Local Government review launched without limits on funding and financing; Democratic deficits in councils also in scope; Success would be a share of taxes to fund growth and doubled turnout
FYI from an informed reader: Thanks for the thought-provoking ideas as always.
I've worked inside local govt in Auckland and worked with them/ been subject to them from outside and I feel your framing is too blunt. One of the big issues is fit-for-purpose models. There are huge differences between being on the front line of growth, migration, water supply, transport, and waste mgmt in Auckland, with an avowed goal of zero emissions and huge momentum to transform rail with the CRL an accepted pain for gain. Compared with small towns, one-industry towns, rural etc who are able to make gradual adjustments.
Auckland has already been through huge reforms (with much resistance from locals). These removed significant decision-making from the local which enabled significant infrastructure commitment and investment but has ripped much of the local heart out from Council-level operations. There needs to be a good understanding of what happened here to gain insights on what might work or not elsewhere and limit any additional pain for Aucklanders.
Your point about increasing the disaffected vote is important but there is no evidence that renters would support higher rates, I suspect the opposite, as these will basically become higher rents.
Restructuring local government will be hugely costly and the added value will need to be clearly articulated. At this point in humanity's journey the priority driver needs to be enabling a low carbon future that drives biodiversity, clean water, and zero waste. For a solution appropriate to Aotearoa, the model needs to reflect the Tangata whenua- Tangata Tiriti partnership and enable mana whenua aspirations.
It can't just be same deck chairs different funding source.
My response: I accept it’s different for slow/no growth councils, but there aren’t that many of them that are cities. I’m mostly focused on the big six (AKL/HAM/TGA/WLG/QTN/CHC), but even then you’re seeing growth and crazy house prices/rents in the likes of Whanganui/Napier/Hastings/P’North/Whangarei/Gisborne/Dunedin) Huge changes needed there too.
Renters shouldn’t see those rates increases independently from rents, which (in theory) reflect supply and demand. If councils/govt do the right thing with a just transition then housing and transport costs should fall and be borne by homeowners.
I get what you say about Auckland, but it has failed on the infrastructure side. Not nearly enough ambition and delivery, albeit hamstrung by central govt. Goff and co are still way too conservative financially.
OK if I put your comment up as an anonymous comment in the comments section? And I’ll put my reply up in response.
Completely agree!
FYI from an informed reader: Thanks for the thought-provoking ideas as always.
I've worked inside local govt in Auckland and worked with them/ been subject to them from outside and I feel your framing is too blunt. One of the big issues is fit-for-purpose models. There are huge differences between being on the front line of growth, migration, water supply, transport, and waste mgmt in Auckland, with an avowed goal of zero emissions and huge momentum to transform rail with the CRL an accepted pain for gain. Compared with small towns, one-industry towns, rural etc who are able to make gradual adjustments.
Auckland has already been through huge reforms (with much resistance from locals). These removed significant decision-making from the local which enabled significant infrastructure commitment and investment but has ripped much of the local heart out from Council-level operations. There needs to be a good understanding of what happened here to gain insights on what might work or not elsewhere and limit any additional pain for Aucklanders.
Your point about increasing the disaffected vote is important but there is no evidence that renters would support higher rates, I suspect the opposite, as these will basically become higher rents.
Restructuring local government will be hugely costly and the added value will need to be clearly articulated. At this point in humanity's journey the priority driver needs to be enabling a low carbon future that drives biodiversity, clean water, and zero waste. For a solution appropriate to Aotearoa, the model needs to reflect the Tangata whenua- Tangata Tiriti partnership and enable mana whenua aspirations.
It can't just be same deck chairs different funding source.
Cheers
My response: I accept it’s different for slow/no growth councils, but there aren’t that many of them that are cities. I’m mostly focused on the big six (AKL/HAM/TGA/WLG/QTN/CHC), but even then you’re seeing growth and crazy house prices/rents in the likes of Whanganui/Napier/Hastings/P’North/Whangarei/Gisborne/Dunedin) Huge changes needed there too.
Renters shouldn’t see those rates increases independently from rents, which (in theory) reflect supply and demand. If councils/govt do the right thing with a just transition then housing and transport costs should fall and be borne by homeowners.
I get what you say about Auckland, but it has failed on the infrastructure side. Not nearly enough ambition and delivery, albeit hamstrung by central govt. Goff and co are still way too conservative financially.
OK if I put your comment up as an anonymous comment in the comments section? And I’ll put my reply up in response.