Speaker by Various Artists

Read Post

Speaker: Grand Theft Auckland

100 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last

  • Rich of Observationz,

    ARC elects 13 councillors from six constituencies by plurality-at large voting, who then choose a leader.

    While not very democratic, this is more so than electing a Lord Mayor through bandwagon voting.

    Also, the new council is having various parts of Waikato that weren't in the ARC area appended, in an effort to boost the number of tory-voting rural dwellers in the area (even if they don't want to be in the supercity, they can still be relied on to vote the right way).

    Back in Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 5550 posts Report Reply

  • James Littlewood*,

    Tim: yeah, just took off on my lunch break to join in the hikoi. Good crowd, nice vibe. Never seen the cops getting on so well with the mob, right down to jokes about the Warriors.

    I liked the placard: "we've been feeding all of you for 1,000 years".

    Auckland • Since Mar 2008 • 410 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    I'm please that the Greens how have views on property rights that would make Ayn Rand pee her pants.

    Maori are now fond of Royal Commissions to a degree they weren't when they were recommending that the Maori seats be abolished.

    And the Mayor of North Shore City is a clown hat with jingly bells.
    (I'm sorry, but I can't feel any regret at the possibility he's going to have to go back to the circus sooner rather than later.)

    And since everyone now gives a $#@! about "democracy", I guess more than half of you are going to bother putting your postal ballots in the nearest mail box?

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole,

    Also, the new council is having various parts of Waikato that weren't in the ARC area appended

    And other parts are going to Environment Waikato. Not sure about the relative sizes, but the transfer is not all one-way. There are logical reasons for doing it, and it was the Commission that made the recommendations rather than it being some (not-so-) secret NAct conspiracy to gerrymander the new electorate.

    Auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 4097 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca,

    Having worked with Ms Dean on many occasions can I also add that she has a frighteningly ferocious appetite for hard work and a knack for asking the hard questions, both of which also make her ideally suited.

    Well, thank -you very much. Nice to know someone has knowledge of her, because I don't see any information telling Auckland about this Agency. At a glance the ex to be Watercare guy was the one that privatised it, and now he's the one with Auckland's $28 mill of assets, answerable to ...Rodney Hide (by name and nature). I don't care if it's lawyers, caregivers, accountants or what have you, but I do care if we are not able to question and protect our city from a massive alteration that will ultimately cost us. It is not democratic. We just had an accounting error on a large scale at the Westpac bank this last week and now we have criminals created because the bank made a mistake. We are supposed to trust this Agency cos Rodney and John say so. Bloody Transparency is what we need. It's not too much for 1/3 f the country to have.How dare they dismiss us like yesterdays fish and chip wrapper.

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • Gareth Ward,

    Sofie, all for your transparency call but not sure what you meant by this:

    At a glance the ex to be Watercare guy was the one that privatised it

    Watercare is not privatised. It's owned by all the existing Auckland councils.

    Auckland, NZ • Since Mar 2007 • 1727 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Robeson,

    I have to go back and re-read the original blog after reading all this.

    There seem to be some strange reactions here. Such as 'how is this going to play?' Stop thinking about the game and look at what is happening here.

    This essentially reads to me like a call to arms. It says if you don't like your city- one with great character defined by the charm of being a series of diverse villages, and not one amorphous, hideous brand- being taken over in this manner what are you doing about it?

    The same could be asked of Russel, as I feel his party gave the Nats some of the political capital being spent here.

    But as this was posted on Sunday night it is several posts down. Is there anyway it can be bumped to the top of the queue?

    Since Feb 2008 • 87 posts Report Reply

  • Glenn Pearce,

    now we have criminals created because the bank made a mistake

    You're havin' a laugh aren't you ?

    Those poor people, turned into terrible criminals by the nasty bank.

    At what that's got to do with Rodney Hide and the super city ? you lost me.

    Auckland • Since Feb 2007 • 504 posts Report Reply

  • Glenn Pearce,

    The government's intention to get rid of MMP arises from the same source. Democracy prevents these procedural pirates from seizing assets and milking us for our cash. So democracy is the enemy.

    Hasn't Key said there'll be a referendum on MMP in 2011, what's undemocratic about that ?

    And there is of course the argument that MMP is one of the least democratic systems with minor parties wielding power beyond their mandates and parties deciding their "lists" not the voters. But lets not open that can of worms right now.

    Auckland • Since Feb 2007 • 504 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca,

    Watercare is not privatised. It's owned by all the existing Auckland councils.

    Thanks. Got that wrong then.

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca,

    Those poor people, turned into terrible criminals by the nasty bank.

    At what that's got to do with Rodney Hide and the super city ? you lost me.

    Hypocrisy, but let's not open that can of worms.

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • Nick D'Angelo,

    __Watercare is not privatised. It's owned by all the existing Auckland councils.__
    Thanks. Got that wrong then.

    Cool, now can you answer the next question:

    Why does Auckland City buy the water from Watercare at 'Wholesale' prices, and then mark it up to a 'retail' price before providing it to me? And under the new Supercity structure will I be able to 'buy' it from Waitakere if their price is cheaper?

    Simon Laan • Since May 2008 • 162 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca,

    Why does Auckland City buy the water from Watercare at 'Wholesale' prices, and then mark it up to a 'retail' price before providing it to me?

    Plus put the price up if you don't use enough.That's just been announced. I guess timing is everything.

    And under the new Supercity structure will I be able to 'buy' it from Waitakere if their price is cheaper?

    I think Waitakere wont exist.

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • Gareth Ward,

    Why does Auckland City buy the water from Watercare at 'Wholesale' prices, and then mark it up to a 'retail' price before providing it to me?

    Metrowater (being Auckland City's water retailer) have a network as well - they own, manage and maintain all the pipes from the local reservoirs (e.g. end of Ponse Rd, the one on Kyber Pass) to the home. I'm not 100% on where the wastewater demarcations lie between Watercare and the retailers.
    So they do incur cost delivering it to you (and cost in billing you for it).

    And under the new Supercity structure will I be able to 'buy' it from Waitakere if their price is cheaper?

    The current model proposed gets rid of different retailers and has Watercare running everything from dam to house and back to wastewater treatment. There may be regional pricing but I wouldn't think so.

    Any profits (they call it "return on public investment") made by these water companies go back to councils as revenue - so they should lower rates by that amount. I think there is an argument as to why we use water delivery as a revenue centre for the council, but it probably does encourage lower usage than having it a free for all with the cost buried in rates.

    Auckland, NZ • Since Mar 2007 • 1727 posts Report Reply

  • Rich of Observationz,

    Of course, the "streamlined" structure makes it a simple business for Auckland MegaCouncil, or even the transition authority, to sell Watercare.

    And typically, when that happens, senior management get given shares and go from being a salaried employee on good money to a very wealthy part owner of the business.

    I wonder who would benefit in that case?

    Back in Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 5550 posts Report Reply

  • Gareth Ward,

    sell Watercare

    I just really can't see how they could possibly spin that? Where would the benefit be in handing over a full monopoly of the most basic necessary to service to private owners? It wouldn't make water cheaper at all, and that's pretty much the only benefit privatisation can bring.

    Auckland, NZ • Since Mar 2007 • 1727 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole,

    I just really can't see how they could possibly spin that? Where would the benefit be in handing over a full monopoly of the most basic necessary to service to private owners? It wouldn't make water cheaper at all, and that's pretty much the only benefit privatisation can bring.

    Gareth, Gareth, Gareth. Free market uber alles, ja?
    Seriously, Rodders doesn't give a fuck about actual benefit for the prolles, all he cares about is his precious ideology of privatised everything. That water privatisation has seen people killed in rioting is completely irrelevant in the face of such intractable logic as "The market is always right."
    How would they spin it? National managed to convince people that electrickery would get cheaper through their machinations with ElectriCorp. I'm sure Rodney et al could find a way to gloss over the ugly truths that've come from Bolivia and other countries that've had their water privatised, and paint it as a panacea for all our ills. We might even get ponies!

    Auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 4097 posts Report Reply

  • Nick D'Angelo,

    **sell Watercare**
    I just really can't see how they could possibly spin that? Where would the benefit be in handing over a full monopoly of the most basic necessary to service to private owners? It wouldn't make water cheaper at all, and that's pretty much the only benefit privatisation can bring.

    Ah well, that would make us unique then, wouldn't it. Water companies the world over have been sold off and the result is always the same. Big profits for the privatised company via deferred maintenance and higher charges. It's for that reason (as much as I'm opposed to it) that I'll buy shares if they privatise. History shows it's money for jam.

    Simon Laan • Since May 2008 • 162 posts Report Reply

  • Sam F,

    How would they spin it? National managed to convince people that electrickery would get cheaper through their machinations with ElectriCorp.

    "ECNZ might be very efficient in practice, but unfortunately it doesn't work in theory"

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1611 posts Report Reply

  • Gareth Ward,

    Water companies the world over have been sold off and the result is always the same.

    It's actually quite rare - happened in the UK (and what a mess THAT was) but not in many other spots.

    Maybe I'm being naive but I really see the case for privatising water very very hard to make and given the natural public emotional reaction would be helllllll no I just can't see it happening.

    Auckland, NZ • Since Mar 2007 • 1727 posts Report Reply

  • Sofie Bribiesca,

    Maybe I'm being naive but I really see the case for privatising water very very hard to make and given the natural public emotional reaction would be helllllll no I just can't see it happening.

    So maybe I was just ahead of the times accusing our newbie king council transition man of privatisation .:)
    Maybe I was thinking of Argentina's water supply.

    here and there. • Since Nov 2007 • 6796 posts Report Reply

  • Tom Semmens,

    Gareth you are making a key incorrect assumption - that the National government would announce a water privatisation and try and defend that.

    Rodney Hide feels no need to justify his behaviour - his power drunk display so far over his SuperCity tells us that. We will get a gerrymandered permanent CitRat oligarchy running Auckland if he has his way. And it will be them, not National, that ram through the privatisation of Auckland's water supply. How they'll do it I know not - maybe they'll try another Ports of Auckland type move and set up a public water company with so much debt that it's bound to fail and then they'll privatise it.

    Never forget ACT is the party of the Auckland business elite, an elite with a history of preferring to get rich by being in charge of ticket clipping cartels.

    Sevilla, Espana • Since Nov 2006 • 2217 posts Report Reply

  • ScottY,

    I'm struggling with some of the speculation being exercised in this thread.

    What evidence do we have that anyone's looking to sell Watercare? Or that Hide's going to gerrymander the system to keep the CitRats in power forever? How would he do this?

    Now don't get me wrong - I'm no fan of either Hide or the CitRats. But please give us more than "because that's just the kind of thing they'd do".

    West • Since Feb 2009 • 794 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel,

    Auckland vs the Bicycle Thieves
    the Rich Little city (or the city that impersonates a city that walks on water...)
    What! NO cycle helmet! Biking on the pavement! Transporting uncovered foodstuffs! Then ending on what looks like cemetery gates... - promoting an OSH-free fantasy land, much like the vaseline-lensed one for Chch night-life, too, which left out the litter and pools of vomit and urine round the strip... getting up early in Chch doesn't visually reward as much as it does in Auckland obviously : )
    In fact Chch has just announced that it has plans for a NEW heart of the city - the Lanes Project, so not the City Mall that they've spent a fortune on then or the Square that they've spent even more on over the years - I think the reason it doesn't have a heart is because it doesn't have a brain...
    ...are we in Oz yet?

    Parsing water...
    Suez (one of World's oldest corporations) were not just involved in Argentina - Mexico too

    and lest we forget Bechtel & Bolivia
    or Bechtel in Ecuador

    Of course they're not interested in NZ's water, right?

    Well, Bechtel still have "the one that got away" proudly listed on their website:

    HYDRO PROJECT
    NEW ZEALAND—Bechtel and McConnell Dowell Constructors Ltd. have signed a contract to build the $750 million Project Aqua hydroelectricity system for Meridian Energy, New Zealand’s largest electricity generator. The companies will work with Meridian on cost development until September 2004, followed by detailed design and construction if the project proves economically and environmentally viable. It would be the largest construction project in New Zealand in more than 10 years.

    admittedly hydro construction, not water management per se - but Public/Private partnerships and overseas out-sourcing are fast becoming the norm in NZ - witness Chch City Council - changing from a French company collecting the city's rubbish to the lowest bidding Australian company getting the contract - thta'll keep the money local - forward thinking stuff...

    still the new city slogan resonates
    Christchurch - Love your rubblsh!
    and the streets are bin-laden!


    yrs
    Prince Namor
    holding my breath

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 7953 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    Again, clarifying first that I am not speaking on behalf of any of the local councils with which I have a relationship.

    privatisation of Auckland's water supply

    Sorry Scott I don't have the energy tonight to dig up references, but it's pretty widely talked about that one of the prizes of the merger is access to the $28b of combined assets - including the water ones, with their global market for privatisation. South Africa is another unfortunate example.

    I suppose it makes sense if you want to run a Council like a business to free up cash now by flogging off large and marketable assets like that. The new Council may need that cash to pay for the nine figure transition costs - and to keep rates down if Mr Hide persuades the Nats to back his TABOR-style proposal.

    Here's Bill English on behalf of John Key during the May 7 question time:

    Water assets will not be privatised as a result of the restructuring. In the end, as with every other local body in New Zealand, the decisions about local body assets are made by the elected representatives of the people who live in that local body area.

    Of course that was before the Transition Authority replaced those elected representatives as decision-makers, but I believe they will genuinely leave it up to the new super-Councillors to do after October 2010 (to avoid a fight in the meantime, especially with iwi).

    All worth remembering when anyone asks what's at stake in how those Councillors are chosen and to where and whom they are likely to feel allegiance.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.