Owen McShane on Super City

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

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

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

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

Here are my main reports on the issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So. What about the Royal Commision?

It's been an interesting day. Absorbing the Auckland Royal Commission's report - well - the Executive Summary, listening to comment, watching TVNZ's report, and we had an ARC Council briefing at 2:30 today. It's been enlightening. But there's still a few clouds over Auckland with these recommendations.

My first positive thoughts were these: good to see regional governance strengthened; good to see second level of local government retained with entities based around the existing North Shore, Waitakere, Auckland and Manukau City structures, and Rodney District, and Papakura combined with Franklin.

And it was interesting to see the approach to Auckland City: separate Auckland CBD and Waterfront and give special treatment through direct governance by Auckland Council, and local input through an Auckland CBD and Waterfront Community Board. That would be a doozey of a community board to be on!

But I was disturbed to see Community Boards generally abolished - except for the obvious examples retained at Waiheke and Barrier Islands.

I was also disturbed to see the recommendations regarding Auckland City Council mayoral power. I don't think Auckland is ready for that sort of executive power at all.

The Commission has recommended that Auckland's elected-at-large mayor should have these additional powers and duties:

• power to appoint the deputy mayor (currently done by majority of council members);


• power to appoint the chairs of each committee of the Auckland Council (currently done by majority of council members);


• power to chair committees as he or she may determine;


• power to propose the draft LTCCP and the draft annual plan to Auckland Council;


• power to propose the budget;


• power to initiate and formulate major policy for consideration by council;


• power to establish and maintain an appropriately staffed office;


• power to obtain independent advice.

That's a lot of powers!

It also recommends interestingly - that the mayor should have four annual meetings with members of the public "mayors days"; and meet monthly with the chairs of the 6 local councils; and have quarterly plenary meetings with all councillors and chairs from across the region (around 70 would be in the chamber for those meetings.)

The degree of centralised decision-making, and the lack of grassroots local government is the main concern I have. This is not the same as the model advocated by ARC: "the one and the many". This is: "the one and the few", but without the truly local.

The functions of the local level of local government that have been proposed by the royal commission - essentially as the local delivery point of centrally governed services and policies, and with a strong responsibility for being Auckland Council's "ears and eyes" into the local community - means that it will be difficult for that role to be further decentralised.

It might make sense for Area Offices to be maintained throughout each Local Council Area. But that might be thought wasteful.

The challenge - I think - is for those supporting the abolition of community boards to demonstrate that the functions today of good and well-functioning community boards can be well provided by the proposed local councils. Conversely - those wanting some form of community board - or equivalent function - to be retained need to argue why, and also how that might happen. Difficult. But unless this is done well and responsibly, there is real risk here of the local baby being thrown out with the regional governance bathwater.

On a detailed front, things I like about the Royal Commission recommendations, in no particular order, include:

• stuff about the waterfront like: an emphasis on urban design, management and planning; that future waterfront development be done by an agency with a masterplan - "as opposed to the present piecemeal approach" - hooray!


• integration of water and wastewater especially that water and wastewater will be charged volumetrically and that there is to be an independent services performance auditor and that Watercare will be required by legislation to promote demand management. Boy. Watercare has long needed that....


• that Auckland council is to appoint a parks ranger responsible for volcanic cones!


• that the 6 local councils (4 urban, 2 district) won't have elected mayors, they'll appoint chairs.


• that North Shore City will become Waitemata and include the urban developed Hibiscus Coast part of Rodney (basically Whangapaoroa (sp?) and Orewa, and encompass the Busway from Takapuna through to Silverdale).


• that elected councillors will be prohibited from being appointed to CCOs (like Auckland Regional Holdings, Watercare, RTA (made from ARTA), the proposed Urban Development Agency etc).


• that local roads will still be controlled by Local Councils as they exercise their "place making" or "place shaping" roles.


• particular recognition is given that stormwater management need to be shared between Watercare and the Local Councils. This is a complex issue.


• that Auckland Council should develop a regional waste management strategy, including for organic waste, and integration of waste management with other encironmental programmes. About time I say.

Anyway. While I can get excited about this stuff, at the moment it's only a set of recommendations. Though the Royal Commission has also gone to the trouble of drafting legislation to implement its recommendations. But it won't happen until Government enacts the required legislation.

Do you think Government will want an Auckland Mayor as powerful as London's Mayor of Greater London Council? Depends which Party puts him/her in there I guess. But that's a political lottery. When I was in Curitiba Brazil I met Jaime Lerner - the famous ex-mayor of that city. Did some amazing stuff. Had huge personal power. But that was South America. And London is very established. Auckland is in between. I don't think it's ready for the sort of individual mayoral power that the commissioners would like.

But I could be persuaded.