Govt set to decide on $1.3b Mill Rd project that could unleash thousands of houses, but increase carbon emissions; Climate activists oppose it; Auckland Council says it can't afford its $1b share
You note that environmentalists oppose Mill Road and we need to build up and out, but is that the only reason to be sceptical?
This water infrastructure bill seems to indicate that we're repeating all the same mistakes American cities make as highlighted by the Conservative "Strong Towns" movement. E.g. https://youtu.be/y_SXXTBypIg
This announcement just seems to repeat the cycle:
• Developer or government pays for infrastructure for low density, car focused suburb.
• Suburb may or may not be able to cover its own infrastrucuture maintenance costs through early years
• 30-60 years later infrastructure needs to be replaced all at once at a neighbourhood level as it was all built at the same time and due to its low density it hasn't generated enough income for the city in the form of rates to cover replacement.
• City seeks grant for further expansion or government bailout to cover costs, let's its infrastructure deteriorate or goes insolvent.
• City gets bailed out, and continues suburban expansion.
No one seems to talk about the long term fiscal timebomb of suburban development and I thought you would be interested in talking to someone like Charles (Chuck) Marohn about it in the nz context. Marohn is a conservative that advocates for denser, walkable cities (and cycle ways) there aren't many conservatives that seem to have thought about the fiscal impacts of suburbs in NZ.
You note that environmentalists oppose Mill Road and we need to build up and out, but is that the only reason to be sceptical?
This water infrastructure bill seems to indicate that we're repeating all the same mistakes American cities make as highlighted by the Conservative "Strong Towns" movement. E.g. https://youtu.be/y_SXXTBypIg
This announcement just seems to repeat the cycle:
• Developer or government pays for infrastructure for low density, car focused suburb.
• Suburb may or may not be able to cover its own infrastrucuture maintenance costs through early years
• 30-60 years later infrastructure needs to be replaced all at once at a neighbourhood level as it was all built at the same time and due to its low density it hasn't generated enough income for the city in the form of rates to cover replacement.
• City seeks grant for further expansion or government bailout to cover costs, let's its infrastructure deteriorate or goes insolvent.
• City gets bailed out, and continues suburban expansion.
No one seems to talk about the long term fiscal timebomb of suburban development and I thought you would be interested in talking to someone like Charles (Chuck) Marohn about it in the nz context. Marohn is a conservative that advocates for denser, walkable cities (and cycle ways) there aren't many conservatives that seem to have thought about the fiscal impacts of suburbs in NZ.