|
Here's how the current Wellington City Council voted on some key issues
The Dominion Post recently published a pretty good analysis of Wellington City councillors' performance over the last 3 years that largely aligns with my Fab 5 blog highlighting the 5 progressive councillors I think we need to re-elect.
I do have a few minor quibbles with the Dom Post's piece though. Apart from Shelly Bay the voting they analysed is too consistent and doesn't reveal the key differences between councillors. Even Shelly Bay is complex and doesn't follow traditional left/right voting patterns. Also, the particular votes chosen are not always from the most interesting stage in the discussion e.g. the big votes on the Bike Network were during the Long Term Plan process where various councillors did vote against more funding at different points. I'm also really surprised the Spatial Plan/District Plan didn't get a mention. That's the headline issue of the last triennium for me and reveals some fundamental differences between councillors that voters should consider. Unfortunately, attempts to get WCC to build a database of voting records for the current triennium failed with the council claiming (a year after they first received the request) that they "didn't have time". The council have been doing some related work in the background so I'm hopeful that we can still get a voting database up and running at the start of the new triennium. It really would be a very useful tool and create much greater transparency over council decision-making. In the meantime, how can we get a sense of how councillors have been voting over the last 3 years without a huge amount of manual collation and analysis of voting that is scattered across hundreds of different pdf files? I decided to focus on two really significant meetings from the past 3 years that had a good volume and variety of votes within the meeting and also some really high-stakes votes for the city. That way we should be able to get a good feel for who's been voting for what to help inform where we want to put our own votes during local body elections in October. The two meetings I chose are the final approval of the 2021-31 Long Term Plan at the Pūroro Maherehere Annual Plan/Long Term Plan Committee on 27 May 2021 and the final approval of the Proposed District Plan for Public Notification at the Pūroro Āmua Planning & Environment Committee on 23 June 2022. Both meetings have enough juicy voting to sort the conservatives from the progressives, the NIMBYs from the YIMBYs and the climate heroes from the climate zeroes. In this spreadsheet I've collated every vote from those two meetings that wasn't purely procedural or unanimous so that you can do your own analysis and come to your own conclusions if you wish (I've ignored the unanimous votes because they don't really reveal the differences between councillors). Make sure you read the notes first though! In both cases I've only recorded the voting on the substantive motion (after amendments) and not the voting on the amendments. This is only after checking that the voting on the substantive motion was in line with any amendments made, which it almost always was.
The Fab 5 progressive councillors : Rebecca Matthews, Teri O'Neill, Laurie Foon, Tamatha Paul & Jenny Condie
Long Term Plan The final approval of the Long Term Plan in May 2021 came at the end of a long process that had been variously described as a shambles and a dog's breakfast. As a result councillors were still being asked to vote on a whole range of changes during the meeting. Bad for them but good for us. The votes covered a wide variety of areas including:
There are ten current councillors probably running again (only one or two are yet to confirm) plus the Mayor, so let's focus on how they voted. Looking at the voting you can probably see why I identified Rebecca Matthews, Teri O'Neill, Laurie Foon, Tamatha Paul and Jenny Condie as the progressive Fab 5. They voted almost totally in unison and almost totally in support of the initiatives listed above. At the other end of the spectrum Nicola Young voted against everything except increasing arts funding (because she personally likes the arts) leaving even the Grinch stunned at her misanthropic miserliness. Diane Calvert also voted against a lot, including cycleways, the Pōneke Promise, funding for youth hubs/better youth engagement, increased arts funding and town centre upgrades for Berhampore and Island Bay. Not quite Nicola Young standards of austerity but still grim (imagine voting against reducing sexual violence and alcohol harm). Mayor Andy Foster supported most things but voted against increasing spending on cycleways and youth hubs/better youth engagement. Sean Rush was absent but probably would have voted against at least some of this stuff. In his case it doesn't matter - he should be considered unelectable after he straight up lied about creating an anonymous Twitter account to troll his colleagues and post some pretty questionable content (including climate change denial and transphobia), only telling the truth after it had already been established beyond any reasonable doubt that it was him. Key vote: Cycleways Sarah Free and Iona Pannett also voted in support of all of the above but it has to be noted that at an earlier point in the process they both voted against increasing funding for cycleways (Option 4), meaning that the council's preferred option during consultation was to spend significantly less money (Option 3). Cycleways was the only item that the council consulted on where the public's preference (to spend more) was not the council's, and where councillors actually voted against council officers' recommendation in this meeting via an amendment. Cycleways are definitely a hot topic in Wellington and create a clear distinction between progressive and conservative so this is the key vote in the meeting for me: Agree to adopt Option 4 rather than Option 3 for the delivery of future cycling infrastructure For: Jenny Condie, Jill Day, Fleur Fitzsimons, Laurie Foon, Sarah Free, Rebecca Matthews, Teri O'Neill, Iona Pannett, Tamatha Paul Against: Andy Foster, Diane Calvert, Malcolm Sparrow, Simon Woolf, Nicola Young Absent: Sean Rush Majority vote: 9:5 District Plan Approving the District Plan for public notification on 23 June 2022 also came at the end of a long process of public consultation called Planning for Growth, which resulted in a new Spatial Plan and draft District Plan for Wellington. Hopes were high that the new Spatial Plan and District Plan would enable a lot more homes to be built in Wellington so that's why this meeting caused controversy by walking back much of that progress in what The Dominion Post described as "a devastating u-turn". The voting here is really on a single issue, housing, and easier to get a handle on as it was a core eight votes who did the damage. Six of those votes are thought to be running again in October; Mayor Foster and councillors Diane Calvert, Sarah Free, Iona Pannett, Sean Rush and Nicola Young. The progressive Fab 5 of Rebecca Matthews, Teri O'Neill, Laurie Foon, Tamatha Paul and Jenny Condie all voted against watering down what had previously been agreed. Key vote: Walking catchments This vote reduced walking catchments (the boundaries within which six-storey buildings can be built) from 15 minutes’ walking distance around the central city and metropolitan areas to just 10 minutes, meaning there will be less land available for enabling more homes via greater density. The reduction means Wellington has taken a more conservative approach than other councils, where 15 minutes is standard. If you have hopes of ever buying a home in Wellington, or you want your children or grandchildren to be able to, these eight councillors have now made it harder. The one vote that 'flipped' from when a 15 min walking catchment from the central city was introduced into the Spatial Plan in June 2021 was Sarah Free. Agree that the walking catchments recommended by officers, in respect of the spatial plan, to be reinstated as follows:
For: Andy Foster, Diane Calvert, Sarah Free, Liz Kelly, Iona Pannett, Sean Rush, Simon Woolf, Nicola Young Against: Jenny Condie, Jill Day, Fleur Fitzsimons, Laurie Foon, Rebecca Matthews, Teri O'Neill, Tamatha Paul Majority vote: 8:7 So hopefully that gives you an even greater sense of which current councillors you might want to vote for in October than the Dominion Post piece, where a lot of the voting they highlighted was actually pretty consistent from one councillor to the next. What I plan to do in Part II of this blog is use the votes highlighted in these two meetings as the basis of a survey of new council candidates once nominations close on 12 August and then publish the results. Tools such as Policy Local are helpful but asking candidates for their policy positions allows them to play safe and take a middle-of-the-road approach that hides their true beliefs. However, asking them how they would have voted on actual motions that the current council voted on leaves no place to hide and is also a pretty handy test of their ability to read and understand council papers, just as they will be expected to do if they are elected. Watch this space! Regan. 
0 Comments
WCC isn't dysfunctional, it's just diverse & these are the 5 current councillors we must vote back in
This is an important local body election for Wellington. Faced with a housing crisis, climate change, the glacial progress of Let's Get Wellington Moving, and a host of more mundane problems such as broken pipes we really need a council that is united around a bold, progressive vision of making Wellington an exciting, optimistic and liveable city for decades to come. We need to challenge the short-sighted, conservative interests that are invested in preserving a status quo that serves them well, but leaves thousands of other Wellingtonians struggling, and thousands more potential Wellingtonians unable to even contemplate coming to live here. We should aspire to do much more than just get 'back to basics', which is really just another way of saying let's re-establish and protect existing privileges but do no more.
The Fab 5: Rebecca Matthews, Teri O'Neill, Laurie Foon, Tamatha Paul & Jenny Condie. Bring 'em back!
Forget the rubbish you've heard over the last 3 years about this council being dysfunctional. What we actually saw back in 2019 was the council flip from a balance of 9 men and 6 women to 4 men and 11 women, and the average age of the council drop dramatically with a couple of the new councillors in their 20s. The current council leans largely progressive overall (reflective of Wellington's demographics) but with a centre-right Mayor, Andy Foster. He won that position by just 63 votes over Labour's Justin Lester largely through having the backing of Peter Jackson, which was in turn motivated by Jackson's desire to influence a single-issue; Shelly Bay. So not an ideal outcome, but a nominally democratic one, and very much a product of our ward-based system. To my mind that's been the single biggest problem this term - a Mayor who is not politically aligned with the majority of his council. I might say some more about this in a future post but I don't think the answer to that problem is to replace one centrist middle-manager with another and then hope the rest of the council drifts in the same politically conservative direction. That might look like a more outwardly functional council but to what end? Three years of unified stagnation branded as 'stability'? Fix the pipes, for sure, but then build apartment buildings, light rail and cycleways on top.
I've been watching this council pretty closely. Yes, there have been some close votes and public spats over the last 3 years but frankly, from what I've seen a lot of that has been about perceptions of power/seniority and an established group of mostly longer-serving councillors struggling to accept an increasing amount of diversity around the council table. In particular, I've seen the older, more privileged, more conservative councillors bristling at the younger councillors not just having their say but doing it with fire. At times I've honestly felt that the word 'dysfunction' has been used to excuse actual bullying with a splash of misogyny, racism and ageism on the side. Put simply, some of the more conservative councillors have been in a minority for three years and on the losing side of a lot of votes. They don't like it, they're not used to it and they're happy to act out about it. For all that, this council has actually made some great, and perhaps necessarily painful, progress. Let's face it, some of Wellington's issues are so entrenched and so structural that if there wasn't any backlash you'd wonder if we were trying hard enough. If having it labelled 'dysfunctional' is the price of seeing a younger, more diverse, more progressive council kick-back against established interests that would prefer to keep this city locked in a museum then I guess I'd like some more dysfunction please sir. The current status of the incumbent council is that one has already moved on (Malcolm Sparrow) and another three have announced they're not running again (Fleur Fitzsimons, Jill Day and Simon Woolf). Mana Whenua rep Liz Kelly (Ngāti Toa) will be joined by a rep from Taranaki Whānui and an elected councillor for the new Māori ward, Te Whanganui-a-Tara. Andy Foster has also announced he's only running for Mayor this time. That leaves ten councillors potentially running again (a couple haven't confirmed that yet). Name recognition and getting the word out are important with local body elections so let's not muck around. Here's the five councillors I reckon must be part of the next council. It's no accident that they are all women, were all first-time councillors in 2019, have all made valuable contributions to the current council in their own ways, and are all now battle-hardened from the last three years. There's also one from each ward which makes it easy to recommend that they all be ranked #1 in your ward (and hey, in case it's not obvious this blog is an unapologetically progressive space where climate change is real and requires action, everybody deserves a warm, dry, affordable home and people should have choices about how they can move around the city safely and comfortably without needing a car. If that's not your kaupapa that's fine but I honestly don't know how you've made it this far). The Fab 5 are: Rebecca Matthews: Labour, Wharangi/Onslow-Western Ward (FB page) Teri O'Neill: Labour, Motukairangi/Eastern Ward (FB page) Laurie Foon: Green, Paekawakawa/Southern Ward (FB page) Tamatha Paul: Independent, running as Green in 2022, Pukehīnau/Lambton Ward (Website) Jenny Condie: Independent, Takapū/Northern Ward (Website) The jury's out on Sarah Free and Iona Pannett. Depending on who else is running in their wards they may still be worth ranking highly enough that they get back in but neither of them will be running as Greens this year after a succession of quite conservative votes over the triennium, largely around housing but also transport. They have also both been on the council for a long time and there's a point at which it has to be asked if some new blood would be better. I would rank the three remaining councillors (Diane Calvert, Nicola Young and Sean Rush) as low as possible if you want Wellington to make any real progress on important issues such as housing and transport. All three are conservative right-wingers who consistently vote to protect the status quo and wouldn't be missed if they didn't get back in. We can do better and deserve better. Sean Rush should be considered unelectable after he straight up lied about creating an anonymous Twitter account to troll his colleagues and post some pretty questionable content, only telling the truth after it had already been established beyond any reasonable doubt that it was him. Hopefully, I will outline in a future blog a little bit more about what separates the Fab 5 from the rest but time is tight so better to make these recommendations now, especially when it is so clear cut to me who deserves to get back in. If you have a vaguely progressive bone in your body these are your people [in truth Jenny Condie comes from a blue/green background, which is fine but does mean she occasionally leans towards 'fiscal prudence'. However, she's just so intelligent and such a good communicator (even when explaining a decision I don't like!) that any council would be lucky to have her]. Spread the word folks. This election is a big one so let's not die wondering. And vote! And encourage everyone you know to vote, especially the students, renters and other young people who deserve so much more than just a tired and uninspired 'back to basics' approach. Check whether you're enrolled to vote at your current address here: Vote NZ Regan.
Money can't buy you the Wellington Mayoralty, but it sure helps
Money plays a big part in deciding who will be Mayor of Wellington. Photo: NZ Stuff
I had a look at Wellington Mayoral campaign expenses and donations for the last three elections. The candidate who spent the most won every time and also spent virtually all of the $60k cap. It's also very interesting to see who is trying to buy themselves a Mayor via donations. In 2013 Celia Wade-Brown just edged out John Morrison with both of them spending over $55k. 
Here's where the money came from in 2013 (only donations over $1.5k have to be declared). Interesting how big the gap between expenses and donations is for all candidates. There must have been a lot of small, undeclared donations or candidates footing the bill themselves? 
In 2016 Justin Lester won by spending slightly more than Nick Leggett and Jo Coughlan. A massive $250k was spent overall. 
Here's where all the money came from in 2016. Nick Leggett collected twice as much as he was even allowed to spend (wonder where the rest went?). Over $200k was donated to three right-leaning candidates who still couldn't win. There's also a massive gap between expenses and donations over $1.5k for Lester who must have had a lot of small donations or payed some of the bill himself. 
In 2019 Andy Foster won (just) by outspending everybody else and using almost all of the $60k cap. Justin Lester's spend dropped from $58k in 2016 to $16k in 2019, while Foster's went from $13k to $58k. At face value incumbency and the Labour brand turned out to be less important for Lester than dollars. 
The story's already been well told about where the money came from in 2019. Peter Jackson-related companies donated over $30k to Andy Foster. Only $83k was donated in total and $60k of that was to Foster. Most of the big donors from 2016 completely bailed in 2019. I'm not sure why. 
Correlation is not causation but the lesson seems to be that you need to spend big to become Mayor, which is a bit grim. However, it's less clear that big money donors can just buy an election. The difference between donations to right-leaning candidates (nearly $300k over 3 elections) and left-leaning candidates (around $30k over 3 elections) is stark but it doesn't automatically buy success. Andy Foster won in 2019 with heavy backing from Peter Jackson but that may have been more about the association with such a big name, which was widely reported. In 2013 and 2016 the big donors on the right actually wasted their money. It would be fascinating to know how both Celia Wade-Brown and Justin Lester managed to spend over $55k in 2013 and 2016 respectively with less than $10k in donations over $1.5k because that appears to be the winning formula if you don't have a few rich mates. The bottom-line is that if you support a candidate who's unlikely to have people writing $10k cheques for them, and historically those seem to be the more progressive, left-leaning candidates (such as Tory Whanau in this election), you might want to seriously consider donating them whatever you can afford. They'll probably need lots of small donations to be competitive. And you'll need to do that soon so that they can spend that money effectively over the course of the campaign. 
History tells us that progressive Wellington Mayoral candidates such as Tory Whanau need a lot of small donations to compete with big donors from the right. Photo: NZ Herald
Another problem here is that we only find all of this information out well after the election. Apart from what's reported in the news we really don't know who's bank-rolling who until it's too late. Let's call on all Mayoral candidates to be transparent and voluntarily publish any donations received over $1.5k (including donor name and amount) when they receive them, and definitely no later than Friday 16 Sept when voting documents are posted out. Voters deserve to know who's funding you. Regan.
A classic tale of how car dependency multiplied by status quo bias leads to crappy city-making
A group of six Wellington businesses who are taking Wellington City Council to court over plans for a temporary cycleway from Newtown to the CBD have won an injunction to stop the work until the judicial review can be heard in September. Four of the six businesses are involved in the motor industry and active transport advocates were quick to point out the hypocrisy of car-yards taking the council to court over a perceived lack of consultation on a traffic management issue when they have benefited for years from an "informal agreement" with WCC (i.e. never consulted on) to use Kent & Cambridge Terrace for the loading and unloading of cars from transporters. Car-trucks loading and unloading in the road is a nation-wide issue (check out the #cartruckparty hashtag on social media) but this particular case takes it to a new level. It requires a special sense of entitlement to take the council to court for lack of consultation on a temporary cycleway when you've been (informally) given a free-pass to conduct your business in the middle of the road for years, creating exactly the kind of health and safety risks for the public that a cycleway might help to mitigate.
A car transporter blocks a live traffic lane while unloading cars on Cambridge Terrace in Wellington without appropriate traffic management in place
Stuff's report Cycling advocates criticise car trucks in backlash over court case provides a good overview but also raises a lot of additional questions. The whole scenario is an almost perfect exemplar of how car dependency multiplied by status quo bias can lead to some really lazy decisions and crappy city-making. So you want to make a change that benefits cars at the expense of other road users? Sounds legit. No need to consult, just go for it! Want to make a change that benefits other road users at the expense of cars? How dare you? See you in court buddy! The report quotes WCC as saying the car trucks “do have an exception to the blanket prohibition of double-parking under the Land Transport Act” and the council is not specifically authorised to implement further conditions on that. I assume the reference to the Land Transport Act is actually the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 6.20 which contains exceptions to the rules on Stopping & Parking. However, the relevant exception for goods vehicles does come with conditions. 
The loading or unloading must "take place with due consideration for the safety and convenience of other road users" and "alternative access for the purpose of loading or unloading the vehicle was unavailable" or "it was unreasonable to require the alternative access to be used". So who decides what is "safe and convenient" and "reasonably available alternative access"? Straight away we can see the potential danger of status quo bias within a heavily car-centric and car-dependent transport network at the expense of the interests of "other road users". WCC have tried to partly answer the question above with an "informal agreement" (their words). More questions though:
More significantly:
In this 2019 LGOIMA response to Twitter user @dylanp WCC makes a number of confusing and contradictory statements including; they don't authorise the practice, but they don't think its practical to stop the practice, but they reserve the right to take enforcement action 
Setting aside the issue of whether WCC can make an "informal agreement" without consulting other road users or being transparent about their decision-making process it's clear they have known for years that the car trucks are not complying with the "rules" they informally agreed to anyway.
The car trucks are often seen operating during peak hours. They often occupy more than one lane and use a lane that is not the kerb-side lane. And they are definitely not using appropriate traffic management or Worksafe best practices such as cones and signage.
A car transporter blocks a live traffic lane while unloading cars on Cambridge Terrace in Wellington without appropriate traffic management in place
Other road users can't bend or ignore the rules just because the rules are inconvenient. What the car trucks are doing doesn't give "due consideration to the safety and convenience of other road users" and there are "reasonably available alternatives" to the way they currently operate. They can obviously operate outside peak hours. Personally, I think they should only be able to do this activity between midnight and 6am. They can also make sure they only ever use the kerb side lane by using single deck trucks that aren't affected by the over-hanging branches. They must use appropriate traffic mgmt. I'd like to know whether WCC has ever checked that the car truck companies have sought advice on traffic management as agreed and whether they are following the Traffic Control Devices Manual and Code of Practice for Temporary Traffic Mgmt. Even more questions:
It's just not good enough (and reveals status quo bias) for WCC to say "we don't believe it's practical to stop the practice because most of the car yards would not be able to accommodate a transporter". Here's a few alternatives that could be explored for this specific location. Why can't the car trucks use Hania Street to load and unload? Convert it to one-way northbound to get rid of the current southbound rat-run and designate a couple of long loading zones. 
Hania St which runs parallel to Kent Terrace in Wellington
Gazley Mitsubishi is also currently leasing this section of land near the Basin Reserve which would easily allow a car transporter in and out. Why can't they use that to do the loading and unloading for all their Kent and Cambridge Tce locations? 
A large section of land leased by Gazley Motors at one end of Cambridge Terrace in Wellington
Not even joking here, with the advent of e-scooters car yard staff could be ferrying cars to and from the yards from just about any location in the city. Just scoot in one direction and chuck the scooter in the boot for the other. Seriously, why can't they do that? The answer of course is that they don't want to incur any additional costs of doing business, no matter how small or reasonable, and would rather that the public subsidise their operations through provision of free parking, disruptions to traffic and increased risk to health and safety. It's really up to WCC, the car yards and the car- transportation companies to reconsider what "alternative access" looks like in the current context because things have moved on quite a bit since this cursed "informal agreement" was originally made, including the implementation of a lot of new WCC policy. Ultimately the best thing for the city overall is that the car-yards aren't on Kent and Cambridge Tce where they are not only tying up developable land but also obstructing the transport system improvements that go hand in hand with higher density. WCC has already received a few LGOIMA requests for information about the "informal agreement" but I reckon they need to go a lot further than just a passive response bounded by the limits of the Act. I hope they will front-foot this with a more comprehensive response that acknowledges a mistake was made, considers changing circumstances and expectations, and proposes a way forward. I also hope that the three Pukehīnau councillors (Tamatha Paul, Iona Pannett and Nicola Young) and the other hopefuls such as Afnan AL-Rubayee will apply some political pressure to review the "informal agreement" and make changes more aligned with WCC policy, the relevant legislation and good city-making. Finally, you'll notice that apart from the first paragraph I haven't really mentioned the judicial review at all. The review will stand or fall on its own merits. Although the situation with the car transporters and the "informal agreement" highlights a certain amount of hypocrisy around the judicial review it's still an issue well worth discussing in its own right. Regan 
I feel for our council. Councillors have moved a long way in improving our city and anticipating the issues we will face in a generation's time. And they are doing so at a pace that makes many in our community feel uncomfortable. The Island Bay Cycleway is just an example of this. But it's also clear that we, as a city, are moving nowhere near fast enough to address, or even ease, significant issues. Issues like creating better, denser, living city spaces for our growing population, moving people out of cars into healthier, more compact forms of transport, and, yes, climate change.  Island Bay has faced many changes & challenges over the years & always will One of the factors in this tug of war over the speed of council action is residents' associations. I've spent the last 17 months on the Island Bay Residents Association committee. People on the committee call it IBRA, and my kids have mockingly changed that to iBra — an invention that Steve Jobs thankfully never got around to. I think that residents' associations have a duty to represent the views of their communities to the council. That is the primary purpose of a residents' association.* I also think residents' associations have a second role — to mediate between their community and the council. We, the residents' association committee, have let our community down when it comes to the Island Bay cycleway. It is clear to anyone who has been following the recent consultation around changes to the Island Bay Cycleway that 'paint it back' is not an option on the table. The council consulted on a specific set of safety changes to the cycleway. And the residents' association ultimately failed to address or engage with those particular issues. Instead, we tried, yet again, to repeal a decision that the council does not have the ability to revoke. The requirements for cycleways and car parks are tied down in the existing Parking Policy 2020, the Long Term Plan 2021 and the Bike Network Plan 2021 — none of which we, IBRA, submitted on. The council cannot do things that are in breach of its policy or its long term plan. The aggressive anti-council approach we took continued to stoke anger in our community. We gave no guidance to our community. We did not help them engage with the issues that the council needed advice on. We showed no leadership in addressing the fact that we as a community will need to continue changing and adapting to the future we face. We stuck with an 'outright opposition' strategy designed in 2016. This strategy has consistently failed the community — both those opposed to the current cycleway and those who see value in it but want it improved. We knew that the council could not 'paint it back'. By pretending it could, we simply prolonged the pain for our community and the likelihood of adverse outcomes by not adapting. For instance, one of our community's fears was losing the angle parking at the shops. We could have advocated putting the cycle lane on the other side of the angle parks. This would have aligned with the safety guidelines of Waka Kotahi and the council. It has a chance of success, unlike our current submission proposal, which does not meet Waka Kotahi or WCC requirements, so it can not happen. The other thing we did not do was talk to our community. And in particular, we did not seek out the experts in our community who knew about road design and council processes. We have some real expertise and experience in our community that could have guided and informed us. Sadly, we didn't seek help. As an alternative, we could have said to the council and our community, "we know that our community is deeply concerned and divided about the cycleway. We know that our suburb's urgent issues are cycleways, urban densification, transport mode shift, and significant redevelopment. We want advice and support to help our community, our local households and our businesses with this transition." The future for Island Bay is full of exciting potential. New people will be joining us, new businesses will appear, and new opportunities will emerge as we become an important beach-hub in our growing city. I'd like to see our new residents' association do a better job of helping our community and our council work together to realise these exciting opportunities. Stephen Day Footnote: * It's important to note that residents will always have a wide variety of views and that residents' associations have little scope to poll their community accurately. So it's probably safer to represent the full range of perspectives to the council rather than just the view of the perceived majority — especially if that majority view sits at the end of a spectrum. * If you want to vote at the Island Bay Residents Association's AGM on Monday 7 March you need to sign up as a member by 5pm Saturday 5 March. More info on that and how to vote here.
The two things WCC shouldn't even hesitate to do to get The Parade Upgrade over the line
On Wednesday 2 March WCC's Traffic Resolutions Hearings Panel will hear public feedback on the proposed changes to The Parade. Reading the feedback on the consultation website and in the meeting papers you have to feel sorry for councillors who are going to be bombarded with a completely unnecessary tsunami of angst about the proposed parking changes. 
Everybody is upset about parking but what's the reality?
The council has communicated the parking changes really badly. By not producing a parking plan they have not given people the information they need to understand the reality of the proposed changes. Instead the council has simply presented the raw parking reductions, which is unfair and has understandably caused a lot of angst. Here's two things the council should do to show some good faith and instantly defuse some of the heat around parking that they've generated: Complete the parking plan before proceeding A parking plan should cover stuff like the current occupancy rate of on-street parking on The Parade, what the parking is being used for (e.g. how much is actually commuter parking) and how much parking is available in the surrounding streets. It should also discuss possible mitigation like residents' parking schemes and more time-limited parking. When people see the parking plan everybody, including councillors, will finally be able to see what the real impact is going to be. At the 10 November Pūroro Āmua Planning and Environment Committee meeting where a short-term safety improvements option (which prioritises fiscal prudence over retaining parking) was approved by councillors Councillor Fitzsimons had an amendment agreed that specifically asked for a parking plan to be done before detailed design. However, on 22 February WCC sent an email to people who took part in the consultation explaining that: "Due to a combination of time constraints and the uncertainty associated with Covid, we cannot meet the deadline for completion of the parking plan prior to detailed design. However, work on it is under way and we expect completion in late March 2022. We intend to provide officer advice to the 10 March Pūroro Āmua Planning and Environment Committee meeting that the November 2021 resolution be amended to reflect the revised timeline for the local parking plan." You might be wondering why the council doesn't just wait until the parking plan is finished in 4 weeks time and let councillors approve the traffic resolutions then. The answer seems to be that the south end of The Parade is also due to be re-sealed and that is a time-critical task that needs to be done while the weather is good. Council officers were obviously hoping to start the re-seal and the upgrade at the same time. In order to do so they now want to retrospectively change a council decision already made. What that does is leave a whole bunch of unanswered questions about parking and will increase the sense among some that 'the council isn't listening to us'. On balance I think it would be better for the council to either delay the re-sealing until The Parade Upgrade traffic resolutions are approved or if that can't be done then go ahead and do the re-seal and break the dependency on the upgrade. Considering the parking surveys that are the main input into the parking plan could have been done pretty much any time in the past 4 years this is a problem entirely of the council's own making. Using the need to re-seal to justify over-turning a previously made councillor decision just seems off to me and has echoes of the constant excuses and re-litigation that led to the 2017 decision to upgrade The Parade never being delivered. And let's not forget that the reason the 2017 decision finally got put to bed is because council officers put up an 'MRT might be coming to Island Bay' straw-man that convinced enough councillors that doing something they had previously agreed to do that was already 4 years overdue might one day be seen as a 'a waste of money' because of something that might happen a decade from now. Keep the angle-parking at the shops Reading through the feedback it's clear that the majority of the angst about the removal of parking concerns the shops. This one should be a no-brainer. The councillor approved option from 2017 (see below) included cycleways but retained angle parking, which would actually be ok for people on bikes - it's cycling behind angle parking that is particularly dangerous. Council have already agreed to this layout once so it shouldn't even need discussion. I'm no fan of angle-parking but I'm not going to be a hypocrite either. Until November last year the layout agreed in 2017 was what we were still expecting to be delivered and it will be fine. At this point in time it would also represent a genuine compromise and show some willingness by the council to listen to feedback. I don't think there's been an easier decision to make in this whole saga than this one. 
If the council does the two things above I think they will take a lot of heat out the current debate about parking on The Parade and we can all finally move on. Regan. 
It was disappointing to read the IBRA Chair's report for the upcoming AGM and realise it contains a number of factual errors and mis-representations regarding the current WCC consultation on The Parade Upgrade.
The worst of these is the IBRA committee's continued and unapologetic assertion that "the majority of Island Bay businesses and residents don't support the cycleway" which is something they cannot possibly know and almost certainly isn't actually true. The problem is that all of the surveys and consultations they are basing their conclusions on have been self-selecting and non-random and it is one of the most basic laws of maths that you cannot then use the results to draw conclusions about the wider population.
"No matter how large a sample is, if it’s based on non-random methods, the results will not represent the population that the researcher wants to draw conclusions about" Professor Deborah J. Rumsey, Statistics for Dummies, 2nd edition I've already written about this many times in the past. In 2016 I noted that the vast majority of Island Bay residents hadn't participated in IBRA's infamous survey (about 75% of the total population and 65% of the adult population didn't respond) and that all the survey definitively established is that around 1,500 people were opposed to a kerbside cycleway (about 20% of the total population). In 2017 I pointed out once again that the vast majority of Island Bay (76%) didn't participate in the the council's consultation on the options derived from Love the Bay and that all that was definitively established was that 59% of respondents (around 1,100 people or 14% of the total population) had expressed a general preference for a roadside cycleway. In 2018 I wrote that there was actually a clear trend across IBRA's 2016 survey, WCC's 2017 consultation and the 2018 Southern Ward by-election that about 1,500 people, representing 20% of the population, were opposed to the cycleway but no evidence that the number was any bigger than that. In fact, it seemed implausible that the true number opposed could be any bigger than that because it would imply that there were more people opposed to the cycleway who were not participating in the various surveys, consultations and elections than who were, which just isn't credible. Looking at the latest WCC consultation results suggests that opposition to the cycleway has fallen even further in the past few years. Because this was another self-selecting, non-random consultation the only conclusions that can be drawn that are accurate are that 1,209 people responded and 67% of those are from Island Bay. That's 800 people in a suburb of over 7,000 so around 11% participation - a very significant drop from previous years. The vast majority of people living in Island Bay did not participate despite the wide distribution of flyers (one of which contained a significant factual error) and numerous Facebook posts encouraging them to do so. Even if we assume that 90% of those 800 people are opposed or strongly opposed to the changes (which won't be the case but WCC will get the actual breakdown when they analyse the results) all that has been established is that there are approximately 700 people in Island Bay who are opposed to the cycleway and motivated enough to say so. That's another huge drop from previous years and represents only around 10% of the total population. IBRA's continued insistence that they are "supporting the majority view" doesn't even reach the standard that would be expected of an NCEA Level 1 maths student. It also highlights why some of the Notices of Motion to be voted on at the AGM are important. I've suggested how you should vote on the various motions here but the ones that are particularly relevant to this issue are: 1. That any submissions IBRA makes will only represent the majority view of Island Bay residents. Vote against this. As explained above IBRA's determination to over-state "the majority view of Island Bay residents" and exclude other voices has always been a problem. For example, this would potentially mean minimising or excluding disabled, rainbow or tangata whenua concerns from submissions. It's impossible to accurately determine "the majority view" without doing expensive randomised polling anyway. It's also not necessary to do this - a residents association can simply make submissions that reflect the diversity of opinion of its members and leave it at that 5. That the Island Bay Residents Association adopts and states an impartial position on the Island Bay Cycleway and the Parade Upgrade. In recognition of the diversity of views in our community and the divisive nature of these issues, we propose that IBRA leadership supports community diversity, and encourages all members to be kind and care for each other. Vote for this. I understand that this motion was put forward by some of the church leaders in Island Bay and they're right. It's time to move forward. Voting for this Notice of Motion aligns very nicely with voting against 1 and for 6. 6. That IBRA Committee always undertakes an open and well-publicised consultation with residents and the wider community of Island Bay before making any submissions on our behalf, and document the consultation process undertaken. Vote for this. This is the counter-point to Notice of Motion 1. The key words here are "on our behalf". I think that in general IBRA should try and avoid making submissions on behalf of the whole community as that is almost impossible to do in a safe and robust way. IBRA should probably stick to consulting its own members and then presenting those results in an open and balanced way to council (or whoever is consulting). That includes recognising minority views The other significant error in the Chair's report is the statement that "the Council by the chairs casting vote – voted for a $4.0million upgrade which included the removal of between 80-100 parks from The Parade". This simply isn't true. The only casting vote during the discussion of The Parade Upgrade at the Planning & Environment Committee's 10 November 2021 meeting was on an amendment to continue the cycleway through the shops. The substantive motion to approve the short-term safety improvements option (after all the amendments had been agreed) actually passed 11-3. This is all easily verified by simply reading the minutes so it's not clear whether this is just sloppiness by IBRA or a dishonest attempt to make the decision to upgrade The Parade seem like it had less support than it really did. Either way I think it highlights the need to get as many fresh faces on to the committee as possible and we're fortunate that there is an excellent line up of nominees to choose from. Regan. 
The Island Bay Residents Association is holding their AGM on Monday 7 March and if you live in Island Bay or Southgate you should get involved. There's a great selection of nominees for the committee and some interesting Notices of Motion to vote on. The AGM will be held at the Island Bay Bowling Club at 7pm (with a limit on numbers) but you can also vote by proxy so no excuses not to have your say!
There's lots more information about the AGM on the residents association's website. The very first thing you need to do is make sure you're a member before Saturday 5 March. If you want to become a member or are unsure if you are a member email islandbayres@gmail.com and provide your full name and residential address stating that you want to confirm your membership. There's 18 nominations for up to 13 places on the committee and only 4 incumbent members are standing [note 1]. That means there will be at least 9 fresh faces elected which will be great and makes it really important that you vote. There are profiles of all the nominees here and more information on this Facebook page. If you intend to vote by proxy make sure you carefully follow the instructions for that. The nominees My general advice about voting is to vote for as many of the people standing for the first time as you can. While we should all acknowledge the hard work and commitment of the current committee there seems to be a genuine appetite for change out in the community so let's take the opportunity to do that. You can vote for up to 13 nominees but can vote for fewer than that if you wish so my 3 step guide to voting is:
The Notices of Motion There are some interesting Notices of Motion to vote on. Here's my thoughts on each: 1. That any submissions IBRA makes will only represent the majority view of Island Bay residents. Vote against this. IBRA's determination to exclude minority voices has always been a problem. For example, this would potentially mean minimising or excluding disabled, rainbow or tangata whenua concerns from submissions. It's impossible to accurately determine "the majority view of Island Bay residents" without doing expensive randomised polling anyway. It's also not necessary to do this - a residents association can simply make submissions that reflect the diversity of opinion of its members and leave it at that 2. That IBRA surveys the residents of Island Bay (including beyond the newsletter membership of IBRA) and then publish a paper on how the residents of Island Bay would like IBRA to meet the 8 Objects of its constitution. Vote for this. Getting some direction from the people who respond to a survey on what they think is important is worth doing (with the caveat that it will only be the views of those who respond, not the whole community) 3. That IBRA Committee develops and publish a code of conduct for Committee members (in alignment with the IBRA Constitution), which is then signed by Committee members. Vote for this. How could this not be a good, positive thing? 4. That all IBRA Committee meetings are open to all Island Bay residents and the community to attend and contribute, acknowledging the need for in-Committee business. Vote for this. Like all good committees IBRA should be keeping non-public business to the absolute minimum required. This would bring greater transparency and make it much easier for the committee and the community to stay connected. 5. That the Island Bay Residents Association adopts and states an impartial position on the Island Bay Cycleway and the Parade Upgrade. In recognition of the diversity of views in our community and the divisive nature of these issues, we propose that IBRA leadership supports community diversity, and encourages all members to be kind and care for each other. Vote for this. I understand that this motion was put forward by some of the church leaders in Island Bay and they're right. It's time to move forward. Voting for this Notice of Motion aligns very nicely with voting against 1 and for 6. 6. That IBRA Committee always undertakes an open and well-publicised consultation with residents and the wider community of Island Bay before making any submissions on our behalf, and document the consultation process undertaken. Vote for this. This is the counter-point to Notice of Motion 1. The key words here are "on our behalf" and who that relates to. I think that in general IBRA should try and avoid making submissions on behalf of the whole community as that is almost impossible to do in a safe and robust way. IBRA should probably stick to consulting its own members and then presenting those results in an open and balanced way to council (or whoever is consulting). That includes recognising minority views. 7. That Clause 10(d) allowing proxy votes be deleted from the Constitution. Vote against this. This is nothing but an attempt to make it even harder for residents to have their say on who gets to represent them on the residents association. It's undemocratic. 8. That a new clause 13 (c) be added to the constitution as follows: No member of the Committee shall reside at the same residential address as another Committee Member and in the event that a Committee Member commences residing at the same address with another Committee Member the said Committee Members shall determine between themselves which Committee member shall resign from the Committee. Vote against this. I'm not sure why this is seen as a problem and if it is it would be better dealt with through having a Code of Conduct that requires committee members (and nominees for the committee) to declare any conflicts of interest. If residents think 2 members from the same household can add value to the committee then why shouldn't they have the option to vote for that? 9. That the newly elected Committee looks at reducing the number of Committee members to a more manageable number. Vote against this. This appears to be a reaction to not having enough nominees in the past. That is not currently an issue and if IBRA does its work in a open, transparent and constructive way it shouldn't be an issue in the future. More members allows for a greater diversity of representation and more people to do the mahi, which is a good thing. 10. That IBRA changes its name to “Island Bay Business and Residents Association.” Vote against this. I don't really have a strong view on the name. If anything a completely new name might be appropriate at this point but this Notice of Motion isn't about that. 11. That clause 12 should be replaced to read as follows: Election of Committee and Officers of the Group a) The Secretary shall not later than thirty (30) days prior to the Annual General Meeting of the Group call for nominations for the Committee and shall circulate such nominations with notices of the Annual General Meeting. b) At the first meeting of the Committee they shall elect a Chair, Secretary and Treasurer from their number to hold office until the next Annual General Meeting. Vote for this. On balance I think allowing the committee to vote for its own Chair, Secretary and Treasurer is simpler and makes the process of electing a committee much more straight-forward for residents. Get into it folks. Exciting times ahead! Regan. Note 1: The 4 incumbent committee members standing again are Jane Byrne, Lorraine Edwards, Bruce Gadd and Pat Vinaccia 
Here comes another consultation on the Island Bay cycleway...
Wait! What? I thought the council made a final decision on this last year? They did, as summarised in this article from the New Zealand Herald: Solution agreed for Wellington's controversial Island Bay cycleway. The consultation they are doing now is on the Traffic Resolution which is the how the council legally makes the required changes to the road. Under the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2021 "Any resolution proposed under this Bylaw shall be placed on the Council’s website at least 14 days before the Council considers it. Any person may provide comments, in writing, on the proposed resolution and those comments will be considered by the Council before it makes a resolution." So this consultation is largely a technical process requirement but as the council says it's an opportunity to provide "feedback on whether we’ve got these proposed safety improvements quite right" so that they can "adjust and fine-tune the detailed design". It's not a vote and it's not a consultation on whether or not to have protected bike lanes on The Parade. Ok, so what are the main changes? The key changes are:
Raised concrete buffers like the ones on Rongotai Rd are coming to The Parade
This is most of the upgrade that was already approved by councillors back in 2017 with 4 key differences:
You can read more about the changes and provide feedback on the council's Transport Projects website. The rationale for making the changes is explained from a councillor's perspective in this opinion piece by Jenny Condie: Island Bay cycleway revamp 'pragmatic middle ground' Are the changes really still necessary? Yes! These are all good changes which will improve the safety, comfort and attractiveness of the current layout, and they have mostly already been consulted on back in 2017 although the exact mix now isn't quite what was agreed back then. The current cycleway is ok but as the council admitted in the High Court in 2019 during the Island Bay Residents Association's failed judicial review of the 2017 decision "neither the status quo nor the original cycleway could be said to be reasonably practicable options given the safety concerns and issues of non-compliance that had been identified with them". This is also is why the cycleway will never go back on the road between parked cars and traffic and calls to "paint it back" are not just pointless but dangerous. The diagram below from Wellington City Council's Bike Network Plan shows that traffic volumes on The Parade would need to drop below 5,000 cars per day (half of current volumes) before bike lanes next to moving traffic could even be considered. 
As the council notes the proposed improvements will bring the bike lanes and related street layout in line with New Zealand and international design standards, including:
If you have complained about the safety of the cycleway in the past then thank you because that is what has prompted these changes, and if you are even vaguely genuine and informed in your concerns about 'safety' you will support all of these changes. What about the reduction in parking though? The council has communicated the parking changes really badly. First of all, under the council's new Parking Policy (approved 14:1 in August 2020) they should have prepared a Local Area Parking Plan (LAPP) before bringing the November 2021 paper to council. A LAPP "would provide guidance to improve transport services and manage parking based on local circumstances". Basically it would give people the information they need to understand the reality of the proposed parking changes and take away some of the fear of change. Instead the council has simply presented the raw parking reductions, which is unfair and has understandably caused some angst. While the reductions might seem significant it's worth remembering some important mitigations:
A LAPP would also outline other possible mitigations such as resident's parking schemes and time-limited parking. Apparently the council is now preparing one but unfortunately it will be too late to stop a whole lot of unnecessary hyper-ventilating around this consultation. It's also worth noting that there's a direct relationship between the reduction in parking and the cost of the upgrade. Cycleways can actually be very cheap to implement when they simply replace on-street parking. The cost of cycleways usually only goes up when there is a desire to retain a lot of parking and in reality the bulk of the cost of cycling projects is often for parking. In this case councillors decided 9:5 to implement a cheaper 'short-term safety improvements' option rather than the more expensive 2017 option that would have resulted in a smaller reduction in parking. If you have complained about the cost of cycleways in the past then you have pretty much got what you asked for here. That said, it's hard to understand why there needs to be a reduction in parking at the shops. The councillor approved option from 2017 (see below) included cycleways but retained angle parking, which would actually be ok for cyclists - it's cycling behind angle parking that is particularly dangerous. Council have already agreed to this layout once so this would be something definitely worth raising in your feedback if you are concerned about the parking reduction at the shopping village and would prefer to have angle-parked cars backing into the traffic lane (which is the status quo). 
The councillor approved option from 2017 included cycle lanes + angle parking at the shops
The bottom line with the parking is that the council's Parking Policy clearly states that the "safe and efficient movement of people and goods (footpaths, bus lanes, cycleways, no stopping zones/clearways, construction and maintenance works)" is a higher priority than on-street parking, and with good reason as explained in the policy. Having put that policy in place the council have to implement it. What other issues are there? The council's presentation of this consultation is pretty average. They are at pains to state that "this is not a vote" but have also included their real-time dashboard that makes it look exactly like a vote. As can already been seen the results are going to be largely useless with almost all of the self-selecting responses (i.e. not statistically valid) either "Strongly opposed" or "Strongly supportive" of the changes. Most of the negative comments simply want to "pAiNt iT bAcK" which is out of scope and isn't going to happen. This is exactly how you generate a lot of poor quality engagement, waste a lot of people's time (incl. the council's), unfairly raise people's expectations and reinforce a perception of 'not listening'. 
WCC's dashboard presentation gives the incorrect impression that this is a vote
So should I provide feedback or not? My advice is not to get spooked by the dashboard presentation. Various local Facebook groups are hyping people up that "it's your last chance to have your say!!" but let's take the council at their word that it's not a vote. If you want to signal your support for these changes and/or you have specific comments to make about specific elements of the plan (which is what the council is really looking for) that's fine but don't worry if you don't have time. The proposal details and feedback form can be found here. Edit 31/1/22: There's a good, constructive submission guide from Cycle Wellington here. I heard from some people that Fleur Fitzsimons was the casting vote for the upgrade happening, but from some other people that she voted against it. What actually happened? None of that is correct. It was a long and complicated meeting but essentially council officers gave councillors two options for upgrading The Parade: a long-term option or a short-term 'safety improvements' option. Neither of these was actually the 2017 'Mayor's compromise' that had already been agreed 4 years ago so councillors Fitzsimons and Day introduced an amendment to simply do what the council had promised to do and implement the 2017 decision. Despite that seeming completely reasonable it lost 5:9, with both Green councillors present voting against it. 
Councillors Rush and Woolf then tried to get an amendment to 'put the cycleway back the way it used to be' which not only went against council officer advice, Waka Kotahi guidelines and what the council had told the High Court in 2019 but also included the embarrassing spectacle of Councillor Rush wrongly arguing that there used to be bike lanes painted on the road along the north end of The Parade when there never was (which was inconvenient for him because it undermined his 'paint it back' logic). This vote was lost 5:9. 
Later in the meeting another amendment was proposed by Councillors Pannett and Free to 'beef up' the short-term improvements option by continuing the cycleway through the shops and improving the intersections with raised tables. Councillor Fitzsimons voted against both of these on principle using the rationale that she had run for council on the basis of implementing the 2017 decision and she wouldn't support anything else. This did risk not getting some significant improvements to the short-term option (which was the only option still in play at that stage) but the vote on continuing the cycleway through shops passed anyway, with Councillor Pannett using her casting vote to split a 7:7 tie. 
The vote on the improved intersections was lost 6:8 with Councillor Pannett inexplicably deciding to vote against her own amendment citing 'fiscal prudence'. If Councillor Fitzsimons had voted for this it would have been a 7:7 tie but presumably would still have lost if Councillor Pannett had used her Chair's casting vote to vote the same way as she already had (but honestly, who knows?). Disappointing to see any Labour or Green councillors voting against safety at intersections though. 
The substantive vote on proceeding with a short-term improvements option (i.e. after all the amendments had been made) then passed 11:3. So in summary, Councillor Fitzsimons did vote for the 2017 decision to be implemented (but lost) and did vote for the upgrade we are being consulted on now to go ahead. Her votes against the amendments to continue the cycleway through the shops and improve the intersections, although wrong in my view, didn't actually affect the outcome of those votes. It's certainly not true that she was the casting vote on any of this. 
It's worth noting that despite known "safety concerns and issues of non-compliance" Councillor Rush, Councillor Woolf and Mana Whenua rep Liz Kelly voted against making any safety improvements at all which is pretty callous given all the evidence put in front of them. If you want to read the official record of the voting you can do so here. Regan. 
Friday marks 1,500 days since WCC agreed to upgrade The Parade, without a single shovel in the ground since
This Friday (5 November) is 1,500 days since Wellington City Council voted 13-1 to upgrade The Parade. So why hasn't the work started yet? Here's a rundown of everything that's happened (or not happened) in the four years since then.
1,500 days later this is still a familiar sight for IBCW users
September 2017 On 27 September 2017 WCC's City Strategy Committee votes 13-1 to upgrade The Parade (only Councillor Simon Woolf votes against the proposal. Councillor Chris Calvi-Freemen is absent). The recommended design proposal simply merges the residential section of consultation Option C and the business section of Option D with refinements that incorporate public feedback (known as ‘the Mayor’s compromise solution’). The committee notes the estimated cost total to be $6.1 million (excl GST) to be refined through detailed design. The committee notes that officers will liaise with Waka Kotahi (as key partners in the Wellington City Cycleways Programme) to get feedback on the final design and layout, and to investigate any options for future co-funding of the cycleway. The committee also agrees that detailed design and the traffic resolution process will commence immediately for the adopted design with construction intended to commence in June 2018. $6m is specifically ring-fenced for the ‘Island Bay Cycleway’ in the 2018-28 Long Term Plan. Decision made, funding set aside so all good, right? May - October 2018 In May 2018 the Island Bay Residents Association (IBRA) announce they intend to pursue a judicial review. Later in 2018 WCC also starts consulting on the Newtown Connections project, which will link the Island Bay Cycleway to the CBD. In October 2018 a paper comes to WCC's City Strategy Committee titled Southern Connection Cycleway Development – Funding Opportunities. The Committee agrees that in order to obtain Waka Kotahi (WK) co-funding for The Parade and the maximum WK contribution for Newtown Connections both projects will be rolled into one strategic business case. The committee notes that it will give consideration to a range of projects put forward for approval in the Berhampore, Newtown and Mt Cook area in May/June 2019 and that “we would expect that construction would not be completed on The Parade until the end of 2020 and mid 2021 for the Newtown connections area.” In reluctantly supporting the proposal I said to the committee “I do think there are some risks with this approach. An obvious one is that the extended time-frame provides more opportunity for attempts at re-litigation. There's also the risk that WK don't come to the party. The bottom line for me is that I trust you.” 
Just for a laugh here's WCC's Oct 2018 timeframes for The Parade Upgrade
November 2018 - now Having made The Parade Upgrade dependent on the Newtown Connections project it then slowly and inevitably grinds to a halt. Here's a potted summary of that particular shambles. There's not a single timeframe stated here that was met.
May - June 2019 During May and June 2019 WCC goes to court to defend it's September 2017 decision to upgrade The Parade, which is subject to a judicial review instigated by the Island Bay Residents Association. In court a key part of WCC’s defence is “safety concerns and issues of non-compliance” with both the original layout and the current cycleway which were an important consideration in it's September 2017 decision-making. In it's judgement the High Court agrees that "Neither the status quo nor the original cycleway could be said to be reasonably practicable options given the safety concerns and issues of non-compliance that had been identified with them". WCC wins the case but incurs $80k in costs which it does not seek to recover from IBRA. Four years later none of the safety concerns and issues of non-compliance that WCC relied on in court to justify its September 2017 decision have been rectified. 
The crucial part of the 2019 High Court judgement
December 2019 The Parade Upgrade was not mentioned at all in WCC's quarterly reports to councillors between Oct 2017 – Dec 2019, which is a pretty shocking lack of oversight. In December 2019 the Q1 2019/20 report caused some concern and got media attention because it stated for the first time that “NZTA will consider co-investing in The Parade once the Newtown and Berhampore cycle facilities are constructed”. This was the first time that a dependency on Newtown Connections being completed first had ever been publicly mentioned. It shifted the start date for The Parade Upgrade out to a date in 2022 or 2023 at the earliest but probably later than that. That's at least 6 years after The Parade Upgrade was first approved.
April - August 2020
In April 2020 WCC submits the ‘Island Bay Cycleway’ as a $14m COVID-19 response shovel-ready project with the cost escalation put down to "additional drainage work and changing market conditions". The submission fails. In June I get so concerned about the ongoing delays and the statement in WCC's December 2019 quarterly report that I write directly to Waka Kotahi to clarify their position on funding. I also remind them that they were the instigators of the review into the Island Bay cycleway that spawned the Love the Bay process. Waka Kotahi was always intended to have a partnering role in The Parade Upgrade and had a shared interest with WCC in re-establishing ‘social license’ around building cycleways. Between July and August I exchanged several emails with Waka Kotahi and they eventually confirmed that they "could consider a funding application for The Parade Upgrade in Island Bay once this route [Newtown Connections] has been agreed, which is a change to our previous position that this route would need to be implemented“. Waka Kotahi tells me WCC had not been actively pursuing this with them. Emails released to The New Zealand Herald (including mine) highlight much finger-pointing between WCC and WK but very little action. Think about how mad it is that a private citizen moved Waka Kotahi's position further in the space of a month than WCC had in the previous three years. April - May 2021 The council's recommended option for Building More Cycleways in their 2021-31 Long Term Plan consultation only includes funding of $6m for the Island Bay Parade Upgrade in Years 4-10, pushing the potential start date out to 2025 at the earliest. That would be a full eight years after agreeing to do it and despite the previously noted "safety concerns and issues of non-compliance". However, after massive pushback from submitters the council approves the 'Accelerated full programme' option for cycleways which includes funding for The Parade Upgrade of $14m in years 1–3. A big win. In May 2021 councillors receive a full briefing on the options for The Parade Upgrade. You can read the slides here. So what now? Councillors are due to make a decision about the next steps for The Parade Upgrade on Wednesday 10 November. The meeting papers should be published on Wednesday 3 November, only 1,498 days after originally deciding to do it (by 10 November it will be 1,505 days). So does The Parade still need upgrading? Yes! The issues of safety and non-compliance that WCC have known about since 2017 and relied on in court to win the judicial review haven't magically resolved themselves. Weary cyclists and advocates may have got used to them or not believe things will ever get any better but it would be appalling for the council to try and take advantage of that now that they have effectively made the decision to upgrade The Parade four times - in 2017, again in 2018, by defending the decision in court in 2019 and by including it in the 2021-31 LTP. More importantly, although the current cycleway can be described as functional it will never generate the kind of uptake from the "interested but concerned" potential cyclists that it was meant to. It certainly isn't anywhere near the standard of subsequent cycleway implementations in Wellington. In my view the key issues are:
Is this even remotely good enough?
Unless whatever the council agrees to next week fully addresses these issues they will once again be letting Island Bay down and once again letting the Island Bay cycleway continue to generate negative headlines. The most likely reason for them to be tempted to prevaricate about ifs, buts and maybes once again is the sudden emergence of Island Bay as a potential destination for Mass Rapid Transit as part of Let's Get Wellington Moving. Mass Rapid Transit options are due to be released tomorrow (Monday) but it needs to be stressed that any breaking of the ground in Island Bay is likely to be many years away. Even if it was quickly agreed and planned a Mass Rapid Transit route to the south would probably be delivered in stages with the CBD to Newtown coming first. Considering The Parade Upgrade is already four years overdue waiting what could easily be another decade or so to fix the current issues would be completely unacceptable. I'm sure that won't stop a certain amount of hyper-ventilating from some of the usual climate change deniers, rates hawks and bike-bashers though. Regan. 
|
Archives
August 2022
|
RSS Feed