Does Auckland Really Need to be Unleashed?

I went along to Auckland Unleashed last week. Big crowd there. I thought the workshops were good. I attended the infrastructure one (there were 5 workshops: can't recall what their names all were now - Infrastructure; Community; Funding & Implementation....) What was good about the infrastructure workshop was the strong thread from most tables about the need for resilience. This partly was driven by Christchurch earthquake, but was also informed by concerns about other global forces like fossil fuel prices and such-like. The upshot was that there was strong support for a poly-centric approach to Auckland's development. ie not put all our eggs in one basket called the Auckland CBD. There was a strong call for "contained communities", "complete communities" (like the Vancouver strategy), and with this was a majority call for distributed and de-centralised networks. One of the issues raised here was the need to reduce the need to travel long distances to work, school, play and essential services. This runs counter to the Dr Arthur Grimes vision of a major effort at building Auckland CBD - almost at the exclusion of the rest of the region (let alone the rest of the country). So. I felt good about that expression from that workshop. Gave me some optimism. Hope it survives the process. Which will be a challenge I think. You don't have to look further than the title of the plan, and its widely criticised economic growth aspirations which are right outside the direct influence of Auckland Council. No matter how super. Auckland Unleashed. Gives me the heebie jeebies, because I think the root cause of Auckland's current disfunction is the fact that developers and development has been unleashed and rampant as a mad dog for two decades now. The light-handed approach to Auckland's development over that time has led to the mess that we are in now. Very inefficient transport systems because land use has not been well planned. It's been ad hoc. The market has ruled. Why would you want to unleash it more? Surely Auckland development needs to be better contained and managed - in the best interests of public and commercial interests. You only need to do a couple of word counts of the 226 page Auckland Unleashed document to see where it's coming from.... Quality + International + Vision = 352 Implementation + Delivery + Funding = 134 With that sort of word count, you can see the emphasis of the document. Long on aspiration - as often the most fluffy Council plans are - and short on implementation. And then there is this comparison. It's where the rubber hits the road in my opinion, because while Auckland might have an economic problem or two (which are not directly within Council control), it has a massive housing affordability problem, a growing carbon/fossil fuel dependency problem, and increasing stress on local ecologies (all of which are core business for Council)...

Development+Economy+World = 421 Affordable Housing+Carbon+Ecosystems = 23 That word count gives a good impression of what Auckland Unleashed is really about. It is so far off the mark of what Auckland needs from Auckland Council right now.

Housing Affordability: Exemplary Practice

Cambridge England

This section briefly describes exemplary strategic housing market assessments in practice in Cambridgeshire, UK. The purpose being to indicate the direction that Auckland Council could aspire to in its practice and process of carrying out Housing Market Assessments, and also to highlight good practice data and monitoring requirements.

Cambridgeshire’s housing market assessment activities are being carried out broadly in line with the guidance contained in Strategic Housing Market Assessments: Practice Guidance prepared by the UK Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG) in August 2007 (UK, 2007).

Cambridgeshire’s experience in conducting and using Strategic Housing Market Assessments (SHMA) is helpful because it indicates the kinds of difficulties Auckland might encounter along the way with this process. Forewarned is forarmed. For example in the Identifying Housing Need section of its 2009 SHMA update, we find the following advice:

…the SHMA is designed to be built on and updated as time passes and information changes and improves. So this iteration is bound to change, adjust and improve as its foundation data does the same… the CLG Guidance is written as just that – guidance, rather than a detailed roadmap of how to do it. For example, some sources of data do not provide the detail or the cross-tabulations needed to work out the figures for a specific sub-region or district. For this reason we have supplemented secondary sources of information with our primary MRUK household survey where necessary, to try to provide a more realistic local picture of housing needed for our sub-region…

…we are still looking to evolve our approach, to investigate:

- more frequently updated sources of information
- ways to analyse data using mapping and GIS systems
- data systems to track changes in the housing market and in factors such as inflation, land prices and incomes (Cambridge, 2009, Chapter 27 Pg 2)

The outputs from Cambridgeshire’s SHMA include a section reporting on affordability by tenure and size, for each of the districts that make up the Cambridgeshire region. These outputs are based on data sources that have developed over time, and are presented in tabular form which provides for rapid cross comparison between different districts.

The full assessment report contains similar tabulations and analysis for each of the districts within the region, and these are then compared and cross tabulated to give a comprehensive regional picture of relative housing affordability, by tenure type.

Queenstown New Zealand

While it is interesting to understand and learn from what is happening in other countries in regard to measuring housing affordability and stress, there are also some interesting and effective SHMA initiatives being undertaken here in New Zealand – which use local data systems.

The Housing Our People in Our Environment (HOPE) strategy developed by Queenstown Lakes District Council (QLDC) contains actions that the Council intends to take to address the issue of housing affordability in Queenstown. The purpose of the strategy is: “to help address the growing problem of people and households in the District not being able to rent or buy houses due to the growing gap between incomes and rental and mortgage costs..” (Queenstown, 2007)

Interestingly, one purpose of this SHMA work is to require that new developments in Queenstown contribute a specific quota of affordable homes as part any development, following an assessment of the likely demand for itinerant and other workers that the new development will cause. Thus a nexus is established between the new employment demands established by the development, and the need for the developer to take specified responsibilities regarding the provision of affordable housing that will be required by a proportion of those new employees.

QLDC retained the services of a consultancy – Rationale – to assist in assessing the current and future demand for affordable housing within the Queenstown Lakes District. The aims of the assessment include:

- district wide demand for affordable housing including existing and future demand;
- demand defined on a rental and ownership basis;
- demand projections on a catchment basis

The data, and assumptions used to prepare these assessments are broadly as follows, by each of several sub-areas of Queenstown District:

- a maximum of 30% of household income to be spent on housing
- the proportion of ‘owned’ to ‘non-owned’ homes (as in 2006 census)
- number of occupied houses in each sub-area over 10 years (from LTCCP)
- portion of home-ownership in each income bracket (as in 2006 census)
- income distribution of new arrivals (as in 2006 census)
- house price inflation rate drawn from MAC Property – 2007 Update
- tabulation of 1st Quartile house price Vs mortgage available over time provided by AMI

My understanding of the Rationale report indicates the following process details were broadly followed in the assessment:

- The proportion of owned/non-owned homes in Queenstown is approximately 40% (compared with 33% for the rest of NZ), and was assumed to remain constant throughout the assessment period;
- The number of occupied houses in each sub-area (lifted from the LTCCP) was effectively treated as a proxy for the growth of each area within Queenstown – and assumed to accommodate new arrivals to the district;
- The split between renters and buyers was assumed to stay the same as the 2006 census shows now;
- The ability of new buyers to buy the 1st quartile home took into account earnings inflation and housing price inflation, and the proportion of new arrivals to the District with sufficient capital to put down the necessary deposit (from 2006 Census data for households by income bracket with no mortgage)

This broad approach was applied. However there were a host of minor adjustments and detailed modelling ‘fixes’ agreed between Rationale and QLDC in the process. These were generally to deal with gaps in the data. This is an extraordinary initiative with lots to commend it.

Housing Affordability: Relevant Auckland Reports

There are a number of reports that address the issue of housing affordability in Auckland. This section considers some relevant findings. For example, a report prepared for the Social and Economic Research and Monitoring Team of the Auckland Regional Council in January 2008, which analysed various CHRANZ (Centre for Housing Research, Aotearoa New Zealand) housing reports prepared beween 2003 and 2007, notes:

While a number of articles have been prepared by CHRANZ on the theme of affordability, Housing Costs and Affordability in New Zealand by DTZ Research (2004) and Local Government and Affordable Housing by CRESA and Public Policy and Research (2007) are the only reports that have specific findings relevant to Auckland region. (ARC, 2008, pg 23)

In relation to affordability in Auckland, the report summarises the 2004 DTZ findings as follows:

…over the last fifteen years, affordability across a range of measures has declined in New Zealand and of all the regions, Auckland has experienced the greatest decline in affordability for both owner-occupied housing and rental tenure. Furthermore, Auckland has been seen to have the worst regional affordability since 1989. For example, in 2000/2001, 22.8% of households in Auckland spend more than 40% of their net income on housing related costs compared to the national average of only 14.8%….

These statistics support those reported in the introduction to this draft report. Of more immediate relevance to the present research though, are the recommendations for further research that is needed to address Auckland’s housing affordability issues. It is one thing to have overall regional statistics about affordability, but it is quite another to have locally specific data which can drive or enable policy initiatives to deal with those local issues. (Note the specific data obtained by Queenstown Lakes District Council previously reported in this research).

The future research needs that are identified in the report cover the issues of definition, measurement, causes, and solutions. The report notes that DTZ (2004) recommended three areas of research, which are summarised below:

- Affordability defintion and measurement – including the development of measures that can be used at local level and with key stakeholders, and which allow for in-depth analysis of trends in affordability and local variations in affordability;
- Barriers to accessing affordable housing – focussing on the five main barriers (regulatory, governmental, institutional, land values and other market factors);
- Potential solutions.

CRESA’s (Centre for Research Evaluation and Social Assessment) work followed in 2007. This involved a survey among local and regional authorities, and included an Auckland report. Of concern was the finding that: “few (councils) were aware of the relationship between their statutory, regulatory and planning responsibilities and impacts on housing affordability…” (ARC, 2008, pg 25)

The CRESA report concluded with a set of recommendations relating to the need for councils to take a more active role in addressing local issues of housing affordability.

These are set out in full here:

- The role of local and central government needs to be agreed and clarified with regard to the promotion and provision of affordable housing.
- Central government needs to take into account approaches used overseas and ensure legislation does not hinder councils from implementing effective tools.
- An agreement between local and central government regarding new approaches to fund vulnerable groups such as people with disabilities, young people and working families.
- Local and central government needs to adopt a new housing response by working together with community and private sector agencies and organisations.
- There needs to be commitment by central and local government to capacity and capability building.
- Councils need to develop a housing strategy and relevant policies and actions for population groups who are vulnerable to unaffordable housing, leveraging housing outcomes in the community and linking housing outcomes to transport, sustainability and infrastructure outcomes. (ARC, 2008, pg 25)

Among other organisations conducting research into the issue of housing affordability in Auckland and throughout New Zealand, one that stands out is the Social Policy and Parliamentary Unit of the Salvation Army. According to its website: “New Zealand needs to develop and implement policies to permanently improve its social climate and reduce social need….”. Two of its reports are used in this report’s Housing Affordability Assessment for Manukau City.

In 2008 the Social Policy and Parliamentary Unit of the Salvation Army produced Housing Update 2008. Its introduction states:

This brief report is intended to provide those people interested in housing issues with a statistical overview of housing markets in New Zealand. Such an overview is intended to provide a basis for discussion around the future direction of housing policy over the short to medium term. The data for this report is taken entirely from public sources but has been collected and analysed in such a way that we hope will provide some useful insights for future policy discussion. (Salvation Army, 2008)

Then in 2009 the Social Policy and Parliamentary Unit of the Salvation Army produced Into Troubled Waters: A State of the Nation Report. Its introduction states:

This report Into Troubled Waters is The Salvation Army’s second annual state of the nation
report. As with the first report, What Does It Profit Us? this report tracks New Zealand’s social progress through a series of indicators. These indicators are relevant to five topic areas, our children, crime and punishment, work and incomes, social hazards and housing. (Salvation Army, 2009)

Both reports provide useful data relating to housing affordability in Manukau City.

Housing Affordability: Manukau City

Statistics New Zealand provides these 2006 census housing data for Manukau City:

- the city had 95,118 occupied dwellings
- 51.8% of households own the dwelling they live in
- the average household size in Manukau City is 3.4 people, compared with an average of 2.7 people for all of New Zealand.

Applying the ARC’s analysis that 21.7% of households in the Auckland Region pay more than 40% of household income on housing (Introduction, above), then Manukau City is home to more than 20,000 households living in housing that is not affordable.

Figure 7.2 (see download version of this research report) is drawn from Statistics New Zealand Housing Affordability tables for the whole of New Zealand. This demonstrates a significant increase in the numbers of households in private rented accommodation deemed unaffordable. Contrast this with the same data trends for homes privately owned with a mortgage shown in Figure 7.3 (see download version).

Assuming this national picture applies in Manukau City, then it is reasonable to assert that the sharpest increase in affordability difficulties are being experienced by households that are renting privately.

Further information relating to how the housing market is responding in Auckland Region is contained in Into Troubled Waters a – “State Of The Nation Report” from The Salvation Army Social Policy & Parliamentary Unit which was prepared last year. This draws attention to changes in the numbers of houses being built, at a time when Auckland’s population growth is showing no signs of slowing. The report notes in particular:

The housing market appeared to have peaked in the third quarter of 2007 and it has been more or less down hill since then. Levels of building consents have fallen to a 30 year low of around 15,000 new dwelling consents for the year ended September 2008. The downturn is especially serious in Auckland where it appears that a housing shortage of 2500 has arisen over the past year because construction rates have not kept pace with population growth. Of this shortage around 1200 are in Manukau City alone….(Salvation Army, 2009, Pg 35)

The data analysis that led to these conclusions is available in another Salvation Army report Housing Update 2008: A Report On New Zealand Housing Markets, also by The Salvation Army Social Policy & Parliamentary Unit. This reports on undersupply and oversupply of housing based on Stats NZ Growth stats. In particular, it provides the following information in relation to Auckland’s major municipal areas.

Estimates for new dwellings required are based on the current growth path each city or district appears to be on (ie. Statistics NZ low-medium-high scenario) and the 2006 average household size for each city or district…. The Auckland region’s cities (North Shore, Waitakere Auckland and Manukau) will experience a growing housing shortage if current building rates (for the year ended September 2008) are maintained. This deficit is around 2,500 houses per year with North Shore City having a deficit of 500 houses annually, Waitakere City a deficit of 400 houses, Auckland City (400 houses) and Manukau City a deficit of over 1,200 houses annually on present trends. (Salvation Army, 2008, Pg 18)

Assuming 20% as a conservative estimate of the proportion of this housing shortage that would be needed to meet the needs of those on low incomes (based on the ARC’s implicit policy that no more than 40% of household income should need to be spent on housing, and its finding that 21.7% of households in Auckland are now spending in excess of that amount), then the annual shortage of new affordable housing in Manukau City for its growing population is about 250 homes.

NB: It should be noted that this figure relates to future housing needs and does not describe those families who are now living in conditions deemed unaffordable.

The question then becomes - how might this shortage be met?

Manukau City Council’s 2009-2019 Long Term Council Community Plan (LTCCP) sets out the Council’s own plans in regard to Council Housing.

The “Big Picture” section of the LTCCP sets out Council’s population projections as follows: 2006 (329,000), 2016 (417,000), 2026 (490,000) etc.

The “Housing for the Elderly” section of the LTCCP lists the locations and numbers of around 500 Council Homes that are provided in Manukau City by the Council. The Ten Year plan explicitly provides for the maintenance and renewals of these assets. However there is no policy to increase their numbers. (Manukau LTCCP 2009, Community Services, Pg 66)

It is difficult to discern the precise intentions of Government in regard to the provision of affordable housing in Manukau City through its agency Housing Corporation of New Zealand, however its intentions regarding the future of state housing numbers in the neighbouring area of Tamaki are clearly set out on the Frequently Asked Questions section of its website:

Will the numbers of Housing New Zealand homes be reduced?
Housing New Zealand Corporation currently owns 56 per cent of the state housing in Tamaki. While more houses will be built over time, the existing number of state houses is not going to change. This is a commitment by Housing New Zealand, through the Programme, to the Tamaki community. A greater mix of housing will be encouraged, including private ownership. (HNZC, 2009) (Emphasis added)

This gives effect to the general thrust of Government’s Housing policy which was established under the previous Labour Party led Government in 2005 (HNZC, 2005). The foreword of this strategy, entitled: “Building the Future: The New Housing Strategy”, includes these statements by the then Minister of Housing – Steven Maharey:

…while the state retains its long-standing role as the largest landlord in the country, most New Zealanders house themselves without government assistance. The Government remains committed to ensuring those on low or modest incomes or with special housing needs receive the help they require to find and stay in affordable, good quality housing…

…Housing is more than building houses: it is as much about building community as it is about people’s homes…

…The shift towards increased community-based housing, more affordable homeownership opportunities, and a mix of new housing reflecting community diversity is re-mapping our landscape…

…State houses have been an important feature of New Zealand housing since the late 1930s and will remain so. Increasingly, they will be alongside housing provided by other community partners. Housing choices and designs of the future will inevitably grow from what has gone before… (HNZC, 2005, Pg 2)

The language used here is the language of change and of choice. In respect of state housing in the absence of clear and strong commitment to continuity and expansion of provision, the language expressed in this foreword is equivocal at best.

If neither Housing New Zealand nor Manukau City Council are committed to matching the increasing affordable housing needs of a growing population, who will?

Then there is the matter of stress. As noted previously in this report, crowding, or over-crowding in a home can lead to social problems such as poor health (due to people living in close proximity), to learning difficulties (children being unable to find space to do homework), and conflict (one bathroom being shared among a number of adults for example). ....

The crowding problem among European households has halved from 5% of European households in 1987 to under 2.5% in 2004, while for Maori households it has only dropped marginally from 16% of all Maori households being crowded in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, to just over 10% in 2004. It is likely the same crowding issue applies to a similar proportion of households occupied by Pacific families also.

Research summarised in other parts of the report suggests that while some crowding may be attributable to the extended family culture of Pacific Peoples, it also stems from economic necessity – the more earners in one household the more affordable it becomes. Uncrowding today’s crowded Pacific family occupied houses may only result in an increase in the numbers of families living unaffordably.

Auckland: Are You Ready for More Sprawl?

This blog: contains an introduction to Auckland's MUL policy; a short account of what Government's agenda appears to be; plus some useful international accounts looking at the need to provide for all of the costs of development - when making the case for/or against sprawl.

In my time serving as an elected representative in Auckland local government (12 years), I came to the firm view that there were three local initiatives that will make a difference to the direction, economic efficiency, and social equity of Auckland's development:

• the Metropolitan Urban Limit (MUL) policy enshrined in the Auckland Growth Strategy


• the ability to charge Developer Levies on new land use developments


• the strategy to transfer $1 billion (over 10 years) from State Highway development to Public Transport investment

Like many large Western cities enthralled by the American Post War motorcar and motorway miracle, Auckland has battled with the consequences (eg escalating travel demands and congestion), and struggled to plan its way out of the trap we all find ourselves in. My research suggests that Vancouver - while I agree it's not perfect - found itself in the same trap around 20 years ago - and after adopting a growth strategy - has managed to change the direction of its development to one which more strongly supports compact development over the taking of rural land for edge urban development. But it has been hard, and there is always that temptation and pressure from those seeking the quick returns of new subdivision.

A few years ago I was invited by Connal Townsend to attend an informal meeting of the Property Council. I was asked to share my ideas and thoughts about the Growth Strategy and Public Transport investment. A number of major players in Auckland's property development industry were present. Some were very direct in their criticisms of Councils when attempts were made to progress "brownfield" redevelopment within existing urban environment. "Too hard", was the catch- phrase. "Not worth the candle".

But probably the most honest was the comment, "Joel, if you ask me to choose between buying an investment block just outside the MUL, or buying a CBD block for redevelopment, I'm going to buy the rural block everytime. You guys are going to fold...."

Around the same time I found myself sitting next to back-bencher Phil Heatley in a plane. He spoke of the frustration of being in Parliament all those years, but without the ability to influence anything. I talked about Auckland and its development. He made no secret of his distaste of the MUL, but he seemed very uniformed about Auckland issues. He left me with the clear impression that: "the MUL would be gone by lunchtime, when National gets into Government."

I accept that Auckland's planning has needed change and improvement, to provide stronger incentives around compact development and urban regeneration projects, as well as lining up the funding institutions to assist where holding costs become a major stumbling block. It was never enough just to have a tight strangle hold on the metropolitan urban limit.

Councils have been reluctant to rezone urban land to allow for greater densities and building heights. The rhetoric of "dog boxes" and "rabbit hutch apartments" has been enough to make local communities take fright, and take to the streets to stop any change in their neighbourhoods. NIMBY'ism can be a very powerful thing. But it also stands in the way of a city region fighting to provide the range of housing types and sizes and environments, to meet the very diverse needs of Auckland's cosmopolitan community.

These failures and problems are among those that led to calls for Auckland's local governance to be strengthened, so that its plans and strategies could be actually implemented. Then there was a change of Government. And the reins of change have been seized by those with rather different priorities. The recession has added urgency to Central Government's determination to deliver short-term growth and productivity. Public funded infrastructure is a big part of its program to generate jobs and keep unemployment from getting above 7% (but it is).

And now we have Nelson's very own Dr Nick Smith (Minister of Environment), working with Whangarei's Phil Heatley (Minister of Housing), and pushing a very strong pro development, pro growth, pro "affordable housing", program, which appears to have at its heart the goal of doing away with Auckland's Metropolitan Urban Limit.

"Pushing the Boundaries" was the title of an excellent Saturday Review piece in the NZ Herald last Saturday (13th Feb 2010: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10625802)

It was a good 2 page spread on what is in store for Auckland as the next stage of Government land use planning reforms gather speed. Key quotes:

Smith: "Smith linked restrictive zoning and consent laws to NZ's poor productivity and economic growth..."

(My Comment: In fact the major cost drag on Auckland's economy is the sheer energy and time cost of transport. A full 13% of Auckland's GDP is expended in transport. This compares very unfavourably with modern Asian cities (6%), and European cities (8%). Smith is really only speaking about the gold rush that comes from new land being released. Developers love that gold rush profit, but for a long time afterwards those who buy into it pay excessively for transport and other costs. I suspect Smith is only interested in short term gains - not long term development. Smith has never understood Auckland.)

Heatley: "our drive comes from the fact that property proces have increased hugely ... locked out first time buyers... the biggest propertion has been the land cost, not the cost of building..."

(My Comment: This is the classic case of Heatley wanting to externalise infrastructure costs. Land costs today - because of developer levies - now include some of the related infrastructure costs - roading, 3 waters. For North Shore these "land development costs" can be up round $30,000/housing unit. And even thenm this figure does not adequately cover the full costs of new infrastructure. BTW these developer levies are much less for a new lot built in the heart of existing urban setting.)

The cheapest housing in Auckland is in the South West. It's where a lot of deprived and low income families live. This is Auckland's urban wasteland. Many households live in rented accommodation. But that's not where the bulk of the family income is spent. In fact it is spend on transport. There is very poor public transport here. So - no alternative travel options. Shops and employment and education options are all a decent car trip away. So every mission requires a car trip.

Big families, big cars, cheap and energy inefficient cars. That is what Auckland people get when "affordable housing" is built at the edge. Surveys are showing that a sizeable number of these households are spending upwards of 30% of the household income on transport. These families will not be able to afford to buy a house - not because it may be too much for them - but because their transport priorities must come first - and it is these costs that mean they cannot afford to buy a house. That is the reality.

I was a commissioner with Cllrs Walbran and Glenn for a private application to ARC to release land from outside the MUL for 1000 houses at Papakura. The development application was to build 1000 houses. That was it. Nothing else. No shops. No public amenity like a school or a kindy or anything else to relieve the expense and pain of being isolated away from the services and amenity that most Auckland dwellers have come to expect as normal to urban life.

Agreeing to that development would condemn many more households to lives in relatively cheap houses, but with huge transport and access costs that would have to be born and paid for every day. It is these costs that need to be included when assessing affordability. Let alone the social costs associated with isolation, loss of sense of community etc. These are the long term costs of poorly planned - but apparently "affordable" housing.

These costs need to be counted and included.

This is the lesson from other countries and other cities that have though about these matters rather more deeply than our Ministers. A good summary of papers and reports for and against can be found at: http://www.psrc.org/assets/2032/appIF14-sprawl.pdf

That report contains a good summary of arguments for and against sprawl. I reproduce it here:

Arguments in Defence of Sprawl	Counter Arguments
• Development is cheaper in suburban/rural areas	• True, but real costs are not measured. Adjoining municipalities often subsidize the more extensive and less efficient infrastructure needed for sprawl development.
• The additional cost of sprawl is privately provided indicating people’s willingness to pay more for sprawl and their desire for sprawl	• Again, real costs are not reflected in the price of sprawl development. Adjoining municipalities often subsidize the more extensive and less efficient infrastructure needed for sprawl development.
• People prefer low density development over high density development	• Survey results showing more people preferring low density development can be misleading due to varying perceptions of "high density." Surveys that use visual examples are more useful and show that many are willing to sacrifice low density and more square footage for better designed homes with a range of nearby amenities.
• Residential development in rural areas produces public revenues in excess of public costs	• "Working" land, such as in agricultural production provides revenues in excess of public costs.
• Commutes are shorter in suburbs	• Due to growing suburb-to-suburb commuting, travel to work may be shorter for many workers, but more trips are necessary because of separated uses. Trips are longer and there are few alternatives for those who can’t drive.
• Cars are the most versatile form of transportation and as cars get more fuel efficient and less polluting, environmental impacts will no longer be a concern	• Cars are still a long way from being environmentally friendly, but even if they were totally clean, it does not solve the problem of loss of wildlife habitat, resource consumption, traffic congestion or traffic fatalities resulting from sprawl type road infrastructure and lack of sidewalks or bike lanes. Auto dependent development also prevents non-drivers from having choices in how to get around. 32% of the U.S population can’t drive.
• We are able to grow more crops with less land and labour, so prime farmland being lost to development is bunk	• The problem is where and what land is being lost. Productive farmland close to urban centers is being lost. New land could be brought into agricultural production but often at high economic and environmental cost. Also the farther farmlands must move from urban centers—where the consumers are—the more inefficient it is to bring products to market, especially for smaller farms selling their produce in local markets.

Table. Prevailing Arguments in Defence of Sprawl and the Counterarguments

This debate is only just getting started in Auckland.

I hope that Auckland Regional Council can lift its head from trying to shoehorn a $97 million cruise ship terminal onto Queens Wharf, and extract the labour of its expert staff from being forced help for the Auckland Transition Agency, to engage with this issue, and drive a strong public debate in defence of the regional development policies it has been responsible for adopting and championing.