Oram Hammers Government's Lame Thinking on Auckland

Reprinted below is the text of an article from economist Rod Oram published in the Sunday Star Times. It hits the nail on the head.

You also have the chance to be a part of the debate on Auckland's future. If you'd like to attend the launch of the draft spatial plan on Weds 23 March "Auckland Unleashed" please email Stella Gaseata asap.
Wednesday 23 March 2011
8.45am - 4.30pm
Lower NZI Room, Aotea Centre

Your views on this document will be vital in ensuring future development occurs in the RIGHT places for our Region and does not damage our special places. No doubt there will be conflict, but it will be up to the people of Auckland to decide, so make sure you have your say.
cheers
Mels




Dear All,
Rod Oram has written a strong critique of the recently released Cabinet Papers [see links below] seeking to prescribe the future of the Super City.
I encourage you to distribute it far and wide - as many Aucklander's as possible need to know about this stuff as the debate just getting underway
represents a significant crossroads for the future of our city/region.

Auckland at the Crossroads - Rod Oram
published in the Sunday Star Times (20-3-2011, p. D24)

The Auckland Plan is a moment of opportunity for the super city.

On Wednesday, a great fight for the heart, soul and wellbeing of Aucklanders begins. But don’t worry. It’s not all about Auckland. If the region gets this right, the rest of the country will benefit strongly from more effective approaches to development.

In one corner stands the Auckland Council led by mayor Len Brown. It will present its view of the city’s future when it delivers that day a discussion document on the Auckland Plan.

The paper will look at the region in a new way. For the first time, it will bring together data, analysis and insights on the human, economic, environmental, social, cultural and other factors that make Auckland what it is today.

Crucially, though, it will use this new analysis to show us options for the region’s future. It’s up to Aucklanders to consider, debate, agree and act with the new powers the region gained through the creation of the super city.

It’s a big challenge. Auckland will gain 600,000 people in the next 20 years to make a population of 2 million, according to current projections.

In the other corner stands the Key government, led on these Auckland issues by Rodney Hide, minister of local government. Last week, the cabinet released a set of eight papers giving its very entrenched positions on Auckland’s future.

What a miserable view it was. When Hide and his ministerial colleagues think of Auckland they imagine only more of the same, warts and all. In their view, Auckland has to ooze out across the landscape in low-value, low-growth ways.

They believe this is the only way to deliver enough cheap land for housing and businesses; and roads are the only way to link people.

Three flaws make nonsense of the government’s view:

> First, it fails to consider what Auckland can and has to be if it’s to meet its people’s aspirations.

> Second, it asks the wrong questions and thus comes to the wrong conclusions about why the past efforts such as the previous regional growth strategy didn’t work as well as expected.

> Finally, as a result, it concludes that Auckland can only keep growing the inadequate way it has, though hopefully somewhat more efficiently.

_________

This failure of government ambition, analysis and strategy is no surprise. It has made the same mistakes with its economic and fiscal strategies for the country.

At the core of the government’s position on Auckland is its view on the growth strategy for 1996-2050 set by the Auckland Regional Council. The ARC sought to meet almost 75% of urban growth over that long period within existing urban limits, of which 44% would be achieved by increased population density. So far, these goals have been partially achieved.

The government says this is a strategic failure, which among other things has driven up the cost of land and thus made housing less affordable. It argues instead that Auckland should be allowed to spread out so land is plentiful and optimal use can be made of its investment in more roads.

But the government’s desire to perpetuate low-density growth flies in the face of international studies. These show that higher-density (with the right transport to serve it) improves the network effect of the economy and this generates higher-value activity.

Indeed, the government argues in part against its own position by pointing out that the CBD has attracted more residents and most new office jobs. These are the sort of high-value service jobs which are one of the best hopes for internationalizing the Auckland economy and lifting incomes.

The government hasn’t asked itself a crucial question. If it had invested more in public transport over the past 15 years and given local government effective tools for turning strategy into action, would Auckland have achieved less traffic congestion, higher (yet attractive) urban density and more valuable jobs?

Thankfully, the Auckland Council has asked. Its studies show that investing in the CBD rail loop can deliver those benefits.

Likewise, the 30-year Auckland Regional Land Transport Strategy, finalized last year, makes the case for investing 42% of transport funds in public transport to support regional growth and 53% in roads.

But the cabinet says funding should largely follow existing transport patterns whereby only 4% of trips were on public transport, mainly bus, and almost 80% were by car. It quotes, though, 2006 data, which ignore the strong growth in public transport since.

Yet the government goes on to acknowledge there’s very little space to build more roads. Instead it suggests the city use demand management, road pricing and the like to slow the rate of traffic growth. But why should the government force the city to take such unpopular measures when it and its Labour predecessor ran away from them?

People would get out of their cars if they had better public transport. Demand management means they will pay more and/or travel less, two big economic negatives.

The government is also pushing financial measures on Auckland, such as asset sales, that it is struggling to justify taking itself.

The cabinet papers are equally lame on economic development. Its only suggestions are more efficient regulation, cheaper land and a convention centre.

The whole point of creating the super city and the spatial plan to guide it was to find bold, valuable things for Auckland to do and effective new ways to deliver them.

Yet the government has cut itself off from helping to create such a future. Only once in 57 pages of cabinet papers does it concede that the people and politicians of Auckland, through their spatial plan, could come up with ideas, evidence and actions that might persuade it to change its old failed thinking.

So, the government has a choice: join the cause or lose the Auckland vote.

_________


link to Rodney Hide media release:
http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/minister-releases-papers-outlining-government’s-aspirations-auckland-spatial-plan

link to the cabinet papers:
http://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/wpg_URL/Legislative-Reviews-Royal-Commission-on-Auckland-Governance-Index?OpenDocument