Should we sack the Christchurch City Council? Some people think so, but is it the ethical thing to do? What about democracy? The Canterbury Regional Council (ECan) has already been sacked (over something as trivial as water) and most of the power of the city currently resides in the all-powerful, answer to nobody, appointed government department in CERA. Is getting rid of the last vestige of democracy in Christchurch really a positive move forward? Further, what kind of precedent would such a move set? Local government exists for a reason, how can any local authority in future be expected to do its job properly in the future if it has the constant humming of being fired in its ear? Furthermore, how is that democratic? Regional, City and District Council’s are elected, is it really the Government’s place to interfere with that process directly and fire elected officials, just because they do a “bad job”? Should we expect the UN to fire all our MP’s and appoint 121 commissioners if the current government performs poorly in the management of our economy?
I believe strongly that the current woes with the Council need to be sorted out. It is beneficial for the city to have a united and democratic City Council going forward, not one that is made up of appointed commissioners. While there have been some truly woeful moments from the Council of late, there have been a lot of good things too. Don’t forget the draft Central City Plan. When I read through that, I marvel at the short timeframe they turned that out in, as well as the high-quality of the document. It is a really good blueprint for the rebuilding and recovery of the city, and it was a very open, reflective, and transparent process that it came out of. There is simply no guarantee that those type of things would continue under a Council that is made up of appointed commissioners.
That may sound fine to some people. Simply “get on with it”, is the call I hear being made by many. The problem is that the decisions that are being made now are going to have huge ramifications down the line. These are decisions that are being made that require careful thinking, analysis and planning, and rushing too much could well be the difference between Christchurch becoming a Hamilton and a Melbourne (many apologies to Hamiltonians). We are looking at long-term gains here as well as short-term ones. A quick buck or saving is not going to cut it if we want this place to prosper in the future.
Today the Council is holding a crisis meeting with Local Government Minister Nick Smith. The intention of this meeting is to get some harmony around the Council table, and to set some “ground rules”. This is a positive move, and it is good to see that the government are offering assistance rather than pulling the plug on democracy in Christchurch completely. However, I can’t help but ask where we go from here? We know that elections are supposed to be held for ECan again in 2013. I was never ECan’s biggest fan, but felt that the way the councillors were dismissed was simply wrong. Nevertheless, I think it would be a shame to simply reinstate things to the way they were without taking the opportunity to look at local government reform. For a start, I think it would be good to look at what scope there is for council amalgamation and the possibility of a unitary authority. I have my own ideas about how that might possibly look, but for now I just want to say that it should be looked into, particularly with the growing urban satellite areas in mind.
There are other things I think could be looked into as well, in addition to and in lieu of amalgamation. This includes looking into an independent transport authority. It is painful when you start to look at how things work and what has to happen to get certain public transport projects rolling along. ECan, the CCC and Waimakariri and Selwyn District Councils are all involved and hold influence over certain areas. I have always felt that there needed to be an independent Canterbury transport agency, with a close association with the CCC and District Councils. ECan’s role running public transport has never cut it with me, especially with the large rural focus and mandate it has. Public transport policy, planning and implementation should be in the charge of an urban focused and mandated agency. It would be much easier to implement such an agency if there is a kind of “Greater Christchurch Council” in existence, but in lieu of that I think that a more formalised greater Christchurch relationship between the key authorities needs to be established, perhaps at the same time as an independent transport authority being set up.
Today the PM warned that the Government would use its powers to remove any stumbling blocks to the rebuild of Christchurch. A veiled warning perhaps? I feel that the Government will only be so drastic as to replace City Councillors with commissioners should it be deemed a political advantage. At the moment, I think they know that there will simply be too much opposition to the concept, and it will be cannon fodder to Labour who will be keen to take advantage of any big issue to swing support in Christchurch back to red. Nevertheless, the Council have been doing a pretty good job of making such a move more popular among the electorate, so the outcome of today’s meeting will be of much importance.
“The challenge now is for local authorities to use these powers to free up new land. The residential red zone settlement process is progressing well.” – John Key
Other little tidbits in the PM’s announcement that rebuilding Christchurch is at the top of his priority include what seems to be a warning to local government to allow more development of greenfield land. We have seen this in Auckland as well, so there are no surprises there. Nevertheless, it is a worry as I simply do not think that the Government has the background and skill set to know how to develop and plan a city. The PM says this could potentially release 45,000 new homes. Sounds great, right? But in addition to what? The big question for me is how much could such a move compromise existing and desired long-term plans, and how much do we actually need to compromise those plans to accommodate people moving from redzones and a larger than expected influx of migrants associated with the rebuild? We seem to be jumping to one answer here, one that sounds good and gets all the “get on with it” types waving their flags, but could compromise a lot of long-term goals and positive outcomes. Like I said, the decisions that are being made now are going to have huge ramifications down the line and we must not rush all decisions, but balance pace with a careful and well thought out approach.
The meeting between the Council members and the Local Government Minister is due to start at around 2.30pm, with a joint press conference between Bob Parker and Nick Smith to be held afterwards.
marsoe
jhumm
bismarck
January 27, 2012
It seems that the council have just lost sight of the fact that they have a job to actually get on with. Instead, they’ve spent much energy fighting off the public storm from Tony Maryatt’s pay rise that the council voted to give him.
Prior to that was the letter that went to families of the deceased that they’d have to buy their quake memorial plots at Avonhead cemetery despite having been promised that they would be covered by the council/mayoral fund.
Prior to that was gardeners doing work on traffic islands in the Red Zone.
Prior to that was all the celebrities (most whom had relatively little pulling power) into the Red Zone but not residents.
The problem is that the council seems to be making too many really stupid mistakes, which attracts plenty of public criticism – nothing but a big distraction from the real issues.
MrV
January 28, 2012
“Nevertheless, it is a worry as I simply do not think that the Government has the background and skill set to know how to develop and plan a city”
Which omnipotent entity does have the background and skill set?
Cities are built by individual people from the ground up, if you want to see what planned utopia looks like pay a visit to Canberra.
jhumm
January 31, 2012
That is slightly out of context. My point is that local government, with its ear very close to those individual people who “make” a city, and with the appropriate expertise at its disposal is in the best position to plan the framework for a city, not central government. Yes, I have paid a visit to Canberra, but Canberra has nothing to do with the price of fish!
bismarck
January 31, 2012
I think that local councils can generally do a far better job of building a city than what central governments can. That’s because councils serve ‘local’ people and therefore are mandated to have the ‘local’ peoples interests as top priority.
Central Govt has too many other priorities and needs to consider the interests of the country as a whole. So while a government decision to do one thing might make good economic sense from a national perspective, it might not serve the needs of a city as well as it could from a local perspective.
That’s not saying the government shouldn’t have any involvement – they should, and they should have some say because they will no doubt be funding some of it. But it should only be in close collaboration with the people that are meant to “know best”.
As for the recent turmoil in the council, I think that sacking the whole council and having government appointed management would be the worst thing Christchurch could have. I think the government is right to appoint a “watchman” to ensure that the sideshows are left at the fairground, and the serious issues are what is focussed on.
I think on the whole, the media have over-hyped the issues the council are having and are portraying the council as an organisation suffering from endemic failure when in actual fact, most of the issues are not much more than “stupid PR blunders” arising out of probably nothing more than a simple mistake.
What people should stop and think about is that the councillors that serve this city are residents who have also been through these quakes and are no doubt feeling the pressures and strains of their own personal life too. It’s entirely expected that from time to time, this will affect peoples ability to think and work straight and mistakes will happen. We are all only human and I really dislike it how what probably started as a pretty easy slip up can be misconstrued into being something far more serious and end up on this huge witch-hunt.
It will be interesting to see how the next few months or so pan out as far as the council goes.
Been Benuane
February 3, 2012
Well I’m a bit suspicious about this flash-mob demanding Parker retire. There are definitely people who think they have a lot to gain from Parker going and I can’t believe these 3,000 speak for the majority of Christchurch. Some feathers have definitely been ruffled amongst real-estate scum and some backward-thinkers with his CBD plan, and it wouldn’t surprise me if it’s them who’re really behind this.
I hope Parker’s pay rise isn’t permanent, but I think him patting himself on the back for handling the earthquake is justified.
My only disappointment with him is this insistence on pursuing an only light rail approach for Christchurch public transport, which as far as I’m concerned will only set the cause of PT back further.
bismarck
February 5, 2012
Good call Been – Unfortunately the council is really stuck between a rock and a hard place.
The big problem is that the city is going to need BILLIONS of dollars of redevelopment to get the city back up to where it needs to be. Most of that actually will be coming from the private sector including property developers and existing building owners.
I still think that the majority of people seem to grossly underestimate the sheer magnitude (pun?) of the job the council has ahead of it. These protestors, while might have some valid points, still seem to behave in a way that suggests that they could do a better job. Most people really have no idea about the way council [has to] work.
The only thing I’d say in reference to your point about the “real estate scum” is that I do agree that there are some pretty self-scented people in the industry, though knowing an owner of 5 sizeable CBD high-rises (including one in the Square), I can understand some of their frustration…
If say you have a 12 level high rise and it’s insured for $60m which is approximately the same as it’s actual value… $15m for land and $45m for the building. It’s completely damaged, and needs fully rebuilding. The insurance can pay for the rebuild of $45m though this won’t be enough because the new building code requires additional expenses which the insurance company is not liable for. This costs $10m which he has to fund. At the moment, he is faced with having a building of 8 levels high built to replace his 12 level building. This means less floor space to lease and given his extra $10m investment he needs to make, he’ll have a far lower return on investment.
As it stands, unless he can have a 12 level building rebuilt, he is going to be unlikely to rebuild on this site. Instead, he’ll sell the vacant lot and build something in Auckland.
What the issue implies is that unless developers can have a reasonably flexible ability to build what they like (or need to make it worth the investment), then they’ll take their money elsewhere.
My opinion is that developers shouldn’t really be limited by height (apart from where there were existing height limits) as these will be self regulating anyway as if people have too much sentimental attachment against being in high-rises, then they won’t lease space in them or work in them. But the council MUST ensure that they do limit by character – that is, building designs must be compatible with the intention of how the city should look.
You are also right about Bob’s obsession with Light Rail and Tram-Trains… Heavy Rail to serve outlying towns is a far better idea and probably way cheaper to get off the ground than anything else for the time being.
lee
February 6, 2012
I think some posters here have hit the nail on the head in terms of the underlying causes behind the issues facing the council. The Maryatt re-appointment process was first challenged by local businessmen with an axe to grind, and its no coincidence that his most vocal critic on the council has been a councillor from a prominent local business family.
They’ve managed to use some clumsy politics from Parker as a way of raising a lynch mob (pun fully intended) in attempt to get the great Christchurch public, and the appalling Press, to do their dirty work for them.
As an “out of towner” Maryatt is suffering from mixing it with the “old school tie” network.
This article rightly highlights some of the good work that council have done since the quake, but we all need to realise this is going to take years to sort out, and they need time to sort it out.
Just a comment on the “Light Rail” issue, the finalised CCP clearly made greater reference to commuter rail, and I think this recognises the fact that it is recognised that Light Rail may not be the solution for the city right away