You asked for it Auckland

17 comments on “You asked for it Auckland ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Robinsod 1

   14 December 2007 at 10:40 am

   Ah yes, Banksie – did they just collectively forget who he is?
2. Billy 2

   14 December 2007 at 10:45 am

   I can’t understand from the report: was the Council building them for HNZ to own, or was HNZ building them for the Council to own?

   Either way, doesn’t sound like the sort of thing a city council should be doing.
3. The Double Standard 3

   14 December 2007 at 11:01 am

   Here’s a clue for you Robbo

   The people of Auckland knew exactly what they were voting for, and chose to do it. Amazingly, not everyone wants their rates to go on woolly and ineffective social engineering. Not too hard to understand is it?
4. Tane 4

   14 December 2007 at 11:03 am

   What ‘woolly and ineffective social engineering’ is that TDS, and how much of the rates budget does it take up? I’m not an Aucklander and don’t really follow local body politics, so I’m genuinely interested to know.
5. Robinsod 5

   14 December 2007 at 11:09 am

   Tane – I wouldn’t bother asking DS, he isn’t currently an Aucklander either and he’s talking out his arse. Ithink he’s just looking to have a go at me ‘cos he’s a bit grumpy after last night (I think allowing me to identify him as a Nat operative probably got him a warning from his boss and may even cost him some of his xmas bonus)

   DS – sharpen up bro, they’ll put you back on the clippings archive if you’re not careful.
6. Policy Parrot 6

   14 December 2007 at 11:13 am

   The way the Auckland City Council is divesting itself of its responsibilities, soon it will have nothing left to hock off.

   Aucklander’s will face higher user pays as a consequence for temporarily lower rates.
7. rjs131 7

   14 December 2007 at 11:19 am

   Why isnt housing nz providing this housing?
8. Billy 8

   14 December 2007 at 11:22 am

   PP, how has this responsibility to house people been imposed on the ratepayers of Auckland? I think the majority who voted for Banksie would be surprised to learn that they were imposing such an obligation on themselves.
9. SweeetD 9

   14 December 2007 at 11:31 am

   Well done Banksie. Go back to the core responsibilities. Ratepayers of Auckland should not being doing the governemnts job for them.
10. James Kearney 10

    14 December 2007 at 11:36 am

    Councils play a huge role in housing in NZ, Banks is just showing he doesn’t care about affordable housing. If he was in central govt he’d probably scrap it too, right wing extremist that he is.
11. Policy Parrot 11

    14 December 2007 at 11:38 am

    Yup Billy – thats how you achieve any meaningful long-term development that might cost something to help out in the long-term.

    Just oppose it and urban development continue on the ad-hoc basis that it proceeded over in the last 50-60 years which gave rise to the major transportation snafu’s and development eyesores which plague New Zealand’s biggest city. Even now Auckland is becoming ghettoised and many rentee class have to travel substantial distances simply to work. Affordable housing owned by the council would have ensured closer access to workplaces and amenities for those who can’t afford high transport costs.

    Meanwhile the ad-hoc strategy continues filling the coffers of those developers who so loyally contribute to the campaign war chests of the centre-right.

    “The words were “will fight””. Thats what CV councillors should be doing more of.
12. rjs131 12

    14 December 2007 at 12:44 pm

    Alternatively, why didnt the mayoral and council candidates that supported ratepayers cash being spent on this, win more votes – how dare democracy win out.
13. insider 13

    14 December 2007 at 1:21 pm

    It’s not the ad hoc development that is is teh issue PP, it is the uncoordinated response by multiple councils over many generations.
14. TomS 14

    14 December 2007 at 1:38 pm

    I can’t wait for the one city to come about. The Waitakere/South Auckland vote will sweep the C&R from power forever in a unified city and we will finally see the last of Auckland being run in the interests of shysters.
15. PhilBest 15

    14 December 2007 at 5:31 pm

    If developers were allowed to do what they want and build LUXURY housing at the edges of the metropolis, why would this lead to ghettos where poor people have to travel long distances to work?
16. AncientGeek 16

    15 December 2007 at 6:51 pm

    Ah yes – Banks.

    This was the politician who helped push through an affordable housing proposal. That developers building apartments in the auckland isthmus no longer had to provide parking. It was more affordable for developers. Slightly cheaper for buyers and a massive cost on everyone who lives around here.

    Since he was doing this at the same time as the C&R council were running down public transport. The nett effect is a massive parking problem because they failed to factor in a few issues. Like work in Auckland could be anywhere. So you have to have a car to get to work if that work place is out of walking distance. Most people in Auckland probably change jobs every couple of years – that kind of a city. Auckland doesn’t (and can’t) concentrate their workplaces together.

    Of course there is also the issue that most people have family and friends somewhere. Usually people in the isthmus have family at least 20 km’s away (usually more – we get the immigration from the rest of NZ here).

    So you have to have a car even if you don’t use it daily for a few years.

    So there is a continual parking problem anyway.. Banks made it a hell of a lot worse. I hate to think what that costs the industry in this area. But it is classic short-term thinking
17. PhilBest 17

    17 December 2007 at 3:27 pm

    The only good administrations are the ones that build enough roads and carparks. The rest is just PC bullshit.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS