Reinventing Auckland, Simon? If Only We Could!
SIMON WILSON is an odd fellow – with some odd opinions. Here, for example, is his opinion on the general response to the National Government’s forced amalgamation of Auckland, North Shore, Waitakere and Manukau cities. “Aucklanders were cynical about everything before he [Len Brown] and the supercity came along in 2010. But we lost that cynicism and we set about reinventing the city.”
I would be most annoyed if I thought Simon was including me in that “we”. Long before the legislation setting up the supercity came into force the level of my cynicism was already off the scale.
Everything about the supercity’s establishment: from the man chosen to oversee the process (the Act Party leader, Rodney Hide) to the deliberate exclusion of the people of the Auckland region from any meaningful say in whether or not the merger of their four cities should finally proceed; highlighted the profoundly anti-democratic spirit in which the entire process was conceived.
The reason for this hostility to democracy wasn’t difficult to discern. Far from being a bottom-up exercise: driven by angry residents’ from across the Auckland region; the supercity was a top-down exercise: the joint creation of local and national elites. Their common purpose? To create a model for local government in the neoliberal era. And the central feature of that model? The almost total disempowerment of the citizens of Auckland and their elected representatives.
The full measure of the supercity’s creators’ contempt for democracy was revealed in the proposed size of the supercity’s “Governing Body”. In the equivalent decision-making structures of Auckland, North Shore, Waitakere and Manukau cities, the ratio of elected representatives to citizens was roughly 1:15,000. In the new supercity it would be 1:70,000! Supercity councillors were being asked to represent more citizens than a directly elected Member of Parliament.
My own level of cynicism (and, I suspect, the cynicism of thousands of other Aucklanders) was in no way lessened by the Ports of Auckland dispute. It was during this brutal test of strength between the supposedly municipally-owned Port and its employees that Aucklanders learned just how misnamed their “Council Controlled Organisations” (CCOs) truly were.
Aucklanders elected representatives turned out to be equally mischaracterised. Far from being the people’s democratic tribunes, Auckland’s elected councillors proved to be little more than powerless pawns. The real game was controlled by legally cocooned CCO boards of directors – over whom the so-called “Governing Body” (including the Mayor) exercised no effective control whatsoever.
Indeed, so politically impotent was the Mayor made to feel in relation to the day-to-day management of National’s neoliberal supercity, that the poor fellow felt obliged to demonstrate his potency “by other means”. A better symbol of Auckland’s vast democratic deficit than Len’s and Bevan’s affair is difficult to imagine. The brutal truth revealed was that the Mayor’s Office is good for very little else!
Even Brown’s signal achievement: the National Government’s final approval of his beloved City Rail Link; owes as much to the projected massive inflation of property values along its inner-city route, as it does to any rational realignment of Auckland’s public transport system.
In his latest Metro article, Simon Wilson opines that the job facing the next Mayor of Auckland is “not simply to produce incremental improvements with greater efficiency and better relations with the government in Wellington. Auckland has fallen into crisis. Growth has far outstripped expectations. Housing policies have had a catastrophic outcome. A big vision is required, all over again, and bold execution has to follow.”
Except, of course, the whole point of the neoliberal supercity is to ensure that “big visions” and “bold execution” in the pursuit of anything other than neoliberal objectives is rendered impossible. (That the Unitary Plan was so heavily promoted by the National Government and the Auckland City bureaucracy, both of whom threatened dire consequences should the councillors fail to approve it, tells us all we need to know about the document’s ideological complexion!) As a tried and tested neoliberal himself, Phil Goff gets this. Producing “incremental improvements with greater efficiency” constitutes the outer limits of his political imagination. It’s what makes him the perfect candidate.
Poor Simon. He seems to have been both surprised and distressed to learn that in a Citizen Insights Monitor survey released by the Auckland Council in June 2016, “just 15 per cent of us said we were satisfied with the council’s performance. Only 17 per cent of us said we trust it. This is disgraceful.”
Really, Simon? Disgraceful? Frankly, I’m astounded as many as 17 percent of Aucklanders place any trust at all in National’s neoliberal supercity. I do, however, understand completely why 83 percent of us find little, if anything, to like about the “governance” of the unresponsive bureaucratic monstrosity into whose tender care we were delivered without so much as a confirming referendum.
Nor am I surprised that only 35 percent of eligible voters bothered to return their ballots in 2013. Not when the people elected by those ballots are so bereft of power that – even if they wanted to – it wouldn’t be “within the purview of their lawful governance function” to make the trains run on time.
In terms of empowering the people who live within its boundaries, there’s nothing I’d rather do, Simon, than “reinvent” the Auckland supercity. It’s why I’m voting for Chloe Swarbrick. Not because she stands the slightest chance of winning, but because, alone of all the Mayoral candidates, she demonstrates some understanding of just how much we have lost.
Councillors are there to be whipping boys for the government every time something goes wrong, it seems
Yes EP you are so right.
These Local bodies have been reduced to stool pigeons and do now everything Government tell them to do sadly just more erosion of our fragile dying democracy.
There are quite a few of us who remember Simon from way way back Chris.
The Burma Road Onslow College faux ‘leftie’.
I admire some of his journalistic endeavours, and he’s certainly not stupid.
He does however, come from a position of relative privilege and always has.
If I can put it this way …. he may well be capable of sympathy, but never empathy, principle so long as there is no personal cost.
He’s been doing the shift ‘right’, even cultivating mannerisms, ever since Consumer.
It’s hard to be left at times though when one is a complete woose.
Quoted from Chris’ post above:
“The reason for this hostility to democracy wasn’t difficult to discern. Far from being a bottom-up exercise: driven by angry residents’ from across the Auckland region; the supercity was a top-down exercise: the joint creation of local and national elites. Their common purpose? To create a model for local government in the neoliberal era. And the central feature of that model? The almost total disempowerment of the citizens of Auckland and their elected representatives.”
“The full measure of the supercity’s creators’ contempt for democracy was revealed in the proposed size of the supercity’s “Governing Body”. In the equivalent decision-making structures of Auckland, North Shore, Waitakere and Manukau cities, the ratio of elected representatives to citizens was roughly 1:15,000. In the new supercity it would be 1:70,000! Supercity councillors were being asked to represent more citizens than a directly elected Member of Parliament.”
And I read the following also in agreement:
“Poor Simon. He seems to have been both surprised and distressed to learn that in a Citizen Insights Monitor survey released by the Auckland Council in June 2016, “just 15 per cent of us said we were satisfied with the council’s performance. Only 17 per cent of us said we trust it. This is disgraceful.”
Really, Simon? Disgraceful? Frankly, I’m astounded as many as 17 percent of Aucklanders place any trust at all in National’s neoliberal supercity. I do, however, understand completely why 83 percent of us find little, if anything, to like about the “governance” of the unresponsive bureaucratic monstrosity into whose tender care we were delivered without so much as a confirming referendum.
Nor am I surprised that only 35 percent of eligible voters bothered to return their ballots in 2013.”
This time Chris seems to have been in a sound mindset when writing this post. At times I wonder, about some of his bizarre comments in the odd other posts.
But yes, Auckland is a huge failed project, where the ordinary citizen has little or no real input and no voice in what will be done and how it will be done.
Having followed with interest the hearings on the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan, and witnessed how there were many closed door meetings between the planners and legal representatives of Auckland Council with various large, vested business interest holding submitters, to “discuss” certain “details” or “issues” in the proposed combined regional and district plan, I know that what we finally got was NOT the result of wide “consultation” with the ordinary Aucklanders!
I was flabbergasted about the recommendations a so-called “independent” hearing panel (appointed by a Minister of the government) made to Auckland Council only a couple of months ago. This was a “Plan” that was a developer’s dream come true, it was a plan the ACT Party could not have better recommended. Of course it was largely matching the ideas of central government, I wonder why?! The Prime Minister, Finance Minister and also Nick Smith the Minister for Housing as I remember, they all expressed veiled threats to the Council, and sent messages that the “independent” panel will also have heard.
So much for due process, a supposedly “independent” process and “democratic” process.
And then Auckland Council basically waved all recommendations through, without a few exceptions, strange that, while some had been verbally opposed about a fair bit of the proposed plan before. At least they kept the minimum dwelling size rules, but that is of course not a guaranteed minimum rule, as Council officers will have a lot of discretion under the new plan to allow exceptions to the rule.
Auckland City is not ruled by the people of Auckland, as the candidates for the coming local body elections try to make us believe, it is basically run from the Committee for Auckland and the elite in the city and country.
http://www.committeeforauckland.co.nz/
And look at this, the “members” of that Committee:
http://www.committeeforauckland.co.nz/membership/members
You can see the vested business interests joining the ones of Council’s CCOs and some large institutions. We can see for instance also the developers and property investment holders, such as the Kiwi Income Property Trust, Todd Property Group Limited, Precinct, The Property Council of New Zealand and large construction firms such as Hawkins and Fletcher Building. There are other big and medium size businesses, and they have the voice and power behind the Council, with whom they determine what will go and what will not.
The Unitary Plan hearings, mediation and so forth were a farcical exercise, so are many other “hearings” and “consultations” Council holds, merely to appear to be “democratic”.
Community Groups were shafted, they were misled to believe they were actually getting “heard” with their concerns, and that they would have any “input”. Whether it was about historic heritage, environmental concerns, about concerns about intensification and significant changes to existing neighbourhoods, it was in the end all treated as irrelevant, and the large business and developer submitters got it largely their ways.
Len Brown was seized by the vested interest holding business and other lobbyists, so will Phil Goff or any other one of the “leading” contenders for the role of Mayor. That one voice will not count for much, unless it is a deciding vote (occasionally).
The agenda seems to be to nearly double the population, growth for growth sake is the goal, more profits for business, incl. builders, developers and various investors, and more rates for Council. Never mind sustainability concerns, like shortage of water, lack of money for large infrastructure projects and so forth. The people will pay more for less in the end, wait and see, and have to live in small and overpriced dwellings, as affordable housing will NOT be the result of the Unitary Plan and what else will come.
I am not at all surprised that barely 35 percent of those entitled to vote last time, I bet this time the number may be even lower. I have NO faith in Auckland Council and local body elections anymore, I will protest vote, possibly for Penny Bright, as I had enough of this crap.
I wish people would wake up, but most are poorly informed or simply have a servile mercenary mentality, making their own accommodations with the powerful players, and keeping the status quo. Others simply no longer care.
Democracy in Auckland and for that sake in New Zealand is almost buried deep under the ground, RIP Democracy, Mammon ate you during the process of neoliberal virtual capitalist dictators taking hold of the show.
Simon Wilson is part of the problem, he and other once upon a time “progressive minded” persons have settled and made their peace with the neoliberal establishment, with the forces of big and medium size business.
Somewhat patronising these professional “urban liberals” have decided to collaborate with the neoliberals, to suit their own interests, and those they claim they want to “assist”.
All they do is maintain the status quo and stabilise it, so the ones running the show, e.g. the Committee for Auckland, have an easier game to turn the city upside down to make ever more money, in profits, and for the Council in rates revenue.
Auckland will become just another “Babel” like so many other big, failed cities all over the world, with its slums, choking traffic, beggars (we already have) and pollution and endless strain on limited resources.
But the “voices” of the ones like Simon, they will one day be remembered, by those later affected, as the ones of the misguided establishment that once was and created the mess future generations may have to live with.
But Auckland failed long ago, following the urban sprawl and large shopping mall madness of US cities, importing a lifestyle destined to history was a huge mistake that many New Zealanders will have to pay a high price for not too far in the future.
Those responsible will then be gone, and their statues will stand around, reminding others of once mad hatters that set the wrong agenda and direction.
Auckland Unitary Plan, Special Housing Areas and other political BULLSHIT:
First they announce how land is “opened up” for supposedly “affordable housing”:
‘Avondale land opens up to developers for affordable housing’
http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/western-leader/68877759/avondale-land-opens-up-to-developers-for-affordable-housing
“Brand new, affordable housing could be coming to Avondale as soon as 2017 – and developers are wanted to make it happen.
Auckland Council-owned land overlooking Avondale Racecourse has been freed up for a new housing development.
Council architects have drawn up plans, featuring 25 two and three bedroom terraced houses, showing what the development could like.
The 3498 square metre site located on Racecourse Parade, previously occupied by the Suburbs Rugby Club, was included in the fourth batch of Special Housing Areas announced by council last year.”
A year later we learn that about half of new apartments have been sold to INVESTORS!
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/83957821/big-interest-in-new-auckland-housing-development
“Half of the 72 units in a new development in the Auckland suburb of Avondale have been sold to investors.
Ockham Residential is behind the new Set buildings that are being developed near the Avondale Jockey Club on 26 Racecourse Parade.
Ground will be broken on the Avondale project on September 8 with construction to take one year to complete.”
“Ockham property developer Mark Todd says that 50 per cent of buyers are local investors, however, they are hoping more owner-occupiers will purchase remaining units.”
SMALL APARTMENT DWELLINGS ONLY, BUT AT A PRICE:
“The price of the apartments range from $430,000 to $820,000 with the smallest being 53sqm.”
“Todd says the company has kept the price point affordable by building only one and two bedroom units or one bedroom with a study.”
“Panuku Development Auckland sold the land to Ockham and are leading development of the new Avondale Town Centre. Panuku is currently in discussion with Housing New Zealand on a number of sites in the area.”
So we are going to seem more like this in the future, that is the housing that is deemed affordable, suitable for singles, or couples with no kids, or perhaps one kid, no or little garden to use, and expensive so to tie people up in debt for a lifetime, just for such small apartments.
Welcome to the future, and this is probably even the better side of things to come.
I have NO faith in the people that run Auckland now, and will have no faith in Goff, Crone or Thomas or who else is likely to be voted in by the majority dim-headed people that still bother to vote (usually those ratepayers and with property already).
I’m not. That’s about the estimated number of the population that make up the psychopaths and their dedicated followers.