and other institutions set out to make visiting the Inner Harbour a popular experience that would draw the population of all of Baltimore. Not just tourists.
Mixed use development, housing, and other forms of waterfront regeneration are targeted for other areas of the Baltimore Harbour area. But downtown, the Inner Harbour, is a people place, and is public and expansive.
Auckland's equivalent includes Queens Wharf, Queen Elizabeth Square, Quay Street, Princes Wharf, and the Viaduct.
How this integrates with Wynyard Quarter needs careful thought, and how it interconnects with Marsden and Captain Cook and across a pedestrianised Quay Street into Britomart. This is Auckland's downtown "Inner Harbour".
Thursday, October 3, 2013
Baltimore: Off the Wall CBD Art
Across the street from this corner shop is a top-end men's clothing shop...
(If you look hard you can find Wally in the picture - by the way.)
Wednesday, October 2, 2013
Downtown Baltimore Mulberry Street
I got these pictures in Mulberry Street, Baltimore. Walked along it from the light rail train to my hotel. Mulberry Street is being regenerated. It has a lot of character right now. Based on what I have seen, I'd say that character would be kept.
Click these pics for a closer look.
And watch this space for more...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Why Ratepayers Elect not to Vote
In the run up to Auckland Council elections, and immediately afterward there has been significant media commentary on the low turnout, suggestions that postal voting is over and that internet voting will make a difference and so on.
With few exceptions this commentary has ignored the elephant that looms ever larger in the room of New Zealand Local Government. And that is that Local Government has made itself less and less responsive to the needs of local communities, and is less and less responsive to their concerns.
Almost without exception reforms to Local Government legislation over the past couple of decades have been to increase its role and function as a smooth lubricator and enabler and funder of economic growth - sustainable or not, and to increase the efficiency of delivery of local services deemed necessary to support economic growth. Sure Councils manage to fit in parks, libraries, swimming pools, and community halls - but this and other aspects of the community development side of traditional Local Government activity is static at best and in decline at worst.
The emphasis of and for Local Government has been steadily and systematically shifted to supporting the delivery of economic growth objectives, and we are seeing the consequences of this.
Origins
I saw the political origins for these changes when I lived in London from 1976 to 1991. Two experiences standout in my memory. The first of these was in the early 1980's toward the beginning of my experience as a campaign video maker for a company I set up there with two partners (Team Video Productions). We applied for and got a grant from the Greater London Enterprise Board (GLEB for short) to make a video for trade unions about the effect of new technology in the workplace and how to organise for appropriate conditions. It was a documentary drama. GLEB was the economic development wing of the Greater London Council (GLC).
Now some might say - what the hell was Council doing that for? Well - there's an argument to be had about that. At the time the GLC had developed what amounted to "The London Plan". It was an economic development strategy for a changing city. The strategy was about more than economic growth.
However it was an economic development strategy that was not acceptable to Maggie Thatcher's Government. And she set about abolishing the GLC. The GLC under Red Ken Livingstone didn't take this lying down of course and ran a memorable billboard campaign. One of the signs I remember well, read "SAY NO TO NO SAY" - I blogged about this a few years ago......
When Team Video signed the production contract with the GLC/GLEB one of its conditions read: 'The words: "SAY NO TO NO SAY" shall not appear anywhere in any material produced under this contract.' Interesting that.
The other experience happened when I made a couple of videos for the Church Urban Fund - which was a sort of liberation theology wing of the Church of England as it slowly decided it had role to play in resisting the most socially damaging impacts of Thatcherism. I'm not a church-goer. We got chosen to make their videos because they wanted a campaigning style. Anyway. I digress.
We investigated case studies of churches working in North Eastern communities where unemployment following restructuring was up round 50%. And we referred to "Social Workers" who were helping. Our editorial committee advised that we should drop that wording in video captions. And we were reminded of Thatcher's statement: "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SOCIETY..."
My point here is that there is no point in improving the voting system without improving what people actually vote for. If people believe that don't really have a say with their vote in how their community develops (their local society), then why would you expect them to take the vote seriously?
How Local Government Used to Be
I was first elected to North Shore City Council (NSCC) in 1998. After a while I learned that NSCC was itself a new organisation - having arisen from local government amalgamation and reforms in the late 1980's. Living in Devonport I was very aware of the Independent Devonport campaign that ran long and hard for years. (There are still Independent Devonport banners visible in windows around the village).
At the time I didn't really appreciate what had been lost in that restructuring.
A certain amount of local power and autonomy was retained in that re-structuring. I sat on the Devonport Community Board for six years. We had power. Among other things I recall the establishment of a controversial skate ramp in the middle of the closed Ngataringa landfill; there was the decision to stop medium density housing on the Bayswater reclamation; the Community Board drove through the cycle lanes on Lake Road; and it stood up when it mattered over Navy base developments.
And it had other planning powers that were more below the radar. Board Members had roles as planning commissioners on resource consent applications which included delicate projects like house extensions, decks, garages, tree removals - the sorts of renovations that rock the local boat.
Many of these decisions were controversial. They mattered to local people. They were important to local people, and communities, and so they had an interest in them. The local newspapers were aware of this - the best of the local reporters were anyway - and they followed these developing stories - attended meetings of importance and reported what was said. And local people read the local newspapers because matters that interested them were reported there, and the letters pages were vigorous.
So What Has Changed?
The Devonport and Takapuna Local Board has been one of the more effective Local Boards established by the SuperCity reforms. The Devonport Flagstaff has faithfully followed the meetings that were held locally - though many were held in Takapuna and other parts of the board's jurisdiction. There's been the Library, the land at 27 Lake Road, the Ngati Whatua land claim, and the crumbling wharves.
The North Shore Times struggled to find stories. Though there's always the Takapuna Camping Ground and the NOWSC proposal that refuses to go away.
Probably the biggest sign of change though - and one which has yet to really bite - is what is happening with Auckland's land use planning system. The Unitary Plan and the Spatial Plan.
Together, these plans embody a fundamental shift in planning power from local to central. These are not really even Auckland regional plans - though they purport to be.
The Auckland Spatial Plan is fundamentally driven by the Central Government Infrastructure Plan. Central Government holds the purse strings - as we have seen - for transport projects. These are an essential component of the Central Government plan for Economic Growth.
The Unitary Plan - particularly its implementation - is being driven now by Central Government imposed Special Housing Areas - which are mostly in greenfield areas. Again. These development areas are an essential component of the Central Government plan for Economic Growth.
While the local newspapers and local boards across Auckland have reported and attended public meetings until the cows come home - they have no actual, legitimate power to influence local outcomes.
Not any more.
What Does This Mean?
Because people are not stupid. and because they sense what is going on around them, they are continuing to act entirely rationally, even if the systems and institutions that they previously tolerated and generally relied upon have been undermined and taken away in the interests of economic growth.
Grassroots campaigns like Vision 2040 and other so-called "knee-jerk" or nimby reactions to intensification (for which read opening up the land market and removing red tape to economic growth) are rational and predictable community responses to the threat of property value loss and uncertainty.
It has always been thus.
What Turkey has ever voted for an early Christmas?
Those who advocate changing the voting system, making it by internet, whatever are not seeing what is happening. People are losing confidence in the planning system because it recognises their interests less and less, and those of economic growth more and more. And if Local Government is about anything it is - or should be - about local planning.
What Could be Different?
This is a big question. A couple of things. I spent some time in the US recently, wondering around some cities. And the thing that struck me was how many physical polling stations there were sign-posted. Pretty much every public building had a permanent polling station sigh on a lamp-post outside. They vote regularly about local issues in US cities. It's part of life.
And they vote about the things that matter. What projects are undertaken. What money is borrowed.
Councils can't undertake a project without a public mandate. Called a proposition. Proposition 12 for example. And the City Council can't spend money it doesn't have without a bond issue or loan facility, which has to be supported by a popular vote at a polling station.
The local newspapers there are full of stories, articles, letters, public opinion pieces, about local propositions and borrowing proposals that are to be voted on by the public.
When I tried to market a few Team Video educational videos about Human Rights into Californian Schools I was forced to learn a bit about their curriculum. About 25% of it was civics. They teach civics at school in a big way. Students expect to be able to vote locally about projects and budgets that will affect their communities. And they are not voting once every three years. They vote on each issue.
New Zealand is at risk of losing local democracy in its institutions, but it will never lose the desire for local self-determination among its people.
Civilised society recognises this. So does civilised Government.
With few exceptions this commentary has ignored the elephant that looms ever larger in the room of New Zealand Local Government. And that is that Local Government has made itself less and less responsive to the needs of local communities, and is less and less responsive to their concerns.
Almost without exception reforms to Local Government legislation over the past couple of decades have been to increase its role and function as a smooth lubricator and enabler and funder of economic growth - sustainable or not, and to increase the efficiency of delivery of local services deemed necessary to support economic growth. Sure Councils manage to fit in parks, libraries, swimming pools, and community halls - but this and other aspects of the community development side of traditional Local Government activity is static at best and in decline at worst.
The emphasis of and for Local Government has been steadily and systematically shifted to supporting the delivery of economic growth objectives, and we are seeing the consequences of this.
Origins
I saw the political origins for these changes when I lived in London from 1976 to 1991. Two experiences standout in my memory. The first of these was in the early 1980's toward the beginning of my experience as a campaign video maker for a company I set up there with two partners (Team Video Productions). We applied for and got a grant from the Greater London Enterprise Board (GLEB for short) to make a video for trade unions about the effect of new technology in the workplace and how to organise for appropriate conditions. It was a documentary drama. GLEB was the economic development wing of the Greater London Council (GLC).
Now some might say - what the hell was Council doing that for? Well - there's an argument to be had about that. At the time the GLC had developed what amounted to "The London Plan". It was an economic development strategy for a changing city. The strategy was about more than economic growth.
However it was an economic development strategy that was not acceptable to Maggie Thatcher's Government. And she set about abolishing the GLC. The GLC under Red Ken Livingstone didn't take this lying down of course and ran a memorable billboard campaign. One of the signs I remember well, read "SAY NO TO NO SAY" - I blogged about this a few years ago......
When Team Video signed the production contract with the GLC/GLEB one of its conditions read: 'The words: "SAY NO TO NO SAY" shall not appear anywhere in any material produced under this contract.' Interesting that.
The other experience happened when I made a couple of videos for the Church Urban Fund - which was a sort of liberation theology wing of the Church of England as it slowly decided it had role to play in resisting the most socially damaging impacts of Thatcherism. I'm not a church-goer. We got chosen to make their videos because they wanted a campaigning style. Anyway. I digress.
We investigated case studies of churches working in North Eastern communities where unemployment following restructuring was up round 50%. And we referred to "Social Workers" who were helping. Our editorial committee advised that we should drop that wording in video captions. And we were reminded of Thatcher's statement: "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SOCIETY..."
My point here is that there is no point in improving the voting system without improving what people actually vote for. If people believe that don't really have a say with their vote in how their community develops (their local society), then why would you expect them to take the vote seriously?
How Local Government Used to Be
I was first elected to North Shore City Council (NSCC) in 1998. After a while I learned that NSCC was itself a new organisation - having arisen from local government amalgamation and reforms in the late 1980's. Living in Devonport I was very aware of the Independent Devonport campaign that ran long and hard for years. (There are still Independent Devonport banners visible in windows around the village).
At the time I didn't really appreciate what had been lost in that restructuring.
A certain amount of local power and autonomy was retained in that re-structuring. I sat on the Devonport Community Board for six years. We had power. Among other things I recall the establishment of a controversial skate ramp in the middle of the closed Ngataringa landfill; there was the decision to stop medium density housing on the Bayswater reclamation; the Community Board drove through the cycle lanes on Lake Road; and it stood up when it mattered over Navy base developments.
And it had other planning powers that were more below the radar. Board Members had roles as planning commissioners on resource consent applications which included delicate projects like house extensions, decks, garages, tree removals - the sorts of renovations that rock the local boat.
Many of these decisions were controversial. They mattered to local people. They were important to local people, and communities, and so they had an interest in them. The local newspapers were aware of this - the best of the local reporters were anyway - and they followed these developing stories - attended meetings of importance and reported what was said. And local people read the local newspapers because matters that interested them were reported there, and the letters pages were vigorous.
So What Has Changed?
The Devonport and Takapuna Local Board has been one of the more effective Local Boards established by the SuperCity reforms. The Devonport Flagstaff has faithfully followed the meetings that were held locally - though many were held in Takapuna and other parts of the board's jurisdiction. There's been the Library, the land at 27 Lake Road, the Ngati Whatua land claim, and the crumbling wharves.
The North Shore Times struggled to find stories. Though there's always the Takapuna Camping Ground and the NOWSC proposal that refuses to go away.
Probably the biggest sign of change though - and one which has yet to really bite - is what is happening with Auckland's land use planning system. The Unitary Plan and the Spatial Plan.
Together, these plans embody a fundamental shift in planning power from local to central. These are not really even Auckland regional plans - though they purport to be.
The Auckland Spatial Plan is fundamentally driven by the Central Government Infrastructure Plan. Central Government holds the purse strings - as we have seen - for transport projects. These are an essential component of the Central Government plan for Economic Growth.
The Unitary Plan - particularly its implementation - is being driven now by Central Government imposed Special Housing Areas - which are mostly in greenfield areas. Again. These development areas are an essential component of the Central Government plan for Economic Growth.
While the local newspapers and local boards across Auckland have reported and attended public meetings until the cows come home - they have no actual, legitimate power to influence local outcomes.
Not any more.
What Does This Mean?
Because people are not stupid. and because they sense what is going on around them, they are continuing to act entirely rationally, even if the systems and institutions that they previously tolerated and generally relied upon have been undermined and taken away in the interests of economic growth.
Grassroots campaigns like Vision 2040 and other so-called "knee-jerk" or nimby reactions to intensification (for which read opening up the land market and removing red tape to economic growth) are rational and predictable community responses to the threat of property value loss and uncertainty.
It has always been thus.
What Turkey has ever voted for an early Christmas?
Those who advocate changing the voting system, making it by internet, whatever are not seeing what is happening. People are losing confidence in the planning system because it recognises their interests less and less, and those of economic growth more and more. And if Local Government is about anything it is - or should be - about local planning.
What Could be Different?
This is a big question. A couple of things. I spent some time in the US recently, wondering around some cities. And the thing that struck me was how many physical polling stations there were sign-posted. Pretty much every public building had a permanent polling station sigh on a lamp-post outside. They vote regularly about local issues in US cities. It's part of life.
And they vote about the things that matter. What projects are undertaken. What money is borrowed.
Councils can't undertake a project without a public mandate. Called a proposition. Proposition 12 for example. And the City Council can't spend money it doesn't have without a bond issue or loan facility, which has to be supported by a popular vote at a polling station.
The local newspapers there are full of stories, articles, letters, public opinion pieces, about local propositions and borrowing proposals that are to be voted on by the public.
When I tried to market a few Team Video educational videos about Human Rights into Californian Schools I was forced to learn a bit about their curriculum. About 25% of it was civics. They teach civics at school in a big way. Students expect to be able to vote locally about projects and budgets that will affect their communities. And they are not voting once every three years. They vote on each issue.
New Zealand is at risk of losing local democracy in its institutions, but it will never lose the desire for local self-determination among its people.
Civilised society recognises this. So does civilised Government.
Waka on Wellington Waterfront
Bound to be a place at Wynyard Quarter. But is that suitably central? Captain Cook Wharf - now that's a name to conjure with for a waka storage and launch facility....
Who Steers Auckland Transport?
The Auckland Council election is over and it's the start of a new term. Nobody had the chance to vote for Auckland Transport. That's to be expected as it is a "Council Controlled Organisation" - CCO for short. That is a bit of a misnomer because a lot of what Auckland Transport can do is effectively controlled by Government Ministries that fund much of what happens in Auckland, and by Government institutions that decide New Zealand and Auckland transport priorities.
But that "control" issue doesn't apply to many Auckland transport problems.
Take Auckland's waterfront for example.
Auckland Council - in its vision for Auckland - as set out in the Auckland Plan, the Waterfront Development Plan, and the Auckland CBD Plan - has been clear that there is a need to stitch together the various parts of downtown Auckland. Nowhere is this more evident than the need to join up the public waterfront with Auckland's downtown CBD.
There are so many barriers. The famous Auckland Harbour Board Red fence, the traffic and heavy truck friendly Quay Street, the huge amounts of car-parking on Princes Wharf, the water between Wynyard Quarter and CBD, and the traffic-filled spaces of Fanshawe Street.
Thankfully Auckland hasn't built a motorway standard road between downtown and the waterfront, but there is work to be done, and it is recognised, by the three Council organisations that are immediately affected and responsible. Auckland Council, Auckland Transport and Waterfront Auckland. It is critical to the success of any changes that these three organisations work together effectively. That is why an informal coordinating Harbour Edge entity has been established.
Yesterday it was my pleasure to observe the "Auckland Waterfront Planning Intervention" presentations of the University of Auckland Masters in Urban Planning students. Their projects were based upon a careful morphological analysis of the urban form of their study area, an examination of the problems there, an exploration of possibilities, and then a carefully articulated design solution or partial solution. I was struck by how many of these presentations focussed on the need to establish pedestrian connectivity and to open up public spaces. Students showed a keen awareness of the need to connect Victoria Park with Daldy Street up through to the proposed parks and headland park on Wynyard Quarter. An approach to the public mistakes made on Princes Wharf and the Auckland Harbour Board HQ building, and their poor relationship with Quay Street was far-reaching. And designs that opened up captain Cook and Marsden Wharves for development, linking across Quay Street to Britomart were sensible and attractive.
Students also addressed what's happening on Queens Wharf. Concerns were expressed that it might be heading the same way as Princes Wharf. Another public failure perhaps. (A few days ago this post about Queens Wharf appeared on Auckland Transport blog.)
A number of matters have come to my attention that suggest that Auckland Transport is a significant roadblock to transforming downtown Auckland, and an obstacle to implementing the vision.
1) Jellicoe Street on Wynyard Quarter has been widely praised for its urban design, character, and pedestrian emphasis. It is not like any other street in Auckland. In fact I understand that Auckland Transport has pretty much dis-owned this street. Says it won't have anything to do with it, and that it's Waterfront Auckland's responsibility. For the past few months Waterfront Auckland has been consulting and designing streets that intersect with Jellicoe - including Daldy and Halsey Streets. The relationship with Auckland Transport has been a challenge - but Waterfront Auckland - as significant land owner and lead developer - has persisted with designs that will deliver the vision. But the nearer these designs get to Fanshawe Street, the less happy Auckland Transport appears to become.
Where to draw the line?
A little bit of Viaduct Harbour Holdings (VHHL) gossip has leaked out. These guys own the land between Pakenham Street and Fanshawe Street, while Waterfront Development Agency (WDA) owns the land North of Pakenham Street. Gossip is that VHHL is grumpy "because WDA is only building its streets halfway..." So VHHL is blaming WDA for what's happening. Daldy and Halsey will be beautiful, landscaped and pedestrian friendly to Pakenham Street, and then BANG back to Auckland's normal car friendly design the rest of the way to Fanshawe Street.
The problem here is that Auckland Transport is unwilling or reluctant to embrace the new world of transport planning that is about more than cars. And like Faulty Towers, "don't mention zee pedestrian connexion wiz Victoria Park..." Come on Auckland Transport get engaged.
2) The Queens Wharf progression toward being another carpark and dedicated passenger terminal has been tracked for a while. I wrote about this a year and a half ago. Without evident effect. Transport blog's interest in the matter bears more than a passing relationship with the fact the Sustainability Expo was held in the cloud last week, and so was Generation Zero's Micro Conference. A lot of new visitors to Queens Wharf will have been unpleasantly surprised by what they see there.
Again. This is squarely in the in-tray of Auckland Transport. Nothing is being done.
3) This list is a long one, but my real beef is with the lack of creative engagement and output from Auckland Transport in how to change Quay Street. Sure there is modelling for Africa about traffic movements and bus movements and public transport patronage. But the more I see of this - and the more I recall what Auckland's Traffic Modelling was good at modelling (from my years at Auckland Regional Council where the model was developed) - is that it is useless at modelling the future that is at the heart of Auckland's pedestrian friendly waterfront plan.
We need to use the right tools for this job.
I am aware that the transport plan for Wynyard Quarter requires 70% of the trips made there to be walking, cycling or by public transport, leaving the balance - 30% - to be by motorised vehicle. This is the opposite of urban Auckland where - on a good day - only 70% of the trips are by motorised vehicle. To use the planning tool that is based on a 70/30 split - to model how streets would work with a 30/70 split is too much of a stretch. This is a classic garbage in=garbage out scenario.
Auckland Transport needs the political steer and the design tools to think itself out of the traffic-centred box that Auckland has been stuck in for decades.
No time like the present. Get on with being part of the solution to the waterfront stitch.
But that "control" issue doesn't apply to many Auckland transport problems.
Take Auckland's waterfront for example.
Auckland Council - in its vision for Auckland - as set out in the Auckland Plan, the Waterfront Development Plan, and the Auckland CBD Plan - has been clear that there is a need to stitch together the various parts of downtown Auckland. Nowhere is this more evident than the need to join up the public waterfront with Auckland's downtown CBD.
There are so many barriers. The famous Auckland Harbour Board Red fence, the traffic and heavy truck friendly Quay Street, the huge amounts of car-parking on Princes Wharf, the water between Wynyard Quarter and CBD, and the traffic-filled spaces of Fanshawe Street.
Thankfully Auckland hasn't built a motorway standard road between downtown and the waterfront, but there is work to be done, and it is recognised, by the three Council organisations that are immediately affected and responsible. Auckland Council, Auckland Transport and Waterfront Auckland. It is critical to the success of any changes that these three organisations work together effectively. That is why an informal coordinating Harbour Edge entity has been established.
Yesterday it was my pleasure to observe the "Auckland Waterfront Planning Intervention" presentations of the University of Auckland Masters in Urban Planning students. Their projects were based upon a careful morphological analysis of the urban form of their study area, an examination of the problems there, an exploration of possibilities, and then a carefully articulated design solution or partial solution. I was struck by how many of these presentations focussed on the need to establish pedestrian connectivity and to open up public spaces. Students showed a keen awareness of the need to connect Victoria Park with Daldy Street up through to the proposed parks and headland park on Wynyard Quarter. An approach to the public mistakes made on Princes Wharf and the Auckland Harbour Board HQ building, and their poor relationship with Quay Street was far-reaching. And designs that opened up captain Cook and Marsden Wharves for development, linking across Quay Street to Britomart were sensible and attractive.
Students also addressed what's happening on Queens Wharf. Concerns were expressed that it might be heading the same way as Princes Wharf. Another public failure perhaps. (A few days ago this post about Queens Wharf appeared on Auckland Transport blog.)
A number of matters have come to my attention that suggest that Auckland Transport is a significant roadblock to transforming downtown Auckland, and an obstacle to implementing the vision.
1) Jellicoe Street on Wynyard Quarter has been widely praised for its urban design, character, and pedestrian emphasis. It is not like any other street in Auckland. In fact I understand that Auckland Transport has pretty much dis-owned this street. Says it won't have anything to do with it, and that it's Waterfront Auckland's responsibility. For the past few months Waterfront Auckland has been consulting and designing streets that intersect with Jellicoe - including Daldy and Halsey Streets. The relationship with Auckland Transport has been a challenge - but Waterfront Auckland - as significant land owner and lead developer - has persisted with designs that will deliver the vision. But the nearer these designs get to Fanshawe Street, the less happy Auckland Transport appears to become.
Where to draw the line?
A little bit of Viaduct Harbour Holdings (VHHL) gossip has leaked out. These guys own the land between Pakenham Street and Fanshawe Street, while Waterfront Development Agency (WDA) owns the land North of Pakenham Street. Gossip is that VHHL is grumpy "because WDA is only building its streets halfway..." So VHHL is blaming WDA for what's happening. Daldy and Halsey will be beautiful, landscaped and pedestrian friendly to Pakenham Street, and then BANG back to Auckland's normal car friendly design the rest of the way to Fanshawe Street.
The problem here is that Auckland Transport is unwilling or reluctant to embrace the new world of transport planning that is about more than cars. And like Faulty Towers, "don't mention zee pedestrian connexion wiz Victoria Park..." Come on Auckland Transport get engaged.
2) The Queens Wharf progression toward being another carpark and dedicated passenger terminal has been tracked for a while. I wrote about this a year and a half ago. Without evident effect. Transport blog's interest in the matter bears more than a passing relationship with the fact the Sustainability Expo was held in the cloud last week, and so was Generation Zero's Micro Conference. A lot of new visitors to Queens Wharf will have been unpleasantly surprised by what they see there.
Again. This is squarely in the in-tray of Auckland Transport. Nothing is being done.
3) This list is a long one, but my real beef is with the lack of creative engagement and output from Auckland Transport in how to change Quay Street. Sure there is modelling for Africa about traffic movements and bus movements and public transport patronage. But the more I see of this - and the more I recall what Auckland's Traffic Modelling was good at modelling (from my years at Auckland Regional Council where the model was developed) - is that it is useless at modelling the future that is at the heart of Auckland's pedestrian friendly waterfront plan.
We need to use the right tools for this job.
I am aware that the transport plan for Wynyard Quarter requires 70% of the trips made there to be walking, cycling or by public transport, leaving the balance - 30% - to be by motorised vehicle. This is the opposite of urban Auckland where - on a good day - only 70% of the trips are by motorised vehicle. To use the planning tool that is based on a 70/30 split - to model how streets would work with a 30/70 split is too much of a stretch. This is a classic garbage in=garbage out scenario.
Auckland Transport needs the political steer and the design tools to think itself out of the traffic-centred box that Auckland has been stuck in for decades.
No time like the present. Get on with being part of the solution to the waterfront stitch.
Friday, October 4, 2013
Standard & Poor's Likes Council Debt
In the NZ Herald today there is a report of a mayoral campaign debate last night. Part of the debate related to the Auckland Council debt - which apparently has increased from $3.9 billion at the start of Auckland council's first term in operation - to $6.7 billion now.
If the NZ Herald's report of what Mayor Len Brown said about Council debt is accurate, and that it reflects Mayor Brown's view of the world of bank loans, then Auckland has a serious problem....
This sort of language may be useful when talking about a commercial business, but it's not appropriate when talking about a local council, which is reliant upon property rates (property taxes) for revenue. Sure there's a lot of rhetoric along the lines that "council services should be run like a business" - Watercare has proudly retained in its Statement of Corporate Intent a performance target that reads something like: "To be a successful business" - and we can all agree that Council should be run efficiently.
But is going into debt on a huge scale businesslike behaviour - let alone being in the best interests of Auckland ratepayers?
As individuals we are all advised that our top financial priority should be to pay off debt. Especially the mortgage on the house. And if push comes to shove we can sell the house - and pay back any mortgage.
But could Auckland Council sell its Mangere Waste Water Treatment Plant to pay off a billion in debt? Could it flog off Queens Wharf? Or some of its arterial roads. Or a couple of Regional Parks?
Not unless it wanted a riot. That is why talking of a "low debt-to-equity" ratio is meaningless. Council's equity is public equity - assets that have been built up over generations. Talk of "low debt-to-equity" ratios is the same as saying: "my policy is to sell off Council assets". Really? Don't think so.
Then there are the words: "case of using a strong balance sheet to build appropriate infrastructure...". This is another way of saying: "low debt-to-equity". Auckland Council's "strong" balance sheet is strong because of the fair value of public assets: parks, road networks, stormwater networks, sewer networks, water networks and supply and treatment infrastructure, buildings, land, wharves, the Port, and so on.
But would we sell them? Would we sell any of them? To pay off the odd billion dollar bank loan? Don't think so. Well - I don't think we would plan to sell them off.
And this brings me to the heart of my concern with Mayor Brown's statement and point of view. These are the words: "a high AA credit rating from Standard & Poor's..."
And here I quote selectively from Jason Hackworth, The Neoliberal City:
In plain language: for Auckland Council to stand a decent chance of getting a loan at a reasonable interest rate, potential investors need to get a good report from Standard & Poors.
So how does S&P go about preparing their report? Back to Jason Hackworth, The Neoliberal City:
Two or three decades ago, Council loans came from local banks which tended to benefit from positive political and economic conditions in the local council and within the geographical area it serviced. But after some of those municipalities defaulted on their loans (eg in the USA), the Council loans business has shifted to other institutional creditors, keen to invest, Keen to benefit from the "safe as houses" interest revenues from "businesslike Councils", but reliant upon the reports from the likes of Moody's and S&P.
Another change in the last two decades is the pressure on Councils to become entrepreneurial, and generate growth related revenues to supplement rates revenues. This pressure is partly due to increasing costs of Council services, inability of ratepayers to pay ahead of inflation increases, and desire of investors to put their money where the return is greatest. Hence the rating reports.
The Mangawhai fiasco is a case in point. Kaipara District Council required a loan to develop sewage infrastructure. It took an entrepreneurial risk, assumed a high rate of development growth in Mangawhai with associated revenue streams, went to market, got a good rating report(the rating agency "liked" the plan), found an institutional investor, and took out the loan.
In that case, both the rating agency and the bank assumed that the rating revenue base for Kaipara District Council was in effect the collateral or security on the loan. Hence the "safe as houses" assessment.
The reason Auckland Council has got an AA credit rating from S&P is because Auckland Council has adopted a high growth strategy (like Kaipara District Council did), and is spending money (bank loans) like there is no tomorrow. And of course the investors love it, as does Standard & Poors. They "like" Auckland Council. They "like" that investors can make a good return out of Auckland.
Is it fair to commit Auckland Council and ratepayers to a high risk entrepreneurial growth path and the debt that goes with that? By all means borrow money for essential infrastructure projects that are demonstrably supported by ratepayers - and maintain a good credit rating by keeping the level of borrowing low. But don't turn Auckland into someone else's business opportunity, their profit centre, so they can milk ratepayers.
If the NZ Herald's report of what Mayor Len Brown said about Council debt is accurate, and that it reflects Mayor Brown's view of the world of bank loans, then Auckland has a serious problem....
"He maintained it was within a low debt-to-equity ratio of about 12-13 per cent, a high AA credit rating from Standard & Poor's and a case of using a strong balance sheet to build appropriate infrastructure...."
This sort of language may be useful when talking about a commercial business, but it's not appropriate when talking about a local council, which is reliant upon property rates (property taxes) for revenue. Sure there's a lot of rhetoric along the lines that "council services should be run like a business" - Watercare has proudly retained in its Statement of Corporate Intent a performance target that reads something like: "To be a successful business" - and we can all agree that Council should be run efficiently.
But is going into debt on a huge scale businesslike behaviour - let alone being in the best interests of Auckland ratepayers?
As individuals we are all advised that our top financial priority should be to pay off debt. Especially the mortgage on the house. And if push comes to shove we can sell the house - and pay back any mortgage.
But could Auckland Council sell its Mangere Waste Water Treatment Plant to pay off a billion in debt? Could it flog off Queens Wharf? Or some of its arterial roads. Or a couple of Regional Parks?
Not unless it wanted a riot. That is why talking of a "low debt-to-equity" ratio is meaningless. Council's equity is public equity - assets that have been built up over generations. Talk of "low debt-to-equity" ratios is the same as saying: "my policy is to sell off Council assets". Really? Don't think so.
Then there are the words: "case of using a strong balance sheet to build appropriate infrastructure...". This is another way of saying: "low debt-to-equity". Auckland Council's "strong" balance sheet is strong because of the fair value of public assets: parks, road networks, stormwater networks, sewer networks, water networks and supply and treatment infrastructure, buildings, land, wharves, the Port, and so on.
But would we sell them? Would we sell any of them? To pay off the odd billion dollar bank loan? Don't think so. Well - I don't think we would plan to sell them off.
And this brings me to the heart of my concern with Mayor Brown's statement and point of view. These are the words: "a high AA credit rating from Standard & Poor's..."
And here I quote selectively from Jason Hackworth, The Neoliberal City:
"bond-rating firms, such as Moody's Investors Services and Standard & Poor's (S&P), are perhaps the single most influential institutional forces in determining the quality, quantity, and geography of local investment in the developed world..... Cities... depend on the bond market for the provision of basic infrastructure, services and economic development. Their ability to enter this market is determined almost entirely by bond-rating agencies that draft credit reports for investors..."
In plain language: for Auckland Council to stand a decent chance of getting a loan at a reasonable interest rate, potential investors need to get a good report from Standard & Poors.
So how does S&P go about preparing their report? Back to Jason Hackworth, The Neoliberal City:
"Bond-rating agencies evaluate the creditworthiness of municipalities and other public authorities trying to issue long-term debt. The bond-issuing authority (in this case Auckland Council) hires an agency (eg S&P) as soon as a decision to issue debt is made.... the agency will request an internal financial statement from the issuing city and combine this information with its own databases to arrive at a rating. The ratings are based on the municipality's financial history (past and present debt), its economic outlook (whether growth is going to occur), and its administrative structure and history (whether there is a history of mismanagement). The final rating is meant to be a reflection of how likely as given municipality is to repay its debt in a timely manner...."
Two or three decades ago, Council loans came from local banks which tended to benefit from positive political and economic conditions in the local council and within the geographical area it serviced. But after some of those municipalities defaulted on their loans (eg in the USA), the Council loans business has shifted to other institutional creditors, keen to invest, Keen to benefit from the "safe as houses" interest revenues from "businesslike Councils", but reliant upon the reports from the likes of Moody's and S&P.
Another change in the last two decades is the pressure on Councils to become entrepreneurial, and generate growth related revenues to supplement rates revenues. This pressure is partly due to increasing costs of Council services, inability of ratepayers to pay ahead of inflation increases, and desire of investors to put their money where the return is greatest. Hence the rating reports.
The Mangawhai fiasco is a case in point. Kaipara District Council required a loan to develop sewage infrastructure. It took an entrepreneurial risk, assumed a high rate of development growth in Mangawhai with associated revenue streams, went to market, got a good rating report(the rating agency "liked" the plan), found an institutional investor, and took out the loan.
In that case, both the rating agency and the bank assumed that the rating revenue base for Kaipara District Council was in effect the collateral or security on the loan. Hence the "safe as houses" assessment.
The reason Auckland Council has got an AA credit rating from S&P is because Auckland Council has adopted a high growth strategy (like Kaipara District Council did), and is spending money (bank loans) like there is no tomorrow. And of course the investors love it, as does Standard & Poors. They "like" Auckland Council. They "like" that investors can make a good return out of Auckland.
Is it fair to commit Auckland Council and ratepayers to a high risk entrepreneurial growth path and the debt that goes with that? By all means borrow money for essential infrastructure projects that are demonstrably supported by ratepayers - and maintain a good credit rating by keeping the level of borrowing low. But don't turn Auckland into someone else's business opportunity, their profit centre, so they can milk ratepayers.
People's Waterfront of Baltimore
You can see the Inner Harbour area on the map. This is the downtown area which I show in this posting. You can see that pretty much the whole harbour has been developed with dock areas, wharves, and it was the site of heavy industry, manufacturing, power stations, and gas works.
For two centuries this harbor has seen a lot of industrial development. Much of the harbor was the site of polluting activities. That has been changing over the past 50 years. Now - much of the industry has been shut down - and slowly, area by area, the city is changing its waterfront, and redeveloping it. The city has also embarked on an ambitious program to make the harbour environment clean, healthy and alive.
I met with two waterfront planners while I was there, and they described the changing policy approach to the inner harbour waterfront area. They explained that the high-end destinations - costing maybe $5 to $10 per person to visit - and around $50 for a family visit - were not affordable for many Baltimore families. So the Council and other institutions set out to make visiting the Inner Harbour a popular experience that would draw the population of all of Baltimore. Not just tourists.
Mixed use development, housing, and other forms of waterfront regeneration are targeted for other areas of the Baltimore Harbour area. But downtown, the Inner Harbour, is a people place, and is public and expansive.
Auckland's equivalent includes Queens Wharf, Queen Elizabeth Square, Quay Street, Princes Wharf, and the Viaduct.
How this integrates with Wynyard Quarter needs careful thought, and how it interconnects with Marsden and Captain Cook and across a pedestrianised Quay Street into Britomart. This is Auckland's downtown "Inner Harbour".
Thursday, October 3, 2013
Baltimore: Off the Wall CBD Art
Across the street from this corner shop is a top-end men's clothing shop...
(If you look hard you can find Wally in the picture - by the way.)
Wednesday, October 2, 2013
Downtown Baltimore Mulberry Street
I got these pictures in Mulberry Street, Baltimore. Walked along it from the light rail train to my hotel. Mulberry Street is being regenerated. It has a lot of character right now. Based on what I have seen, I'd say that character would be kept.
Click these pics for a closer look.
And watch this space for more...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
