Downtown car park building in Auckland. Photo / Dean Purcell
Keep the front door to the city
There are huge and compelling reasons for Auckland Council to not sell their downtown carpark.
The downtown area is the front door to the city and as such it should remain under the tight control and preferably the ownership of the city.
A sad historical example to reinforce the argument is the Viaduct Basin area. Auckland City Council bid to buy the area being sold by Ports of Auckland for financial reasons and to allow for America’s Cup-based redevelopment. They missed out by a mere few million and the freehold was sold to private developers in the mid-90s, who went on to develop the land on a leasehold basis and amass a fortune that could and should have accrued to the city. Worse, the council were forced to buy and develop and enhance the harbourside and streetscape component at great cost. This resulted in a further uplift in value for the new owners. A poor decision indeed.
In contrast to this is the Britomart development. Auckland City bought up historic downtown properties, amalgamated their titles and leased the area to Peter Cooper in the early 2000s for some 100 years at a little less than their freehold value. Cooper has put in place a magnificent multibillion-dollar development that will eventually revert back to the city. The rationale for this was based on advice from the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority and the desirability of the council retaining strategic control of its front door with the opportunity to reconfigure the city to suit its needs in the future.
The downtown carpark with its strategic location has long been the target for private developers. When I was chairman of finance for the city, we received a number of proposals which were rejected. There is no reason why the air rights above the carpark cannot be leased off for some development which could pay for the costs associated with maintenance of the building but with Auckland Council retaining the freehold.
But a further and compelling argument for retention is the loss of 1900 car parks in the heart of downtown that are are for the use of those Aucklanders who for good reason need to access the city by car. That is a tragedy. I am not sure that this is driven by the puritanical anti-car lobby but it seems to be directly opposite to Mayor Brown’s argument for Auckland Transport and other agencies of council to adapt to the way real families use Auckland roads and related infrastructure.
Doug Armstrong, former chairman of Auckland City Council Finance Committee
Who pushed Jacinda?
The pundits have been offering many reasons why Jacinda Ardern’s popularity plummeted, taking Labour with her.
Could I offer a new slant to the sorry affair? After graduating with a Bachelor of Communication Studies, she worked as a researcher for Helen Clark and an adviser for Tony Blair, where she was part of an 80-person policy unit, and she only actually met Blair personally much later, in New Zealand.
She became a list MP in 2008 while she was President of the International Union of Socialist Youth, and she became leader of Labour in 2017 when Andrew Little resigned. It seems that not much work experience was gained over the years and I think that when she was gifted the premiership by Winston Peters, she was suddenly plunged into an international leadership role for which she was not qualified. She was a prime victim of the Peters Principle: a person promoted above their level of competence.
As “Jacinda-mania” decreased, her incompetence and unpopularity increased to such an extent that she became a liability for Labour’s electoral hopes, and she resigned, mid-term. Most unusual. Who pushed her, I wonder.
Johan Slabbert, Warkworth.
Hierarchy vs democracy
I was surprised to see university academics blaming our TVNZ Sunday team (Weekend Herald, October 21) for not erasing the confidential parts of our interview with Erin Leighton. What planet are they on, Krypton?
As the reporter who conducted the interview, I believe the video was wrongfully seized by a judicial system that should realise democracy depends on the rights of journalists to protect their sources. And journalism teachers should know that reporters must be able to save material they can’t use at first in case they do need it later. Circumstances change.
As your article pointed out, Erin Leighton was a very brave woman indeed to go public on the Sunday programme about the abuse she suffered as a teenager. She was 15 when the abuse occurred and 22 when she finally made the decision to get her name suppression lifted so she could talk to us.
But there is still work to be done. Judges can’t have a hierarchical approach that says lawyers and priests, who are apparently further up the social pecking order than journalists, should be allowed to withhold confidential discussions with clients and worshippers, while journalists protecting democracy can’t.
Some years ago I interviewed the District Attorney in Little Rock, Arkansas, about the extradition of a Kiwi on racketeering charges. “When are you running this?” she asked me. “Well that depends on whether there are any suppression orders by the judge,” I replied. “Suppression orders?” she exclaimed. “In America we have democracy.”
Ian Sinclair, Auckland.
Way forward
Much discussion continues (NZ Herald, October 20) concerning the ownership and control of our fresh water, with the situation, however, not as complicated as often made out. With a new forward-thinking government, there is now an opportunity for worthwhile change.
The Three Waters situation is an outrageous theft of the multibillion-dollar water assets of our local bodies. This, despite a gross underinvestment locally in water infrastructure for many decades, and water quality at times also being less than satisfactory. With local councils already approaching their debt limits, the way forward has to be a return of valuable water assets to each local body, with acceptance that a vital investment in underfunded infrastructure has now to be other the responsibility of central government, together with monitoring of fresh water quality. This could be achieved by a small board of two or three experts who would travel New Zealand determining priorities for new centrally funded infrastructure needs, as well as maintenance of water quality.
Hylton Le Grice, Remuera.
Mistakes to learn from
It’s sadly ironic that President Joe Biden is now urging Israel not to be “consumed by rage” and avoid the mistakes the US made post-9/11, (NZ Herald, October 20).
The time for the President to urge restraint was a week ago at the very least, because surely the US must have understood that more than 70 years of embittered conflict in the region could quickly escalate to catastrophic levels.
The world, and Israel’s most powerful ally, America, has fully supported its right to defend itself, so there was no need to veto the UN resolution calling for a ceasefire because America didn’t feel the resolution adequately underscored Israel’s right to that self-defence.
After 9/11, was the invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan proportionate and stabilising? I suspect American history will record it as a victory against terrorism, but those same countries still harbour terror cells and there are reports of increased Islamic extremist activity in the region.
While many innocent civilian lives continue to be lost and the Gaza Strip is reduced to rubble, will the US use its status as a superpower to try and broker a peace deal? If it has truly learned from its mistakes, it will act decisively and try to end this conflict and preserve nationhood for both countries as soon as possible.
Mary Hearn, Glendowie.
A numbers game
All sports are regulated by rules, players and coaches make the most of them.
A team playing negative rugby makes it very difficult for its opponents not to conform. This was very obvious in the Springbok/England game where 15-man rugby was reduced to two-man, being halfback and first five in both teams.
Both were searching for a mistake and the likelihood of a penalty within kicking distance. Three points from a penalty, which often is debatable, is too much an incentive to not to be sought, especially in close games. A reduction to at least two makes sense as that’s all you get from a conversion. Whatever the result this weekend, one has to eat humble pie and admit Fozzie does know what he is doing.
The players have proven that to be true. Good luck boys.
Reg Dempster, Albany.
On speed limit
In the 1970s when the financial cost of fossil fuels was too high, we reduced the speed limit to 80km/h. Why now that the climate change cost from fossil fuel use is undeniable, would we increase the speed limit to 110 km/h?
Philip La Roche.
On boom
The one piece of sailing kit that needs lots of respect and foreboding is the boom, especially if the wind is “up your bum” i.e. sailing downwind at speed.
Rob Buchanan, Kerikeri.
On demand and supply
Residents are complaining about a McDonald’s planned for Kepa Rd in Auckland. Unhealthy they say, and too many people queuing for food. Yet we spend a fortune on their products and they only open to supply and demand. The solution is obvious, don’t buy the products if you don’t want them sold.
Graham Carter, Herne Bay.
On indefensible costs
The financial costs associated with the probably now-defunct Three Waters Reforms are an absolute disgrace that can be firmly placed on the outgoing Labour Government and basically whatever they say, it’s impossible to defend the indefensible.
Mike Baker, Tauranga.
‘Heartbreaking’: Kids make sacrifices to help mum and dad pay the mortgage
This is normal life. Seventy years ago I experienced the same thing with my parents when they purchased the family home for us to live in. Better to make these sorts of “sacrifices” than to live in a rental in my humble opinion. Richard O.
I don’t know anyone who could afford five kids. My wife and I decided on one even though we would have loved to have another as we both work and that was hard enough to afford. Deane S.
We raised our family during the during the 70s and 80s, paying enormous interest rates on our modest new build home. We had two mortgages, as was common in those days. It was a good few years of relative deprivation and it eventually led to the end of the marriage. One conscious decision we made was to limit our family and not have the four children we had planned for. Two kids were hard enough financially, so while it’s a contentious issue it’s also relevant. Cheryl W.
People worked far harder 70 years ago than now. My parents rented, both worked and saved to get a deposit to buy a house and spent 25 years paying it off. Never a handout from the Government then. Richard C.
The boomer generation did not go through a world war, nor a depression. They had the best of everything and even now, have a smaller population cohort funding their retirements — an extravagance that younger generations will not receive. Gavin L.
OPINION: Five of the top columns of the year from Audrey Young.