do we not even care about conflicts of interest anymore?

This morning, Tim Carter was in the paper talking about asset sales to pay for buildings that have been included in the blueprint. I am not going to get into a debate about the pros and cons of asset sales at this point – I covered that yesterday, and others have done similar – but I wanted to question whether there is a conflict of interest around this. Tim Carter is the son of former councillor, Philip Carter. Philip Carter is a keen supporter of the blueprint, as it has given him somewhat favourable treatment. Carter owns part of the site in Cathedral Square that has been marked down for the convention centre project. It seems as though he will also be given a concession to be able to build two hotels, adjacent to the convention centre, which are taller the central city height limit that other developers will have to abide by.

The Carter Group … owns the condemned former Government Life building west of Cathedral Square and at the southern end of the proposed convention centre site in the central-city recovery blueprint. The project allows for two interconnected hotels that will cater for up to 2000 delegates, and the centre will be able to host three conferences simultaneously.

So Philip Carter will benefit from the convention centre, both by having his land bought for the project, and by being able to build hotels adjacent, which will directly benefit from convention goers. All this considered, should Tim Carter be advocating for the council to sell assets to fund a project that benefits his family? How can the Press report this story without mentioning this quite clear connection, or do we just not care about this sort of cosiness in the rebuild? Or, alternatively, should we believe that Tim and Philip Carter are the only family in Christchurch that don’t inevitably talk about the rebuild over dinner?

submit on the Council plan – more fun than it sounds

Submissions close on the Council’s Three Year Plan tomorrow. They’ve made it as easy as they can to submit – you can go to this site here and fill in a form. I’ve done mine, and I’ve put my submissions below. Not because I want you to copy them, but because they are what I believe the key issues for the Council – and it’s relationship with the Government  - are.

Cycling

I am an avid commuting cyclist, I don’t own a car, I bike almost everywhere. However, I think the “cycling tax” is a really poor idea. Providing for cycling infrastructure should be one of the council’s core functions, not dependent on further levying the population.

Stadium

The plans for the covered stadium should be shelved, and the council should be committing no money to it in the short term. The new stadium at Addington will last for many years, and is barely even filling up. The people of Christchurch do not need the white elephant of a stadium without an economic plan.

Hagley Oval

The Council should continue to oppose this development as strongly as possible. Canterbury Cricket have provided no economic plan for how they are going to fund this project, how many events it will have, who will ultimately own it. The Council should not be giving a private organisation large tracts of land just because they can wheel out sporting celebrities. They need to answer some pretty fundamental questions about how they see this working, and then be upfront with the people of Christchurch about it.

Social Housing

The council’s social housing position has been very strong for generations, and now, when Cantabrians need it most, should be reinforced. Social housing should be a top priority for capital projects; it helps out people in need, it has much more reliable returns than sports stadia, and it encourages community. The council could also use a social housing building programme to actively shape population patterns in the new city, to increase density in key areas, to encourage sustainable living. 

Heritage

Council should be trying to maintain any heritage buildings that still remain. This includes modern heritage, such as the world-class Town Hall. The Town Hall is a fantastic building, but it also means so much to generations of Cantabrians. I sung there in choir; I stood on stage as my Cantamath team won a prize; I went to my first big gig there, and later got to perform on stage. It is a unique space with irreplaceable memories, and if restored will be the venue for countless more. 

Council Assets

The public has been very clear about making an effort to retain key council assets, and I applaud the council for responding. I know money will be tight, but please stay strong, so the benefits of owning these companies is returned to all, not the few.

Column – June 8th

Last week I went to a community meeting about the rebuild of Sydenham. It was filled with people, all brimming with ideas. After a quick briefing, we were given a sheet of butter paper and a map of Sydenham, and told to draw our ideal Colombo St. After half an hour or so, the groups put down the coloured pencils and presented three of their ideas to the rest of the room. There were some very interesting ideas, some predictable ones, and a few more bizarre ones (a pet cemetery for Colombo St!) If there was one common theme, it was that the suburb should look to mixed-use buildings, with retail and offices on the ground and first floor, with residential apartments on the third and fourth floors. Great idea – so what’s the problem?

Participants in these meetings – and in other community engagement projects like the “Share an Idea” website being run by the council – are all based around what people want. Wants are not always the same as needs. Many of these ideas are nice in concept, but will they work for the street, the suburb, the city? What if we zone Colombo St for mixed-use, 3 or 4 storey buildings – and nobody wants to tenant them?

Malls are another example. Many people have been saying that they don’t want any more suburban malls – and neither do I. However, we have malls because people use them. If people really want to stop the growth of the malls, they should stop using them now. We don’t need an earthquake – or a heavy-handed council plan – to stop them; we need a change in the way we interact with our urban environments. The long term city plan is part of that, and I applaud them for their attempts at community consultation on the plan. I worry that the community see the rebuild as an easy way for someone else – council, government – to fix problems that Christchurch has had for years.

Wants must be balanced with needs, otherwise Christchurch could end up as a city by committee that is even less functional than it was before the quake. Sydenham, the centre city – large parts of Christchurch were dead or dying before September 4th and February 22nd. Now we have an opportunity to rebuild the city we want – and the city we need.

Bob Parker “threatened to quit” – surely a case of mistaken identity

The Press front page this morning sensationally declares that Bob Parker has threatened to quit if Tony Marryatt was not returned as CEO of the City Council. I find it hard to believe that the Bob Parker mentioned in this story is one and the same as our beloved Mayor, Bob Parker. See, the real Bob Parker, our Mayor, showed no fear when Christchurch was struck by an earthquake. Without hesitation, he found the nearest TV camera and reassured us that everything was ok. He was so brave, so courageous, he approached every interview without any thoughts of what it might do to his personal profile or electability. Day in, day out, he was there, reassuringly on the box, wearing his orange jacket, touring the suburbs to see “poor people”, demonstrating how to use a chemical toilet. He didn’t even stop to think about who was running the city and the recovery – he was just so focussed on getting the message out there, to all the people who had power in Fendalton, Cashmere, Karori and Grey Lynn. I can’t reconcile the principled, determined actions of that Bob Parker, our Mayor – the man’s man, with the description that the Press has presented this morning; a petulant, bullying man who would rather threaten resignation than listen to dissent. I call upon the Press to “reveal” who this “Bob Parker” they quoted really is – and what he’s done with the Real Bob Parker, our Brave Leader.

Support your local libraries

There has been a minor kerfuffle over a group of Christchurch City Councillors planning a trip to San Francisco to have a look at how that city responded to their quake (I can’t find the article online at the Press, but will keep looking.) Some of the councillors are starting to get defensive about the jaunt, and given some of the other trips that councillors have taken, they might be right to be wary. I don’t particularly care if they want to go over there, I am happy that they are keen to learn from other disasters.

But how come they are only keen to learn if there is a trip to somewhere fun? There are undoubtedly lessons to be learnt from San Fran*, lessons that could be better learnt, I would argue, from actually sitting down and reading about it. Why do our politicians continue to only take lessons if those lessons involve long-haul travel to some trendy locale at someone else’s expense? While meeting people who were involved, who helped co-ordinate the recovery is no doubt a valuable exercise, sitting down and reading some reports, some books, watching the news from ’89 would be just as valuable, if not more so. Why? Well, books and reports tend to come under slightly more scrutiny than taking the opinions of one person, 20 years after the fact, as gospel.

So go. I have no problem with that. But a trip to San Francisco should be seen as a learning aid, rather than the lesson in itself. I would like to think you’ll be getting around the local libraries and trying to find some further material on disaster response, something that might push you further than riding on a tram or visiting the Full House house.

*someone from the Government might want to explain why there is no mention of San Francisco in the document that led to CERA being set up.

Where to from here?

The Press this morning has some rather frightening but inevitable stories about people leaving Christchurch, and where to put the people who stay. First up, Big Gerry tells us there is the ‘real prospect’ of large-scale movements – whole suburbs. I wouldn’t necessarily be opposed to this, as long as the question of where they will be housed is satisfactorily answered. Which brings me to page 3 of the paper, where there are two articles of interest. Firstly, ‘Developers tussle to house city displaced’, which brings the edifying spectacle of property developers rushing to the bottom to house our homeless. The two developers represent Christchurch satellite towns, Rolleston and Pegasus. Like the debate about the CBD, this is a problem that was killing Christchurch well before the quake, but now needs to be urgently addressed.

We have a number of satellite towns, some of which have been around a long time, like Kaiapoi and Rangiora, and some of which, like Pegasus, have been totally artificially created by developers in the last decade. People have been lured out with the promise of big sections, low rates and their chance to create their own tasteless architectural monstrosity. These towns are outside the Christchurch City Council boundaries, falling in either Selwyn or Waimakariri districts. The Christchurch City Council – worried about losing their rating base – has been increasingly happy to approve subdivision developments within the city boundaries, mainly around the new suburb of Northwood, and in the south-west around Westlake, Oaklands, Halswell and Aidenfield. The problem for the council has been whether to open up greenbelt land within the city boundaries, or let development continue on the outskirts of town, but having no control over how that development plays out.

As someone opposed to urban sprawl, I’d rather see more intensive residential development in the suburbs that border what used to be the CBD. However, I can’t see that happening anytime soon, and I suspect that this soon after the quake, there is probably little appetite for multi-storey apartment blocks. But I don’t want to see the CCC end up in a fight with the Selwyn and Waimak councils over who gets to house all the displaced. While I opposed the suspension of ECan elections, and I’m not sure whether the Supercity process in Auckland was handled that well, I think we might need to consider bringing in a unitary authority for the 3 districts. It is probably the only way that the growth of these outlying towns can be controlled in a way that benefits greater Christchurch, not just Rolleston and Pegasus.

Conflicts of Interest

Some interesting points have been raised here by Peter Taylor, who is a council candidate in the Hagley-Ferrymead ward. Peter is raising concern about property developer Tim Carter’s run for council, and outlines many of the concerns that I share. Carter was running for council before the earthquake, and I had concerns about him then; now, with so much of the city up for grabs, I am very wary about having a councillors who have significant property interests. Another such council candidate is Jamie Gough. Do we want a city run by property developers, for property developers, or a city run by the people, for the people?