Auckland Supercity

[pjay 8]

One of my younger sisters is strongly against it as she works with a youth based community group badged as GlobalCafe - http://www.zeal.org.nz/

We were discussing/debating it last night and I was playing Devils advocate and I got thinking, what does every other joker think about this out there? My Father has differing opinions again, as in his opinion his work will be positively affected by it.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/super-auckland/n...jectid=10568076

I don't have a solid opinion myself because I don't know enough fact, and I don't see how it will directly affect me. Below is a direct quote from a friend that was directly involved in the above protest and asked me to participate. I asked why? and this was his answer:

We are fighting the change. Which would see a small group of people get huge power of all of Auckland. Small community initiatives would be shrowded and unable to function as they can now, large sweeping policy would take place and the people would suffer. Beurocracy and corruption would ensue. Also its out of principal, the Royal... Read More Commission did huge research on how Auckland would be best governed and they came to conclusions of a system close to what we currently have after a few years of deliberation, world wide research and community interaction. Rodney Hide just said declined their proposal and is pushing his through behind everyones backs, this is not democracy.

It seems a bit intense? It cant be that simple, can it? How does everyone else feel?? Whether you're in Aucks or not. Educate me.

[Silver Fox 43]

I live in Waiuku and we were swallowed up about 20 years ago by Franklin. Yes, we lost our ability to do things in our community, and everything seems to take longer to get sorted now, and cost more, not less.

Anything that's worthwhile will survive if people want it to, and most of what's being said at the moment is scaremongering by people who don't like change.

It will not make any difference to towns like mine, it may even help.

[Apex 693]

Auckland is a sh*t hole anyway, why not have a super shithole I say. Papakura needs lots of things fixed so im hoping the rest of Auckland’s rates will help us out.

[M325is 0]

So long as the airport shares stays with the Manukau wards for their use only I will be happy with the merge, but if the airport shares get distributed over AC I'd be pretty pissed. But overall I'm fairly happy with the change. I think more will come out of it as we will have groups of representatives from each ward, and it could be you or me, not the politician down the road in his mansion.

[pjay 8]

I think more will come out of it as we will have groups of representatives from each ward, and it could be you or me, not the politician down the road in his mansion.

Its interesting you say that. I know a few people involved with community based projects that are funded by the Local council. Or projects privately funded, but backed by the council and all these people are firmly against the change. They don't believe they will be able to continue doing what they do. I don't understand why not.

[Apex 693]

Who pays for the community based projects? I bet most people opposed don’t even pay rates.

[pjay 8]

community based projects that are funded by the Local council. Or projects privately funded

What difference does paying rates make? I know nothing about the pros/cons of this Supercity

[Apex 693]

Shell out a few thousand in rates every year and watch it wasted on bulshit projects by your council and see what a difference it makes.

Would love to know what our local council has wasted on poor roading decisions these past few years..

Edited April 22, 2009 by Apex

[pjay 8]

No different to paying tax surely..

Those community projects help the community even if not yourself directly, the same way out tax is used by the government to help the country. And yes I can see someone now going "but our tax is wasted on unnecessary crap"

Well lets see you spend millions and millions and millions in better way to build/support a country

[blakamin 0]

We have a tui sign about 10ks from here that says "Auckland is a supercity..."

[ewie 0]

I've been through this scenario before in Australia when what was Albert Shire, Currumbin District and Gold Coast Council all combined to to become Gold Coast City. Sure there were a few teething problems, mainly associated with levelling out rates (which are dearer than here BTW) because some people actually had a reduction, believe it or not. But all in all after a few years once it was all sorted things worked much better. The local groups still have a voice and elections for local representation. My father worked for Albert Shire council (works) at the time and he had concerns about losing his job.. in the end though, no-one did.. not one. In fact that peeved some people coz they thought they'd get big dollar incentives to take a redunancy.

The best thing thast came out of it though was in infrastructure because there became only one set of accounts and budgets to deal with which meant that capital project ran smoother and were cheaper overall.

Personally I think it's a good idea here too. Take a step back and look at what we're currently dealing with. There is an area smaller than the geographic size of the Gold Coast that has 5 councils, each with their own rules and regulations etc etc. Then just for fun throw the ARC into the mix and there's nothing but a very costly sh*t fight over urban development that is in my opinion choking the whole region.

As an example, consider the new Manukau Harbour crossing and motorway project currently under construction. There we have Auckland City, Manaukau City and the ARC all involved in different aspects of the same project. It was in planning for 12 years!!! No doubt at significant cost and why? because each of those bodies required different bylaws and plans to be complied with. Interestingly Manukau gave consent for their side of the prokect to proceed over a year ago and Auckland is yet to grant consent for the final section because of a disagreement over funding with the ARC.

Add to this another issue, namely the local Onehunga residents trying to get Transit to live up to a promise it made (in it's former government life) to rehabilitate the Onehunga foreshore that was destroyed when the first bridge and motorway were built in the 70's. After battling through the RMA, Transit agreed to provide $18M toward the project since they had saved cost by not being granted consent to build a "Berlin Wall" style overpass northbound into Onehunga. Auckland City agreed to chip in but because the ARC refused Transit had no choice other than to proceed anyway in order to complete the work prior to the 2011 RWC.

Then lets add rail infrastructure that crosses into all the regions..... local roading.. public parks and sportsfields we could go on and on and on.

[bravo 34]

I'm for it based on my experience here in the far north looking back on the history of the borough and county councils being merged to form the Far North District Council (FNDC - or F-ing DC to most of us). In terms of a united vision, ability to allocate funding etc, it works well. Th eold concils were replaced by a smaller number of wards each of which is allocated its own elected Councillors and have voting rights and manage projects within their own areas.

My only criticism of the concept is that the community boards and wards are not given quite enough power.

I think Auckland could work well with a similar system scaled up and with the community boards given the power they should have.

It is totally ridiculous for a city the size of Auckland to have such segregated and poorly coordinated infrastructure, finance, transport, resource managment, and planning.

I remember when I was working in Auckland the problems with conflicting and very different planning rules for different, "cities" within auckland that were very similar in terms of town planning needs. There are some very ridiculous stories of projects either exploiting some loop hole, or being shafted for no reason just because of their proximity to a city boundary or similar. The above example by Ewie of a motorway project spanning two "cities" is a prime example.

I say it is a good idea, but needs alot of time and money spent on planning and implementation. if it is rushed it will fail. They need to be careful of what may be lost when smaller organisations are merged into a larger one - the abolishment of harbour boards and merging MOT with the police are prime examples of this.

[my_e36 43]

I am all for it.

City only 2/3 the size of Sydney with less than 1/2 of its population but had 5 councils? Think of the wastages...

5 sets of accounts, 5 sets of rules, 5 sets of council offices 5 sets of everything. These has got to be a better way.

[ED1RTY 2]

Shell out a few thousand in rates every year and watch it wasted on bulshit projects by your council and see what a difference it makes.

Would love to know what our local council has wasted on poor roading decisions these past few years..

Dig it up....

Put it down....

Dig it up

Put it down...

And its still sh*t..

Although Callum Penrose has sorted petty crime to some extent

I think the way they are doing this is stupid.. Turning it into a dictatorship in a way.. The people have no say..

They are moving t quickly..

I say it is a good idea, but needs alot of time and money spent on planning and implementation. if it is rushed it will fail. They need to be careful of what may be lost when smaller organisations are merged into a larger one - the abolishment of harbour boards and merging MOT with the police are prime examples of this.

Totally agree here

Edited April 23, 2009 by KSMYRS