Readers' Views: Super Auckland

Excellent to see this sensible idea being put forward for serious discussion. Let's hope it eventuates soon so Auckland can move forward as one and more quickly, without the delays caused by so much bureaucracy.
- Isaac Broome.

If we are going to do it, let's at least do it once and do it right. Auckland should be one city, not two or three. Let's drop this village mentality and start living in the 21st century.
- Roland Bird.

As a supplier of goods to the infrastructure market in the Auckland area, great. Every council has its own set of standards as to what they will and won't accept. Some rationalisation/standardisation would be good and save everyone money.
- Chris Duyvestyn.

I live in Mt Albert. Why does it cost me a dollar to borrow a book from Waiheke Community Library and $10 to borrow a book from the closer and more conveniently located Takapuna Library? Is there some kind of Customs duty to be paid when moving books across city borders?
- Tony Cooper.

The benefits promised by amalgamation in 1989 haven't appeared. The residents of Birkenhead ended up paying to fix problems on the other side of North Shore. There has been much empire building happening on the eastern side of the Shore but nothing in the west, with the exception of the purchase of the Chelsea Sugar Works land for a park in the last year. Many of the problems could be solved by giving the ARC more power, responsibility and teeth.
- Kirstie Prangley.

I was dead against the local body reforms in 1989 and firmly believe there has been no benefit in them. If the three mayors can demonstrate what improvements can be made by another amalgamation of local authorities, then a vote by all ratepayers should be held on the proposal.
- Mike Gibson.

Is this just a plot to get people in the rest of the Auckland area to help pay for the Eden Park upgrade? Will one of the people supporting this tell us how many needless staff members will be sacked, and how much we can expect as a reduction in our rates? I'm betting the answers are zero and zero. I've worked on local government reorganisations in the UK, and they are just vastly expensive exercises which benefit only the highly paid consultants brought in to help.
- Alan Johnstone.

A two city approach may be more realistic than a single city, with the North and West as one unit and Central, South and East Auckland as the other. The North Shore, Rodney and possibly Waitakere are set to grow by another million people. Their infrastructure needs are large, running into billions and I am not sure the rest of Auckland would want to pay for this. Neither would the North and West want to be constrained by the constant infighting in Auckland City politics.
- Edward Lyons.

First do the math ... Any BIG CITY proposal should be driven not by 'agendas' but be supported (or not) with sound information. First therefore conduct a 'full' (financial and non financial) cost-benefit exercise (LGA 02 S82 refers) so that we the public are fully informed on the options. See my websites at www.kauriglen.co.nz
- - - posted 10.46am Sept 5, 2006 by Larry Mitchell

I am skeptical about recently publicized proposals supporting the creation of a single 'super-city' in place of the current particularistic structure. In the first place I am concerned that the creation of single structure of governance will increase the distance between the leadership and the public. Aside from the loss of accessibility for both parties, the increased distance of the leadership from the public grassroots does not bode well for the development of sound policy that has properly factored in the 'real world' of the constituency. In addition while the creation of a 'super-city' is likely to remove a layer of local bureaucracy there is no guarantee that the new 'super-city' structure that replaces it, will be more effective in serving the local needs of the populace. Moreover there is a good chance that any organisational efficiencies realised through the consolidation of local bureaucracies is likely to cancelled out by the formation of a body that could potentially be even more labyrinthine and onerous for the public to deal with than the current structures in place; in other words the cost efficiencies gained from the formation of a unitary structure may lead to increased cost in both time and perhaps money for the public. Nevertheless it is quite clear that governance does need to be addressed in the region. This has clearly been highlighted with areas requiring broad strategic 'vision' and planning such as roading and other public infrastructure; here the current system governance serves as an impediment to the 'requirement'.
- - - posted 9.00am Sept 5, 2006 by Patrick Baron