Voting papers for the local body elections are starting to be delivered today and so it’s perhaps a good reminder to not only make sure you vote but that you carefully consider who you vote for. From what I have seen so far it appears that perhaps the key issue this election will be the Unitary Plan and debates about intensification. The plan doesn’t get formally notified for another 10 days but even then it is unlikely that many people (in the overall scheme of things) will actually bother to look at it. One of the big concerns I have is that large amounts of scaremongering and misinformation will occur.
In some ways we are already seeing that happen. Mayoral candidate John Palino has been very busy recently claiming to anyone who will listen that Len Brown is trying to keep the plan secret until it is too late.
He said many voters would have returned their voting papers before getting a chance to see the materialisation of Mayor Len Brown’s agenda for Auckland. “This is truly outrageous. Residents must at the very least be given the opportunity to see these plans before they vote.
“How can the people of Howick and Pakuranga not be allowed access to this information before unaware voters are sent electoral papers this weekend? What other suburbs in Auckland have suffered the same fate?” he said.
Of course this is despite the fact the draft plan has been out in the public since March and a large proportion of the key changes to it have already been signalled.
Elsewhere in what many are considering to be one of the main contests of this time around, C&R candidate Denise Krum has been complaining about building heights for some time.
In her latest of three election pamphlets, in which she labels her rival a “career politician” of more than 25 years’ standing, the 42-year-old businesswoman and mother of two also blasts the council’s Unitary Plan intensification blueprint with its proposed allowances of six-storey housing around the centres of Onehunga, Royal Oak and Panmure, and eight storeys in Glen Innes, as too intense.
What is interesting about the centres mentioned is that only Glen Innes has been unchanged since the original draft. Panmure and Royal Oak have both seen the maximum height reduced while in Onehunga the height limit has been increased but has retained specific restrictions around Onehunga Mall and volcanic cone view shafts. These changes would have been made due to the feedback to the local board and the fact Onehunga saw an increase is good evidence that not everyone is opposed to height. Denise has also put out this graph suggesting that even two storeys is too much.
Transport is also going to be a key discussion point in these elections – although perhaps not quite as much as it would have otherwise been had the government not reluctantly agreed to support the CRL (on a delayed timeframe). Positively it appears that not too many people are campaigning on against much needed projects like the CRL. This perhaps represents that much improved public transport is now becoming an issue that simply can’t be ignored in Auckland local body politics.
One problem that exists is that just reading the short blurb that each candidate writes in the booklet that comes with voting papers often doesn’t give a true indication to the candidate’s thoughts. It is very easy for them to say they want to improve public transport or that they want more affordable housing and less sprawl but it is how they would actually go about doing that that is perhaps more important.
To help people make their decisions and provide more information our good friends at Generation Zero have been working hard to interview every single candidate standing for either mayor or a council seat to get more information on their views about these topics (doing local boards would have been too much work sorry). The results aren’t quite ready yet but they will be available from Wednesday next week so we will let you know the results then.
I had a look at the blurbs for the candidates (available at http://www.voteauckland.co.nz/) for my area (Botany subdivision, Howick Local Board/Ward) and I have to say that I am extremely disappointed at my options. Apart from the fact that Dick Quax and Sharon Stewart are already elected because no one else stood (I would have voted for ANYONE but them), all the local board candidates appear to have identical priorities: Keep rates as low as possible, running everything like a business and keep intensification as low as possible. I don’t know why I should even bother voting to be honest. The best I can hope is that it’s a close race for mayor and my one vote there made a difference.
I have sympathy for you. We really do seem to lack enough high quality candidates for local government, even in Auckland where a councillor’s job is pretty important.
you could strike out every candidate, a high proportion of invalid votes would send to pollies a signal that they’re not favoured
Denise has been shilling and shrieking about the Unitary Plan for a while now but at the same time shows a lack of understanding of the current processes of the Unitary Plan at this stage of the game.
As for Palino well you just want to bang your head against the desk every time he either says something or has Yahoo publish one of his pieces. Oh check this too while you are at it: http://www.scribd.com/doc/169266139/Palino-Fail0001 I am sure my political marketing papers at University taught me NOT to do that in an advertisement space. I did also did just catch this scanning the Papakura Courier just now: http://www.scribd.com/doc/169550136/Palino-in-Pukekohe0001
That Pukekohe meeting should be interesting to watch. With the residents out there rather hesitant to any more sprawl eating the prime rural land out there I wonder how Palino is going to sell his Unitary Plan message with him wanting to bottle brownfield intensification that would slow down the greenfield sprawl.
However, what these two show is the lack of clear understanding with where the UP heads next.
In part the Unitary Plan is now independent of the elections. Any candidate or incumbent suggesting that the Unitary Plan should be withdrawn from notification (slowed down) is meddling with the democratic process for their own and their minority supporter interests. Why? Because the notification stage is where we – the voter can make our submissions in both supporting aspects of the Unitary Plan and what changes we would like to see in the final version of the document. After our submissions we then go through the Hearings process (three long years) where the Independent Commissions hear our submissions, cross examine, deliberate and then make the final recommendations on the Unitary Plan.
Of course Council CAN appeal (I think others can too) which would stall the UP out for who knows how long. But I would suspect it would be the 2016-2019 Council that would be the ones doing the final preparation or making appeals before the UP operative after the Hearings rather than the 2016-2019 Council that we are currently electing.
So Council’s turn is over until after the Hearings are complete. They have made their changes before the Plan became notified now it is OUR turn to gun for changes.
If the Council did swing and withdraw the Unitary Plan from notification, tinker with it and then put it back to notification the primary risk is two fold:
1) Government over rides because Council took too damn long
2) We in the submission process reject those changes any how resulting in effectively the Council just wasted our time and money in the earlier instance. Rather dumb especially as the Conservatives keep banging on about the current incumbents wasting money as is…
So Denise, you will vote to stop the madness? More like earn the absolute ire of the Central Government for wasting their time (as the Housing Accord is also dependent on the Unitary Plan being notified) Wasting our money re-litigating the Unitary Plan when the public is already preparing to make submissions on what changes we want to see in the UP. Thinking you know best by withdrawing the UP from notification and making the “changes” yourself rather than the public being allowed to do so from September 30? Run the risk of having your “recommendations” thrown back out when we get back to the submission process? Seems like what you are trying to do is utter mad!
Back to Palino ranting on about the plan being secret? Had enough amusement on Facebook with that one already…
I see that Denise Krum is a former president of United Future and also 2011 National Party list candidate. Being placed below Aaron Gilmore on the list is hardly the best endorsement!
Krum is one of my local candidates. Her leaflets have confirmed my initial decision to not expend my vote on a CitRat in disguise.
Will Gen0 be actually posting the interviews or just making an endorsement pack?
Na not posting interviews, much too boring! But posting scores on the four topics, and an overall score. Also a few line summary of each of the topics.
To be fair, there is still a lot of secrecy. The special housing accord areas will be…?
What effect will this have on existing communities?
It went to the current council this week, but it’s confidential.
How can I cast an informed vote?
True Tamaki. I’m still pissed off that elected Councilors couldn’t see everything in the UP.
With any luck our next Mayor and Council will have the balls to take the power from the unelected officers and get it into public control. It’s crazy in there apparently..
Not sure what you’re talking about Geoff given that the Councillors seem to have had quite a lot of power to significantly water down the Unitary Plan in the last few weeks.
Hi Louis. I guess you haven’t been following the UP very closely. A while back Sandra Coney asked to see some key info before council were expected to vote on the UP. The officers wouldn’t let her. It was quite a scandal. Surprised you haven’t heard of it..
It wasn’t the contents of the UP that were withheld. Was a legal opinion about the link between policy and rules. Don’t agree with it being withheld, but wouldn’t have made a big difference.
No reply button available on the comment below, but regardless, there will be very significant special housing zones set up, and what looks like transfer of crown land, and the public won’t know before they cast their vote.
I went along to the Waitemata & Gulf Ward candidates meeting organised by the Parnell Trust on Wednesday. My ward seems to be pitting the left-leaning City Vision candidates against the right leaning Team Waitemata, with a smattering of independents in the mix. The major council candidates (for one slot), appear to be Mike Lee (left-leaning, incumbent, big on PT, but inexplicably voted for lots of density controls in the UP debates), Rob Thomas (left-leaning, independent, young and energetic), and Greg Moyle (right-leaning, spent of his speech cataloguing things he’d been elected to rather than actual policies). The Q&A session after the candidate presentations got a bit hijacked by some very local issues (the Point Resolution Bridge, and the potential treaty settlement around Gladstone Park, but the candidates stayed after the meetings so I got to button-hole a few of them on burning issues like minimum parking rules and Copenhagen-style parking lanes on Ponsonby Road. Quite impressed by Rob Thomas (also standing for local board) and Vernon Tava (a newcomer standing for local board on the City Vision ticket). Actually knew what minimum parking rules were and could articulate a position on them!
I did find the whole exercise useful in clarifying my voting intentions (since I wasn’t living in Auckland for the last elections). Looking forward to the Generation Zero scorecard.
https://www.facebook.com/vernon.tava?fref=ts
The special housing areas are separate issue from the Unitary Plan. They are not in the UP but exist as a result of the govt threatening the Council very improperly.
This is the site you want to decide who to vote for.
http://unionsauckland.org.nz/
Voting for the Union, geez….how 1950
It is not voting for the Union. Rather voting for decent people who believe in the same things that I do.
A reminder of how the councillors voted on reducing density
http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2013/09/07/will-someone-think-of-the-children/
For: (=bad)
Councillors: Cameron Brewer
Mike Lee
Calum Penrose
Dick Quax
Sharon Stewart
Wayne Walker
Against: (=good)
Councillors: Anae Arthur Anae
Len Brown
Dr Cathy Casey
Alf Filipaina
Hon Chris Fletcher
Michael Goudie
Ann Hartley
Penny Hulse
Des Morrison
Richard Northey
Noelene Raffills
David Taipari
Glen Tupuhi
Penny Webster
George Wood
Think you got it wrong pal. Aren’t the first list an across the board bunch who believe in democracy, and the latter stooges and slaves to Penny Pirrit and Doug McKay? I think that’s a lot closer to the truth
Democracy? You mean like a majority vote by our elected representatives? FYI democracy isn’t the same as mob rule.
Easy Nick. Democracy has benn described as mob rule by admins here..
Being elected unopposed is not democracy! Having policies and earning support and votes is democracy.
Stooges and slaves or representative of a group of people who would like to see a denser, more exciting Auckland? Democracy can include voting against popular opinion or the opinion of the more vocal groups. Coney is hypocritical in that she wants to preserve nature but doesn’t want to see higher density. Guess what? Without the latter, we will be forced to hack into the former. That’s not a theory as evidenced by how much land Auckland has already consumed by the suburban, low density practices of the past 60 years. Geoff, you need to remember that much of Ponsonby and Grey Lynn would not be possible under the current planning rules. Now I’m sure you’ll agree that the mixed use buildings along Ponsonby Rd and the close knit properties, often with very minimal setbacks, in the neighbouring streets are a delight and also cannot be replicated under current rules. Do you prefer Grey Lynn or Pakaranga? I know which one I prefer and it will only be possible to replicate under the UP.
And you will be pleased to know that even New Urbanists like Duany actually encourage keeping historical properties in context and attempting to keep heights / styles similar. I don’t want to see high rise along Ponsonby Rd or GNR but I think 3 to 4 stories would work well if the design is right.
There was something in the paper about 3 stories on Pons rd. no problem with that if you step the third level back a bit, almost unnoticeable. GNR could do with 4+ floors on the Northern side and 6 ish on the Southern.
Speaking iof GNR- the decision comes out next week on the Bunnings build. I believe Bunnings will win and Auckland will lose. These commissioners- unelected, answerable to no one! Needs changing..
Geoff, three stories well designed on Ponsonby Rd would look way better than a setback
Always keen on that. Who do we get to decide? Hint- not unelected officers…
No, we don’t let unelected officers decide everything but at the same time the public need to educate themselves about density, design and town planning. Simply burying one’s head in the sand and not allowing change without having done any homework is worse than unelected, trained, officers creating plans. When this DUP process started, I didn’t know a lot about town planning, design, how density helps cities rather than hinders etc but I put my head into the books, did lots of reading, read feedback on the UP, read this site, other related websites and quickly formed my own opinions based on that research. My viewpoint today is quite different to one I would have had a couple of years ago.
Geoff how is it that you so admire old buildings but don’t seem to see what makes them good? No Vic commercial building on P Rd is setback. Maintaining the built ‘cliff’ along commercial streets is an important part of their glory. Setback rules are all part of the system to give cars dominance of our shopping and socialising space to the great detriment of pedestrian and architectural place quality. Compression is good; too much vapid space will just get poned by carriageway and parking.
P Rd needs at least four stories and a complete ban on setbacks. Why four stories? So new developments can be both well designed with generous stud heights (like the Vic buildings) and economically viable. And of course zero parking required by the Council.
What you see as the work of evil developers is really a conspiracy of terrible planning rules and developers and owners with low standards. The value proposition is now different on P Rd so that so long as we don’t insist on keeping the crap rules and maintain pressure through the Urban Design Panel process we should get a much better set of new buildings to complete this important place and much more lively and vital social and commercial strip.
Setback for top story only was my suggestion Patrick
Why though? Do stepy buildings look good?
I actually agree that setting back the 3rd and 4th stories would be a good idea… I think that keeping that 2 story frontage consistent along the whole street would give more consistency to the urban form along the road, and allow us to maintain the roadside cliff without building a ‘canyon’.
I note the Citizens & Ratepayers people have all camoflaged themselves because they know their “brand” is not well supported. In the North Shore ward their top poller in the last Council election – George Wood – got about 16% of the vote. This time around they are running on two-person tickets with names like “fair deal”. Obviously hoping the opposing vote will be fragmented and they will get more than the 5 of 20 seats they won last time around.
I hope their strategy fails. If the local body National people get a majority on Council we can kiss the CRL good bye. That’s why the government agreed on a “delayed timeline”
This is why I believe the major parties should stand candidates in the Local Body elections, than everyone is aware of who they are. Only Labour and Mana are standing candidates in Auckland. In Manurewa we have previously had the mad situation that a former Act candidate stood as an Independent. Did he change his opinion about Act or just hide the fact to fool voters?