This is a guest post from Ryan Mearns of Generation Zero
On Wednesday the 14th of January just over 5,000 people received an email asking them to submit in support of the resource consent for Skypath using a quick submission form. The form asked them to submit on the resource consent, a relatively benign step in the process before construction that is usually dominated by lengthy supporting documents from the submitter. The form asked, as you probably know if you filled it out, to write your reason for supporting Skypath and how it expanded your transport choices.
Building slowly 1,000 people made a submission within the first 12 hours, after 24 hours it had reached 2000, and after a week and a half it ended at over 11,000. The enthusiasm for the project and the sheer glee at which some expressed at the easy process draws into frame some important questions; why did it get so big, is it possible replicate and how should Council change what it does to engage this number of people on a more regular basis in complex planning decisions.
At it’s most basic level the overwhelming feedback was that Council’s form for submitting required such a high level of engagement in the project it turned many people off. Where to find application numbers and submission details requires you to plunge deep into the supporting documentation, Council has already turned away 90% of people that would submit on the project. In the past this complexity has also meant submissions have been discounted for other resource consents, like with the high profile case of the pohutukawa trees on Great North Road.
Simplifying the process with a quick submission form was always going elicit a much larger response from the public. But beyond this there are some interesting insights into the networked nature of local decision making and the communication of the consents process that add more weight to a questioning of how Council deals with the public and how community groups engage their supporters in Council processes.
One important aspect that definitely needs to be held at the front of most people’s mind is the way in which the consent process was framed. A simple consent process was turned into “the last hurdle before construction” and had 5 simple reasons why people should submit on the project. This isn’t revolutionary stuff but a clear explanation of the project built a story of the project that people could relate too and added a sense of urgency. A clear question of “why do you support it” and “how does it expand your transport choices” gave people a way to make the project personal to them, allowing people to express their own personal desires for Auckland.
The other aspect that allowed more than 11,000 people to submit on the project was the network of people telling their friends. On Facebook alone the page received over 11,000 likes, comments and shares. It shows how connected Aucklanders are, and with about 400 submissions coming from expats in 42 countries around the world, the project has global appeal.
So what can it teach us? It shows that if you simplify the process and give people a compelling reason to submit on a project that may directly affect them, people get pretty passionate and want to share it with their friends. For Councils sake this means customising and personalising their consent process in the future if they want to attract a similar number of submitters.
Council was very flexible with the Skypath quick submission form, which made it easy, as it took down their server at one point with the amount of emails coming in. They were very happy to support. This does reflect a point worth raising as Skypath had turned into a political discussion, as most projects do. This can make it hard for Council.
It just exemplifies the importance of community groups using their networks to push a particular decision one way or another. This is good for local democracy, deepening the level of participation people have with their community. But without a good technology background many in the community might find it hard to go to the level that we were able to by creating a quick submit form. An option that Council might consider is a specific form-builder for community groups to use that can be customised for their needs that allows them to create an easy quick submit form for resource consents.
There are many more lessons to be brought out, and it’s already good to see Council sharpening up their process using shapeauckland to take submissions on the long term plan.
Processing...
The numbers are impressive but I am going to rain on your parade a little. I have always wondered why people submit in favour of a resource consent and what they hope that might achieve. The decision makers and reporting planners have to consider effects at a technical level and politcal or wide spread support should have no impact on their views. It is not like an election where one vote can cancel the impact of an opposing vote. By all means support the project to Councillors voting to fund, I sure that will help, but a supporting submission can’t mitigate an effect or reduce the importance of anything raised in an opposing submission. Maybe it makes people feel important or valued to submit but I ask this sincerely what do you expect it might actually achieve?
A reporting planner should consider both positive and negative effects of a proposal. Of relevance to people submitting in support is part 2 of the RMA which includes a consideration of social and economic wellbeing and health and safety. From an individual level, skypath can support ones social and economic wellbeing by reducing reliance on motor vehicle travel/ allowing someone to travel without the need to buy a car and also increasing connectivity with other communities (i.e. I will soon be able to walk to my mates house in Northcote from St Mary’s Bay to catch up instead of relying on a lift or public transport). You can also submit in support and still make recommendations which could mitigate any actual, potential or perceived adverse effects (which I did in my submission). Independent parties can also provide their own analysis and expert witnesses to support the applicant and give more weighting to their argument over those opposing. For example, if several different independent experts reach a similar conclusion on a matter of relevance at the hearing – that will likely be given greater weight by the commissioners hearing the matter. With that in mind, I hope GZ, CAA, TB etc consider commissioning independent experts ($$ permitting) as part of the hearings process.
Problem is that Courts haven’t used the count up the witnesses for and against approach since Saxon times. So again how can an individual in support do anything meaningful? It isn’t like they appoint decision makers who will be sitting there thinking I”I will turn this down because nobody told me they wanted it”
Like I said – you can submit in support and be party to the process which allows you to present evidence demonstrating a. the benefits of a project b. what the actual or potential effects are and c. how any of these can be avoided, remedied or mitigated. The strength of one argument is important in determining how much weight it is given by a commissioner. If those in opposition provide a case based on anecdotes or misinformation, then yes a well considered submission, based on demonstrable facts can reduce the importance of a submission in opposition.
The right to comment on these matters isn’t limited to the planner or those in opposition.
Ok but I dont think I have ever sat through a hearing where any one doubted the benefits of a resource consent and I cant quote a single one turned down because it had no benefits. That is not really the purpose. I know of plenty that have been turned down because the applicant had not shown the adverse effects could not be avoided remedied or mitigated. Again I dont know of a single application approved because supporting submissions proved the case after the applicant had not managed to. (Good to know you are a balancing of benefits against effect person though and not one of these environmental bottom liners) The RMA gave anyone the right to submit- I know that. My question is WTF real effect do supporting submission have in that process? Sure they show some support to people funding the project outside of the RMA process, but I say clicking a form does nothing of any practical use within the RMA forum and I am fairly sure just gets ignored in the decison making process which is evidence based not popularity based.
Well that’s how some prefer to operate; ‘it’s a technical matter’, don’t bother your pretty little head, dear. Me and 11k others say that won’t do. We want it and it’s your job to solve the technical issues, not use them as an excuse to keep building crap.
cf; Pohutukawa.
If you can submit against destroying trees and point out an adverse effect that hasn’t been covered then the commissioners have to consider how to avoid remedy or mitigate it. But clicktivism in support of a resource consent isn’t going to push that project along one little bit. Glad it makes you feel good though.
Pathetic.
Rather than chastise mfwic for not following the party line, I’d be interested in confirming his point. Is it really the case that the number of submissions for and against has no bearing under the legislation, and it’s just the validity of the unique points made that counts? If that’s the case, then whether you agree with it or not, the approach of this blog and others in getting loads of people to submit, and celebrating the numbers in themselves, has been misleading and flawed.
I was chastising the last comment. Patronising and unnecessary, so true to form you could say.
People are really scraping the barrel when they take to task others who want to express, formally, their support for a project. Its either negativity at its most basic or a response to a perceived threat – that the previous vocal minority wont have the same sway anymore.
Nick you got it in one. Thank you for writing it more clearly than I can. It is not about numbers it is only ever about issues and when you think about it that is the only sensible basis for managing adverse effects. 11K submissions is certainly impressive but the only real impact I can see of that level of engagement is now the Council has to employ people to read every single one and summarise them or group them into common themes so the decision makers can consider whether they have raised anything not already covered by the applicant. In essence the process we now take longer than if 11K people had not submitted. Read that as negativity if you want KLK but I am certainly not threatened by it as I dont really care one way or the other about Skypath. If it existed I would walk it once or twice. But I am genuinely amused by modern engagement methods like people who take a selfie with a sad face and sign saying ‘Bring back our girls’ I am the only one who starts laughing at the ridiculousness?
No one doubts that specific points are the important criteria rather than sheer numbers of yes/no submissions. However Ari makes the pertinent point re public perception below.
I am wondering why this is an issue when the “yes” numbers for this particular project were so impressive but not when NIMBYs submit their “no” votes in numbers which only look impressive when people dont bother to submit in support, which is typically the case. Or is there an assumption that the yes voters were cheerleaders without a point while the nos were the voices of reason with the evidence to back it up?
It just smacks of hypocrisy on so many levels.
People against will try to stop a project or if they cant add as much delay and cost to it that they can. That includes coming up with as many conditions as they can think of. In the case of submissions against they do try and get as big a number as possible. But if they use a carbon copy the reporting planner deals with it by saying xyz plus 3200 other say “bla bla”. Again it is the issues raised not the numbers but often the higher number of submissions the greater the number of issues people think up. The advantage of a big number against is it encourages elected Councillors who sit as commissioners to turn the application down so that the Council carries the burden of the appeal. The difference with supporters is that the system assumes development can occur provided the negatives are dealt with. It would be a very poor application indeed where the applicant missed out something crucial that was then provided by one of the hoard of supporters.
Environmental affects of adding a footpath to a motorway? Nil. In fact you could argue that it’s required to mitigate the huge social cost the motorway and bridge has had on severing the shoreline from people and throwing thousands of cars down it daily.
Social affects? Well, the true test was to see if we were to have overwhelming resistance. In that case this project would likely not go ahead. So in that regard it’s passed part of the process. People really want it. You also assume that the online submitters didn’t bother to comment on the benfits of the Skypath in a meaningful way. The effects of ‘people’ passing through northcote is not enough to stop it. I hope the residents are able to handle their suburb becoming a lively vibrant place. Sounds awful.
Firstly I am sure that many of those submitter will have specific comments and angles which the consent applicants and their planners, council planners and the hearing panel may not have considered or may not place much importance on initially.
For instance, there is almost certainly a case to argue that in effect many of the residents at Northcote point have been previously compensated for “loss of amenity” when the bridge and/or clipons were built – either directly if they were long term residents, or via the fact that previous owners of their properties were – and as this was a full and final settlement process no recourse for more compensation (double dipping) is permitted by natural justice.
Therefore drawing this to everyones attention is a valid point and its also one I am sure the opponents of SkyPath would seek to bury as it directly undermines many of their arguments against it – because if the original bridge acquisition process effectively grants immunity from further downstream loss of amenity issues – then the local opposing residents case could become very diminished in law and actuality.
Secondly, there is value in numbers, while the commissioners can ignore specific evidence outside the law (after all this is a legal process), the more people who submitted on valid topics and areas helps. And at the hearing stages, many of those who wished to speak can pick up on others aspects of their oral presentations so each can speak around and about points relevant to their submissions using information publicly available from other submissions to back up and reinforce their points. A lot of evidence will emerge between now and the hearings one way and the other, and all that evidence can be used to clarify and justify the situation for both sides.
The more evidence you have, the better the argument/rebuttal you can make.
Thirdly, the numbers argument, if everyone who submitted ticked the “I want to speak” box (and most probably didn’t as it was set to “No” by default), and each then spoke for 5 minutes, thats a lot of time taken up at the hearings. I elected to speak, but I am quite happy (and so will many others) for the likes of CAA and GenZero to speak on my behalf around my submission – in combination with other submitters who also wanted to speak.
if not, I will go along and say my peace. If 5,000 people did the same as me, and each got 5 minutes to speak, then the hearings will take a long time to conclude.
And doing this allows time and numbers for a very good rebuttal of the arguments the opposing submitters have made and also to reinforce other submitters at the same time.
At the end of the process it comes to mitigation – the opposer’s will simply argue mitigation can’t done sufficiently as the law requires so Skypath must be denied, and the supporters will argue is has been done so that all up the “effects are less than minor” so Skypath should proceed.
Whichever one prevails the other side will no doubt appeal it.
It’s an avenue that is otherwise unavailable to show the decision makers how much support there is for the benefits such a project will bring. It’s hard for them to ignore the facts that the project got 11’000 submissions in support publicly.
The effects still need to be weighed up and mitigated, but it gives the decision makers confidence the benefits will outweigh the adverse effects (which was mainly that the cycle-way was going to be too busy (which reinforces the benefits), and parking and toilet facilities (cause cyclists need a car…)).
In the end it puts extra pressure on the council for the pure support of such a project, saying that it will not have an effect on their decision is naive. Especially when they have to read each one.
However it would of been interesting to see what the result would of been like if the public against the submission had an equally easy form to fill out. Although I’d expect no-where near the numbers, I’d assume they would have had quite a few more submissions.
Brings to mind this Ted talk from a while back about civic engagement: http://www.ted.com/talks/dave_meslin_the_antidote_to_apathy
Thanks Matt, good post. And well done to everyone involved in Skypath.
I used the council online submission process which was a pig to complete. (I did so because I was concerned that the quick submission form might not be acceptable). I’m a tax consultant by trade so dealing with forms is routine but the present submission process is frankly offputting. In a democracy which needs more engagement that’s unacceptable so it’s good to see that Council were so flexible with the quick submission form.
Considering that some years (not many years!) ago you actually had to physically mail a copy of your application to the applicant even when using the Council’s online form, the process was slightly improved (if you had all the required numbers and forms and adresses at hand!). But even then, agreed, not very convenient.
Can Generation Zero open source their technology so other groups can use it?
The tools I used to create the form are public and open to use. But they do require a level of tech skill to set up.
Can Gen Zero package / document the technology so that they *don’t* require a level of tech skill to set up?
We need the same process for the LTP submissions specifically around cycling and walking projects budget which has been severely cut back.
As that way council will get the message that people are not happy with that – would be pointless to have a brand new Skypath built courtesy of SkyPath Trust and have no proper cycleways/pedestrian walkways either side of the bridge to link it up to the communities either side.
Whcih is what council is proposing we accept with their budget.
So Gen Zero, lets go another round with your submission form for the LTP submissions – can we fix it – yes we can – in numbers?
I would agree with some of the comments here that the council online submission was difficult to negotiate and the process should be made easier. However, I would say that out of the 11’000 Gen Zero quick form submissions very few people bothered to read the details of the project. Instead people just wanted to register a vote of support, and as mfwic points out, the resource consent process is not about a head count of popularity.
I believe some middle ground needs to be found where councils make it easier for people to submit for or against projects but that every submission could only be made after reading the proposal in full. CAA were telling members to submit in favour of Skypath ‘without reading the proposal’ and ‘even if you later change your mind’… hardly responsible.
If the RC process came down to a simple count of those in favour v those against NZ would get all sorts of bad decisions. Imagine the Casino would be pretty keen to apply to extend its gaming floor and they could just buy votes from its own clientèle. A free $10 voucher for every yes submission 🙁
I have some very famous friends in motorsport and the film industry. They have huge fan bases that will do anything they tell them to do via social media. Imagine the number of negative submissions that could have been generated by an F1 driver or Film Star asking their fan base to click on a Gen Zero type negative submission link. What should council do then? 11’000 pro Skypath v 200’000 negative. I think we can all agree Skypath deserves a better and more honest resource consent process than a popularity contest.
Well Phil it seems all your famous friends don’t agree with you as all you could muster we’re 187 negative responses….
If you read my post you would see I did not bother asking my friends to do this – have no doubt they would have – as RC process is NOT a show of numbers. Greg N makes some very good points about the process, so does Mfwic. You should re read their posts to gain a better insight into the decision making process of the resource consent.
On Greg’s point about double dipping. I understand what he is saying but in time all will see that is not the basis of the residents objections.
Lets just wait now and see the outcome – it seems far too early for either the fors or the against to be back slapping yet.
Well Phil,
Yes the jury is still out.
And yes the application is non complying in terms of the RMA from the get go for the coastal yard, abutting the road reserve in the residential zoned land on Northcote point and the Stokes Point reserve amongst others.
But Skypath is non-complying not because its specifically banned, but because the district plans the bridge crosses at each end never envisaged that any such structure added onto the AHB would ever need to be consented in the first place. i.e. if NZTA wanted to shove a pedestrian bridge on the Harbour bridge they pretty much could shove it in as of right without much need to consult. After all thats how the utilities on it got there right?
And yes the developer/applicant here is not a “council” or local/central authority like say NZTA or AC (however than could easily/quickly change), and yes its “private enterprise” in a PPP format.
So you think that because its not a “local body” or central government agency like NZTA doing it that its not allowed because its somehow non permitted under the RMA?
Plenty of non complying resource consents have been granted in such circumstances (maybe with not all those things in one consent) but certainly each non-complying activity like crossing the coastal yard, or reserve airspace or adjoining a residential area – has prior precedents that mean that has been permitted in the past, no doubt with mitigation, and no doubt that mitigation was less than what Skypath have proposed.
As far as organisations using the bridge now, in a private capacity (your other gripe)?
Well the bridge supports several utility services, including water and gas pipelines and fibre-optic telecommunications cables.
And not all of these organisations are “Government agencies” – Spark aka Telecom for one, Vector for another with their Gas lines, and of course Transpower with their 220Kv cables (Transpower is a SOE), but thats something that could change at the stroke a pen by the Government. Certainly Vector and Telecom were once SOE’s or their local equivalent too.
So Skypath is really just another “utility” company – which is provided by private enterprise on a commercial basis just like Vector and Spark do now with their gas and telecoms lines on the same structure.
Looking forward to your arguments at the hearings though.
The AHB is also currently used by a private operator to do bungy jumps and guided bridge tours – a purely commercial enterprise.
Hi Greg,
Points well made but how many non complying RC consents get approved when there is unanimous objection from the residents in the effected area? Not many would be my guess. When I built my house I had to change a number of design features – including removing some lighting – so as not to affect my neighbours. I would love to build another level on my house and make it three stories high but that would rob the view of the house behind, can you ever imagine that being allowed? It would hardly be fair.
Cities have RC process to stop shit being built (although that doesn’t explain a number of buildings in the CBD) but it is entirely correct that new builds must not interfere with the continued enjoyment of the existing residents. Skypath could have been designed to avoid conflict and they chose not too. That is why they now have a fight on their hands.
As for other organisations using the bridge – another good point made – I understand these organisations all pay a hefty fee to NZTA, something Skypath is hopeful (but not guaranteed) will not apply to them.
I respect your right to an opinion and at least you clearly read the proposal before making your submission but the vast majority of those 11000 Gen Zero submissions are meaningless as its not a popularity competition.
Considering NZTA’s recent pro cycling efforts and the governments efforts to invest in more cycling infrastructure I highly doubt that the sky-path will incur huge fee’s to operate, it would be very hypocritical considering their recent efforts.
Phil,
You can add as many stories to your house as long as it is within the permitted in the district plan height laws for your zone and also and within the height in relation to boundary rules.
So if you are within the allowed “building envelope” of your site, you can as of right (as a “complying” activity) expect to get a consent under RMA for your house additional extensions
– regardless of what your neighbours say it will do to their views. Yes you may need to move windows around for privacy purposes and CPTED requirements thats about it.
There may be other restrictions or convenants on your site but they would be in the district plan or in your title if convenants.
And even if it did not you could still apply for consent as a non-compliant or restricted activity – if you can show the effects are mitigated sufficiently.
Yes your neighbour could object, how much the planners will take it on-board depends.
You could simply pay him some hush money to make him go away or your could say “f**k you mate” I’m building regardless and then fight it in court.
As for approval of non complying stuff when all the locals object?
Well a lot of the stuff downtown got built in spite of objections and those Wellington Brothers got approval for their brothel tower despite just about everything about it being objectionable – because the zoning allowed it as of right, even if they did destroy the heritage listed hotel on the site to get a development site they could build it on along the way.
Plenty of other examples of “non complying” stuff in Ponsonby and Grey Lynn and elsewhere getting the ok too, despite reams of submissions from neighbours submitting in opposition.
Yes I have read the SkyPath proposal, it contains a lot of detail on all sorts of things that surpasses what the original AHB or the clipons went through to get okayed.
In those days I’m pretty sure it was – “Auckland Harbour Bridge going through here mate. Heres some $$$’s (or ###’s) for your land/house – take it or leave it – and by the way – we’re bulldozing your house next week. So better clear out now.”
As for what Skypath pays NZTA – thats a commercial arrangement, but since NZTA has anointed Skypath with “most-favoured active mode Harbour Bridge crossing” status, some time back, instead of their own clunky plans, well you’d have to assume that they wouldn’t charge much at all. And as the thing shouldn’t need painting it won’t cost them much more to maintain, and may make the painting of that part of the bridge a darn sight easier when the need to. So all up may save them on maintenance and related costs.
But regardless of all that – the essence of your objections basically relate to the residential status of Lot 2 and whether anything commercial can go there, and from I can see in plans, there already is non-residential stuff on lot 2, So therefore a precedent has been set in that regard.
So we shall see at the hearings what the commissioners make of that.
Not in Auckland Darius but if RC does become a show of hands competition I am making an application immediately for a V8 car race through the streets of Auckland and Ill have every petrol head in the world making a click and send submission to resource consent.
Id love to race through the city and anyone denying motorsport fans the opportunity to watch a race once a year are just nasty Nimby’s 🙂 🙂 🙂
Well we did close off the bottom of town for the drift races, and do effectively close the city to cars for Marathons etc. So don’t see why we cant do for the V8’s either? Although you say you could have got ‘famous people’ to encourage people to fill out a simple form for against, this assumes people are dumb and will just complete a form cause someone is famous. Believe it or not, I give the people of NZ a little more intelligence than that. They will want to see how the negative effects outweigh the benefits. The negatives of the project mostly affect to a very small degree the residences. (Increased cycle and pedestrian traffic – a bit of a stretch when located right next to a motorway, reduction of parking – because apparently cyclists will drive to the bridge??, and toilet facilities – this might actually be a very good negative that can be mitigated rather easy for low cost, a public toilet block each end of the bridge.) The only negative that anyone that’s not a resident could justify is the cost, however that’s where the submissions for come into play, it will benefit enough people to justify it, so wont be influenced to much by the numbers against.
Hi Josh,
The people of NZ don’t understand Skypath and I would bet most of the 11’000 Gen Zero submissions never read the finer details of the project and in fact most don’t care.
For sure it is easy to sell Skypath. Tell Kiwi’s they are getting a walkway over the bridge for free. The reality is that is not the truth and if Kiwis knew the full story there would be some more balanced discussion.
1. It is not really going to be a walkway – it is going to be a cycle path. Very few people will walk 7kms to work – if people would do that how come you dont see walkers in the Eastern, Southern or Western suburbs walking to work?
2. It is not free – far from it. Skypath is a user pays activity and the turnover is underwritten by the council. It is another cost the rate payers will have to pay for.
That aside, most Kiwis dont care, most Aucklanders wont use it.
Actually I think a lot of Aucklanders will use it. If Copenhagen can get to 41% cycle mode to work and educational facilities why not Auckland with safe infrastructure. Our waterfront is a jewel and can’t be matched, why not showcase that as well as help cycling and walking growth? Anything promoting cycling and walking around our harbours is a sure winner for Aucklanders and tourists. Less cars, less pollution, less reliance on fossil fuels , more people choosing exercise. Skypath will be a golden asset, look at all the people using Westhaven.promenade and not officially opened yet. This will be a top 5 attraction.
Tend to disagree that Aucklander’s wont use it, I know plenty of people who will. I think a lot of people are still on the mindset that people of Auckland just drive and still have a rural mentality. A lot has changed in the last 5 years, there is a very urban feel to the city, cycling has increased both recreationally and as a commute option, more and more people walk and fitness has become a real thing for inner-city people.
People of Auckland have really grown up as to say, but there is still some with that old school mentality that doesn’t like change, unfortunately it halts progress. I agree a lot of NZ don’t care, however this will be a very good addition to our National Cycleway’s which are already attracting tourists – p.s one of our biggest economies.
Cyclists will use it. No one is going to walk to work over Skypath when they can drive, take the ferry or bus direct to the city. Walking Skypath from the entry point in Northcote to the CBD is about 7kms – that’s a long walk for anyone – and not going to happen. Given that cycling as a percentage of Aucklands commuter mode is in massive decline it may well be very under utilised for long parts of the year – costing rate payers – and very busy on some summer weekends – pissing off local residents – but a few people, hard core cyclists will get a nice ride.
Have you got figures to backup the decline in cycling, the last ones I’ve seen have shown quite a resurgence in cycling numbers. Also given the views of the harbour and city landscape it’s hard to imagine people not walking across it…the footpath across the sydney harbour bridge appears to get decent foot traffic when I have visited. (And our views are arguably better!) It wont be commuter foot traffic more recreational and tourist foot traffic.) Also there is the old school mentality of people will drive and ferry or bus, the people of Auckland have grown-up, and fitness has become a real issue for a large portion of the population. Meeting their needs not only provides options for people, but encourages healthy modes of transport. I’m not sure how this path being busy will negatively affect residences, can you please expand? Noise compared to the motorway cars? or is it just a hassle having to look out for cyclist while you driving around??
BTW Sydney harbour bridge is longer than Auckland Harbour bridge.
“‘without reading the proposal’ and ‘even if you later change your mind’”
That quote was in relation to whether people want to SPEAK at the hearing – encouraging them to tick “I want to speak”, even if they weren’t sure on that count. Seems someone else is not reading everything.
Good for SDW for taking the time to submit reasons why he supports the project. I dont agree with him but I respect the fact he has made the effort to submit individual reasons for why he wants Skypath.
At the end of the day I assume that the RC will be granted or denied based on technical reasons. Things like the impact it will have on the residential area, meeting design standards etc. Will be interesting to see the outcome.
If RC was granted on the basis of popularity I will be submitting a few proposals myself – starting with a V8 street race in Auckland 😀
Uhm, we occasionally HAVE car races on our city streets?
I don’t think there’s much appetite for a street race in AK. The memory of the Hamilton effort is pretty fresh.
Personally I think it would be a great addition to the city’s roster of events, the Wellington one was fantastic.
I don’t have any interest in motorsport at all, but big events are good for a city – especially ones that interrupt the everyday flow. Makes for something special.
It seems like a good idea to remind people that Rally NZ held a stage in the Domain and the annual hill climb up Lower Domain Drive ran for decades. Unfortunately such an event is no longer possible. The only real place you could have had a big banger street race in Central Auckland would have been around Wynyard Quarter but that time has passed now.
The best idea for an event in this era would be an invitational kart race like the charity events held in Europe, which you could hold around the streets used for the triathlon each year, or potentially around Wynyard Quarter itself. Hold it before Melbourne’s GP or over summer and see if you can get some F1 drivers to come along. I’m sure a Scott Dixon or Greg Murphy invitation karting weekend downtown in summer would be a roaring success, and the smaller nature of the track required would probably mean it would mean fewer road closures and a lower cost. Give the local clubs a couple of wildcard entries, whack up some temporary stands, charge five bucks a head and have a concert after the main event.
If they can race F1 in Monaco and Singapore they can have a street race in Auckland. Monaco also has a kart race – frequented by F1 drivers – I have raced in that myself.
They could use Victoria park as the start finish and pit lane area. That would allow plenty of grandstands to be built and most of that activity would not effect the day to day running of the city. The track could then go down Baumont Street, round the houses of Wynyard before zipping along Quay st to turn right into Britomart Place. Along Customs st, left into Albert St and then right into Victoria to take the cars back down into Victoria park again.
Would be a nice showcase of the city, easy to build and take down, and a V8 Super Car race will bring more tourism $$$’s than a walk on any bridge.
Will never happen, the Nimbys that killed Western Springs would never allow it and no doubt Gen Zero wouldnt like the carbon footprint either.
So how come Hamilton couldn’t make their V8 street races make money?
Not enough demand? Or petrolheads won’t actually travel far (like 100kms) to see it?
Even Australia seems to say its a struggle with their F1 event not making enough money to sustain it longer term.
And as for making more $$s for the city than Skypath, well Skypath will be open 360 days a year (assuming 5-6 days closed for maintenance or other reasons), whereas your average street race is a few days once a year.
So while the “average daily” take for Skypath will be lower, you’ll have 100 times as many days to capture the revenue.
In any case what do you care whether it makes money or not? You’ll never notice that small an amount on your rates bill – it will be lost in the rounding.
Council spends way more money on stupider things – I recall the old Auckland City Council spent way more than the AC’s underwrite of Skypaths revenue, investigating whether the V8 streetcars in Auckland would be feasible.
They weren’t and Hamilton grabbed it and regretted it ever since.
While I personally like the idea of a street race in AKL, I have to laugh at the claim that NIMBYs would kill it off – at least from the particular person making that claim.
What, Shopkeepers claiming attendees would be peeing in shop doorways?
Comparing F1s to any non-F1 street race is really unfair – sanctioning fees for the Melbourne race alone are around $60m per year, on top of the infrastructure costs, etc. The original street race plan in Auckland was knocked back because it effective sealed off the main route onto the Harbour bridge and would have disrupted traffic on both sides of the Shore.
I’ll admit I was pissed off that we were told you couldn’t shut the CBD down for a Supercar race and then we ended up having two triathlons in one year which did the same thing, but realistically it’s not an argument worth relitigating anymore. The last real opportunity for a race down town was to build a substantial exhibition space and use removable traffic calming measures around Wynyard Point to create a circuit there, but that ship has sailed. You could still get away with a karting event there though, like the Monaco event, and if you used a large enough circuit it would probably make for quite a spectacle. Maybe it would make an interesting blog post – “The Case for (Sort-Of) Street Racing in Downtown Auckland” 😛
I wonder if any law has been broken or employment contract by the person at AT who is leaking the submission details.
“If RC was granted on the basis of popularity I will be submitting a few proposals myself – starting with a V8 street race in Auckland”
Resource consent is not the issue – I doubt that anyone would be willing to give you the money to actually put the thing on. As others have pointed out, V8 events in Australia and New Zealand seem to always require a sizable public subsidy. But if you want to convince a bunch of your fellow innumerates to waste their money putting on a costly event that not many people will pay to attend, go ahead.
I never thought the numbers really made any difference. But it does show how social media can spread the word and make it easier for politicians to understand public perception over things.
Awesome. If it has resource consent (which it should with no issues I believe), I could legally stop and take photos in the middle of the Harbour Bridge when I head over to Auckland. Woo Hoo! Skypath is going to be awesome.
“Woo Hoo! Skypath is going to be awesome.”
+1
It has the potential to be the biggest attraction in town! Now I can walk, skateboard (after losing control about 100 times), bike, rollerskate, drive and bus across the AHB.
NB: this is coming from a car fanatic who bikes occasionally and also happens to support PT projects. Oh, and I’m not even old enough to vote yet :p
While the resource consenting process is not a “numbers game” in terms of submissions, it is important to remember that council has not yet given final approval to the PPP.
The 11,000 submissions matter hugely to councillors when they make that final approval decision.
Here we go, this is your classic NIMBY, all the telltale signs:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/north-shore-times/10048012/Fear-of-SkyPath-on-doorsteps
Do they deny it? Yup: ‘we’re not being NIMBYS about this’
Vague and incoherent fears? Yup: ‘vandalism, security’
Are they obsessed with parking: oh yes.
Do they appeal to ‘heritage’? ‘Northcote Point is a heritage suburb’
Claim unlikely losses? Yup; somehow the view of the side of an 8 lane m’way bridge will be lost.
Are they devastated because something might change near them and they paid money which means that would never happen? Of course
Do they claim that unless everything stops near them there is no democracy? Oh yeah
Are they unintentional hilarious? ‘Once you’ve lost the Point, it’s gone forever’
Good god yes.
LOL. Gotta love their arguments haha. Thankfully, we live in a country where everyone has the right to object to developments. Some say that this blog is just as bad as the NIMBY’s as we oppose the loss of six beautiful pohutukawa in St Lukes (although I definitely don’t). However, I guess this is the consequences of consultation – everyone gets a say (hopefully) and hopefully the council creates a solution that appeases most people.
By “although I definitely don’t”, I mean that I think that we aren’t as bad as the NIMBY’s. It does not mean that I wholeheartedly support the loss of six fabulous trees. Should have made it clearer…
These are nonsense masters, total respect. I will never reach such heights.
So according to Companies Office (http://www.business.govt.nz/companies/app/ui/pages/companies/1156416) Erica and Dick live at 1 Queen St.
It doesn’t seem like the threat of SkyPath has hurt their valuation, from 1.4 to almost 1.9mil, let’s see how much more it goes up after SkyPath is in. http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/ratesbuildingproperty/ratesvaluations/ratespropertysearch/Pages/yourratesdetails.aspx?vr=0280057800
I’m sure their statement that they “wouldn’t have bought” is the honest truth.
After the SkyPath is built (and the value of their home skyrockets) go and offer them the $1.9m. Let’s see what their reaction is.
Yimby – stop reminding me with how much money I am making on my property – its not fair on the poor people that cant afford cars 😀
Happy to go cycling with you next week Goose – I was out today – zero cyclists on the new North Wharf boardwalk, Zero cyclists and 1 walker on the new Grafton path, in 4 hours of cycling I counted 18 other cyclists and I rode from Westhaven Marina to St Helliers and back via Queen Street and Grafton Gully.
Observations: 1. Even on nice sunny days there are few cyclists, 2.Cycling is super safe in Auckland, 3. There is no traffic anywhere
How exactly would this mean “losing the point” forever?
they clearly lost the point years ago…..
I originally inserted a “already lost the plot” comment but then thought better of it.
Problem is, council and other govt entities don’t want public submissions and do everything they can to discourage them. What I don’t understand, coming from the US which has a highly developed public participation culture, is why people let them get away with it, substantially leaving the field to lawyers and developers.
The difference is that a submission under the RMA is a claim to have standing and become a party with legal appeal rights rather than a “tell us what you think” type of questionaire. Now the Council has two choices. Employ someone to read and report on every single submission which if you could do 20 an hour will take someone 14 weeks just to do the supporting ones. Alternatively the person responsible will look in despair at the list, read a few and ignore the rest. It will certainly be an interesting question at the appeal “How long did you spend reading the submissions?”
364 of the GenZed responders choose to speak at the hearing; that’ll take some scheduling.
And numbers do matter. 364 different people getting up and saying variations on the same thing in favour of this project, backed by 14k written ones is going to take some defying.
Without wishing to flame I believe you are missing the point Patrick. 11000 people saying I want Skypath because I want to cycle to work – no mater how many times the message is varied – is one message.
Having hundreds of people turn up for 5 mins of ‘I love Skypath because I want to cycle to work’ will slow down the process and will not alter or diminish the 300 or so people saying I do not want Skypath because it is x y or z.
The project will be looked at. The points raised in the Gen Zero click and send submission will be acknowledged as will the points made by the residents. At the end the decision made will not come down to numbers, popularity or the good of the nation/world it will be based on zoning laws and the strength of the application v resident opposition.
“strength of the application v resident opposition”
So you’re saying that resident _opposition_ should count, but that resident _support_ doesn’t matter? I live in Auckland. I travel over the harbour, sometimes by bike and ferry. And I think SKypath is a good idea that would improve my quality of life. Why on earth should those not be relevant considerations when the short-sighted whinging of people who can’t see beyond their car parks are?
For the love of god, this isn’t a project that will only have impacts on people in Northcote. It is a project of significant regional importance – the first walking and cycling route connecting the North Shore with the rest of Auckland. So the views of Aucklanders in general on the project are actually quite important.
Phil you old romantic, are you lying down in front of a bulldozer for this one too?
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/04/segregated-cycle-lanes-london-tfl
You know, in the country where you actually live?
I guess the traditional view was that the general public interest was already represented within the system. The old Town and Country Planning Act gave standing to those who were particularly affected or to people or groups who represented a significant matter of public interest. So under that act the Campaign for Public Transport would have been heard in support but not every individual member. The RMA broadened the whole thing out so anyone can have a go. The real question is can there actually be too much input for good decision making?
I wonder if the fact that the Minister of Transport, the Mayor and the Prime Minister all support it will have any bearing. If it was a road it damn sure would.
Simon Bridges stood up in front of the media, AT and NZTA last Friday and said that SkyPath is essential to Auckland. That is as big an endorsement as anybody can ask for.
I look forward to cycling past your house Phil. Of course you won’t be there because you live in the UK, but still, looking forward to it.
I just hope I don’t have any pressing bladder issues at the time. You know how us cyclists struggle with that.
Interesting, if each got 30 minutes to speak, that would be 194 hours of “verbal submissions”, even 15 minutes each will be over 2 weeks solid of verbal submissions.
Of course, do not forget that there will be those who made council website submissions as well who also elected to speak to add to those numbers plus those opposing as well.
But even so, if many of those numbers agree to cede their speaking slots to a combined CAA or GenZero presentation – I think this means the facts can be well and truly argued for Skypath in that time.
I hope those opposed submitter elected to speak in similar numbers or they may end up being cut short.
And the more time argue the points, the better as its best for the process to get everything on both side out in the open at the hearings.
stevenz hits the nail on the head: whatever the technical / legal procedures, behind those is a question of democratic process: “why people let them get away with it” ..a question NZ has to ask itself as it grows up. A British perspective would be similar to the US one: the culture of entitlement that some have here and the widespread acceptance (what is it? deference?) that lets them get away with it are striking.
There will never be the numbers using skypath as claimed, the whole submission ‘for’ process was flawed from the start, 11k duplicated submissions for, will they check names are valid?
If not as many people use it then what are the local residents worried about, there will be even less impact on their community (not that the impact was much anyway). Also the submissions weren’t duplicated. Each person had to write why they supported it.