A recent Dominion Post story blaming the cycleway for a dairy closing was long on opinions and short on facts
I was sad to read the story in the Dominion Post a couple of weeks ago about another Island Bay dairy set to close amid claims of cycleway parking issues. I don't want to speculate on the specific reasons why this particular dairy might be closing because I honestly don't know what combination of factors led the owners to make this difficult decision. However, I do want to talk about the reporting of it and the many questions it raises.
The Mersey St dairy is set to close amid claims of a lack of parking. Photo credit: GoogleMaps
In the original print and online story the Dom Post attributes just about all of the blame to the cycleway. Admittedly, that seems to be because that's what the owners think. The owners, the owners of the dairy across the road and the President of the Island Bay Residents Association Vicki Greco are all quoted expressing pretty much the same view that the cycleway, and the associated impact on parking, have made things difficult for businesses. The story attempts to provide some context by including comments from a retail strategist about how dairies are now a marginal business and that around the country dairies are becoming less relevant.
There's one very important piece of context that the Dom Post left out, however: the parking in front of this dairy on The Parade is due to be reinstated. This isn't recent information either. The reinstatement of parking outside dairies was part of the Mayor's compromise solution that was approved 13-1 by Wellington City councillors in September 2017. Collette Devlin, the reporter who co-wrote this latest story, wrote at the time that Wellington Mayor Justin Lester proposes new solution for Island Bay cycleway, but without mentioning dairies. The information was also included in the council's April 2018 update on The Parade redesign which Collette Devlin also wrote about but again, without mentioning dairies.
The parking immediately outside the Mersey St dairy is due to be reinstated. Photo credit: WCC
To not mention that the parking is being reinstated seems like a pretty significant omission to make from a story that is about parking outside dairies and makes the story quite mis-leading. One of the dairy owners is actually quoted as saying "no-one was listening to dairy owners' concerns" which obviously isn't true. The reporter has either twice failed to note the information that parking outside dairies is being reinstated, or worse, knew the parking was being reinstated and decided not to mention that in the story.
It's certainly true that the parking hasn't been reinstated yet, and may have had an impact on business in the meantime. However, it's ironic that it's the Island Bay Residents Association who are currently threatening court action to stop The Parade redesign from happening, even threatening to take out an injunction if the council starts work. The residents association must be extremely confident of an all-or-nothing "paint it back" victory if they are prepared to delay the dairies getting their parking back.
The owners of the Mersey St dairy have made it very clear what their feelings about the cycleway are. Photo credit: Fairfax
There are other concerns with the story. The specific context for this dairy is that it is one of five along a 1 km stretch of The Parade from Medway St to Reef St. That's a lot of competition. It also faces competition from the Empire Cinema (which re-opened in 2015) and Island Bay New World (who expanded the size of their carpark in 2016). The owners of this dairy have also made their feelings about the cycleway very clear and very public, more so than any other dairy on The Parade. Has this inadvertently affected custom from the more progressive side of Island Bay? None of this was explored in the story.
This dairy is also an earthquake-prone building and was yellow-stickered in 2014. What impact on business has this had? In fact, 19 businesses along The Parade are in yellow-stickered buildings, including 4 out 5 dairies and the majority of the Island Bay Village Heritage Area. The potential impact of that on Island Bay seems like a pretty big story, in and of itself. Again, none of this was explored.
In the video accompanying the story two business owners from the Island Bay Village shops are interviewed. Both of them express concerns about the removal of car parks in the shopping village, which is not going to happen. Retaining the angle-parking there is actually a key element of the Mayor's compromise solution, which in reality is Option D from Tonkin & Taylor's original recommendations with a few tweaks. The detail of the agreed solution has been known for the past year and the reporter absolutely should know about this. Why was this not pointed out, either in the video itself or in the story? It brings to mind that quote doing the rounds on social media recently regarding journalism: “If someone says it’s raining and another person says it’s dry, it’s not your job to quote them both. Your job is to look out of the f**king window and find out which is true.”
The agreed solution for The Parade includes retaining all the angle parking at the shops. Why do some businesses not seem to know this?
Photo credit: WCC
It actually beggars belief that business owners could on the one hand make so much fuss about the perceived impact on the cycleway on their business but on the other hand still be ignorant of the details of what's actually been agreed. It also seems a little hypocritical for any business owner to be complaining about the safety of the cycleway while operating out of a yellow-stickered building, which both of the business owners interviewed in the video are doing. There are plenty of businesses around town in earthquake-prone buildings, of course, but it's interesting how people can have quite different views about what is or isn't 'safe'. If you're going to express an opinion on that publicly maybe you should get your own house (or business) in order first?
Most of the businesses in the Island Bay shopping village are in earthquake prone buildings. Photo credit: https://epbr.building.govt.nz/
On 27 August, five days after the story was originally published, I emailed Eric Janssen, the Chief News Director (Wellington) for stuff.co.nz including dompost.co.nz and The Dominion Post. I told him I thought the article was mis-leading and asked him to consider the above points. Over the next 10 days there was a bit of email to and fro that also included Warwick Rasmussen, the Wellington News Director. I won't go into all the detail of the emails but during that time the Dom Post moved from a largely defensive position to one where on Wednesday 5 September they finally added to the online version of the story the information that the parks outside the dairy are being reinstated. A minor victory, and a little bit late, but something at least. Eric also offered me the chance to write a Letter to the Editor, which I declined due to the length of time that already elapsed and my feeling that the Dom Post should really take ownership of correcting its mistakes, not outsource it to others.
More importantly, I asked Eric to please make sure all staff writing about the cycleway in the future are aware of the basic facts including the detail of the upgrade agreed by council, which he agreed to do. I sincerely hope they do up their game because an article as mis-leading as this one only contributes to a negative perception of the cycleway overall and the whole issue continues to roll on in a kind of self-fulfilling prophesy of doom and gloom. It's bad enough that there are still residents of Island Bay who are ignorant about what's actually planned for The Parade, let alone professional journalists (who many residents rely on to get their information, of course).
In an effort to retrieve something more constructive from the wreckage of this story I also suggested that the Dom Post could consider following up on some of the many questions that it raises:
At the end of the day the Island Bay cycleway is either an important issue or it isn't. If it's important enough to be to complaining about the impact on your business, or raising money from the community to go to court, or writing stories in the local newspaper about, then surely it's not asking too much to expect everybody to put a little bit of effort into being properly informed. Just get your facts right please.
If you haven't checked out the full detail of the planned upgrade yet, please do: The Parade redesign
This is an open letter sent to the Island Bay Resident's Association's lawyer Con Anastasiou on 26 June 2018.
Kia ora Con,
I understand you are acting on behalf of the Island Bay Residents Association (IBRA) who are seeking a judicial review of Wellington City Council's decision-making in regard to the Island Bay Cycleway. I'm writing to you as an IBRA member in order to raise some concerns that I think you need to be aware of before you advise the IBRA committee about whether or not to proceed. Full disclosure - I am a supporter of the cycleway and over the past four years have written about it extensively at Island Bay Cycle Way. I have already written specifically about the judicial review here: Why I support the judicial review (please don't be fooled by the tongue-in-cheek title).
My first concern is that the IBRA committee have not consulted with the wider membership before embarking on this course of action. There was no indication at all via email or Facebook about what they were planning. It may have been discussed at the two meetings they held between their AGM in October 2017 and announcing their intent to pursue a judicial review in May (I did not attend either of those meetings in February 2018 & April 2018) but they have certainly not gone to any great lengths to be open and consultative in their decision-making. I'm also concerned that by taking this action they are stepping outside the objects of the association, in particular object d) to ensure all ideas and viewpoints can be represented, and object f) to represent Island Bay but not to make decisions on behalf of Island Bay residents.
Another concern is that as IBRA's lawyer you are fully aware of the amount of information that already sits in the public domain regarding the council's decision-making process. IBRA's 25 June 2018 email update to members states that "At present the WCC is stalling the process. WCC have added another 20 working days to supply the information requested under the Official Information Request (Logima) [sic]. They have also stated we must pay $4k for this information." It concerns me that any unnecessary costs are incurred by IBRA on this exercise (including legal fees and LGOIMA charges) when they are currently collecting money from the public to pay for it. It's my belief that there is already more than enough information publicly available to enable you to give advice to the IBRA committee on whether or not to proceed that is consistent with your professional obligations.
I would greatly appreciate you confirming by return email that you are aware of and have read the following:
A simple Google search will also establish the full depth and breadth of consultation efforts by the council over the course of 4 years.
I am aware of several recent high-profile failures by community groups to overturn similar decisions and that the High Court will set a high threshold for this decision to be reviewed. In particular I note the recent decision regarding Chamberlain Park in Auckland in which the Court's decision clearly stated "The approach taken by the Albert-Eden Local Board (AELB) was neither perfunctory or a mere formality. It engaged in a robust process of consultation where multiple interest groups participated in an open and at times hotly contested debate concerning the best use of Chamberlain Park. Moreover, and crucially, consultation must not be equated with negotiation. The process embarked on was not one which had as its object arriving at a solution which represented some form of consensus. There was no requirement for the AELB to accept the views and preferences or even reach a compromise with those who sought the maintenance of the status quo."
You should also know that as an IBRA member who supports the cycleway and opposes the IBRA committee's current course of action I intend to support the council in defending themselves against these proceedings. Despite my blog post on the judicial review linked above I am very concerned about this review going any further. My hope is that the IBRA committee receives fully informed and professional advice from you that is consistent with the Law Society's client care requirements and minimises the costs (both money and time) that IBRA and the rest of the community are potentially exposed to.
Thank you for your consideration of these concerns.
Here's why the judicial review of the cycleway is an absolutely terrible idea that I support anyway
As recently reported in the Dominion Post Wellington City Council has received a letter from a lawyer acting for the Island Bay Residents Association (IBRA), indicating the group intends to take judicial review proceedings over the Island Bay Cycleway. Basically, IBRA want to take the council to court because, in IBRA President Vicki Greco's words, "the community is not happy with the final outcome". Ms Greco told Radio New Zealand that she could not comment on the details of any legal proceedings but that "the community had been totally ignored throughout the entire process - despite being clear about what it wanted to have happen".
Despite being 2 years old and with an upgrade already agreed IBRA want a judicial review of the cycleway
What's a judicial review?
A judicial review is a legal test of the decision-making process of a public body and whether the decision-maker went outside their legal powers in making the decision. Usually the judge will focus on whether the decision-maker followed the process set down in law for making the decision. There's a good explanation of what's involved in a judicial review on the Community Law website. The most important thing to understand is:
"The judge usually won’t look at whether the decision-maker made the “right” decision, but will look instead at the way the decision was made – for example, whether you were given the chance to put your case, and whether the decision-maker considered all the relevant factors. The court’s role isn’t to substitute its own decision for that of the relevant agency or official, rather it’s to make sure the decision-maker acted within their legal powers – in particular, that they followed the process that the law requires."
Even if IBRA's legal challenge is 'successful' the court won't make a new or different decision:
"The judge won’t be able to change the decision just because they would have made a different decision if it had been up to them originally. And even if the judge does cancel the original decision, they may simply send the issue back to the original decision-maker for them to make a fresh decision – the decision-maker could then just make the same decision after correcting any problems with their process that the judge identified."
A court can't make WCC put the cycleway back on the road but it can tell them to re-consider their decision
Can IBRA win?
As pointed out to the Dominion Post by Southern Ward councillor Fleur Fitzsimons IBRA has the right to test the legality of the decision-making around the cycleway. However, as noted by ex-Southern Ward councillor Paul Eagle we've been here before. "IBRA had previously sought legal advice on a judicial review and were told it would be expensive and not the right process to get the right outcome, he said. He was surprised the group had decided to go down the same route".
IBRA's position seems to be based almost entirely on the belief that consultation with the community is the only thing that council should have taken into account and that having consulted the council has not done 'what the community wanted'. In Vicki Greco's own words "the community is not happy with the final outcome". Setting aside the fact that it's questionable how much of the community IBRA actually represent, the admission that it's the outcome that IBRA are really unhappy about is a big problem for them. The court will only be interested in the process, not the outcome.
IBRA's Vicki Greco and Jane Byrne shaking hands with then Deputy Mayor Justin Lester, Councillor Paul Eagle and Cycle Aware Wellington's Ron Beernink at the start of the Love the Bay process (photo: DAVID WHITE/ FAIRFAX NZ)
Another problem for IBRA is that since the last time they investigated the judicial review option there's been the Love the Bay process. This was a long and expensive consultation process that included setting up a pop-up shop and four rounds of workshops. The process will more than satisfy the council's legal obligation to consult. The Love the Bay process was set up in direct response to IBRA's concerns and they were also part of the governing syndicate. The sweeping statement about "the community being totally ignored throughout the entire process" is demonstrably untrue and the council's lawyers will have no problem proving that in court. The fact that it was IBRA who also demanded the Love the Bay process be prematurely ended won't look good in court either.
IBRA President Vicki Greco and WCC's Phil Becker are all smiles outside the Love the Bay pop-up shop (photo: KEVIN STENT/ FAIRFAX NZ)
The council (and the court) will also put much greater weight on "whether the decision-maker considered all the relevant factors" than IBRA are doing. For example, Tonkin & Taylor's post-consultation design report made it clear that roadside bike lanes were not a suitable option for The Parade because they did not conform with NZTA and other international guidance on when separated cycleways are appropriate. IBRA might want to play-down the relevance of that but the court won't. In fact, if the court criticises the council for anything it might be that the roadside Option A (and its bastard child Option E) never should have been considered in the decision-making at all. Don't forget that the only reason Option A was even in Tonkin & Taylor's report was because councillors insisted that "an option similar to the original layout" should be included. That's the kind of political interference in the process that councillors were warned to stay away from in Morrison Low's review of Wellington City Council's Urban Cycleways Programme.
If the advice that IBRA received back in 2015 was that a judicial review was not the right way to proceed it's even more likely to be the advice they get now.
So why are they going ahead?
It's a good question. An article in the Cook Strait News (page 10) sheds some light on what IBRA's real motivation for seeking a judicial review might be. In the IBRA President’s own words their preferred outcome is that the council “settles with IBRA out of court”. So what IBRA seem to be doing is asking for a judicial review of a decision-making process as a tactic to force the council into negotiations with them (nobody else) about re-litigating the same decision-making process. If that's the case it's not only undemocratic but hypocritical. The council can’t and won’t come to any kind of behind-closed-doors agreement with IBRA to change a decision that was made by a 13-1 majority of councillors. If they did it would (ironically) leave them exposed to a new Ombudsman’s complaint or judicial review about a lack of proper process, and one that is far more likely to succeed.
It’s quite surprising that IBRA would so blatantly show their hand like this. IBRA have a democratic and legal right to seek a judicial review but the council should absolutely call IBRA’s bluff and say “ok then, see you in court”. If it does get to court the fact that IBRA have made their motives so clear will count against them. It’s obvious that IBRA don’t really think they can win and the court won’t appreciate being used as a bargaining chip. It will also affect the council’s and the court’s thinking around costs. Citizens should be able to test the legality of council decision-making without the fear of huge awards of costs against them but this situation is different. There’s already been a long and expensive consultation process and IBRA are being quite open about using the threat of a judicial review as a negotiating tactic. If it somehow gets to court that makes the review itself look vexatious. The council should seek to recover costs and the court should award them.
Love the Bay was a long and expensive consultation process (photo credit: Love the Bay, WCC)
There's also questions about IBRA's fundraising towards the cost of the review. If the review gets all the way to court it is highly unlikely it will be successful and highly unlikely that anybody who donates will get any money back. In fact, an award of costs against IBRA could bankrupt them, although as an incorporated society no-one will be personally liable. If IBRA don't have any real intention of going to court then I don't think they have made that anywhere near clear enough in their request for donations. It's also not clear what will happen to any left-over money they've collected. When questioned about this on their Facebook page the replies from the page admin have ranged from evasive to antagonistic. Unlike the last attempt at a judicial review they are asking for donations directly into a bank account rather than a Givealittle page, which just adds to the sense of a lack of transparency.
I'm an IBRA member (I'm on their mailing list at least) so I also know that the committee did not consult with the wider membership on this. There was no indication at all via email or Facebook about what they were thinking although it may have been discussed at the two meetings they have held since their AGM back in October 2017 (I did not attend either of the meetings in February 2018 & April 2018). In reality the strategy of seeking a judicial review was agreed by the dozen or so members of the IBRA committee & then (maybe) endorsed by the 50 or so members they usually get to their meetings. Which is ironic when a perceived lack of proper consultation is a major part of their ongoing beef with the council.
Why I support the judicial review
Funnily enough, getting more clarity about IBRA's rather dubious motives for seeking a judicial review makes me feel quite supportive of it actually getting to court. That would be much more transparent and democratic than any kind of out of court 'settlement'. It would also bring a much needed conclusion to the whole saga and I'm quite confident about what the outcome will be - the court will confirm that the consultation process met legal requirements and take no further action. I just hope that IBRA and anyone donating to their cause know what they are getting themselves into.
24 May: This post has been updated to include the correct link to questions and answers on IBRA's Facebook page about how the review is being funded.
What the Southern Ward by-election results tell us about the true size of opposition to the cycleway
As you will all know by now Fleur Fitzsimons is the new Wellington city councillor for Southern Ward. Congratulations Fleur!
The election results show that it was a hard-fought election (perhaps a little too hard-fought at times) with Laurie Foon coming a close second. This was an impressive result for an independent candidate. Vicki Greco came third with a solid bloc of support as expected.
The election had been framed by some as another informal referendum on the Island Bay cycleway. As such it was heartening to see the two most progressive candidates finish first and second. Fleur Fitzsimons and Laurie Foon have both been clear about their support for the Island Bay cycleway compromise solution and were rewarded with 59% of the first preference votes between them (2,155 votes for Fitzsimons and 1,723 votes for Foon). Vicki Greco, the candidate who was most vehemently opposed to the cycleway, picked up 24% of the first preference votes (1,590 votes). By the 6th STV iteration, when it was down to the final three candidates, the split was Fitzsimons 40%, Foon 32% (72% in total) and Greco 28%.
Fleur Fitzsimons (right) & Laurie Foon (second right) finished first & second in the Southern Ward by-election respectively.
Image via Living Wage Aotearoa.
While it's fair to paint this result as a solid 'win' for the progressives a couple of things need to be remembered. The first is that turnout was only 30%. That's low for a local body election but not uncommon for a by-election, especially right before Christmas. While elections serve a necessary purpose in getting candidates elected into roles, they are not random surveys and with such a low turnout the results can't be extrapolated to the entire population. The result is indicative of the entire population, at best. It also needs to be said that although she finished third Vicki Greco has done OK. 1.5k first preference votes is not to be sniffed at and the majority of those votes probably came from Island Bay.
When I first saw that Vicki had secured 1,590 first preference votes I thought that number seemed very familiar. It turns out it's almost exactly the same number of Island Bay residents who voted for the cycleway to be removed in the Island Bay Residents Association's infamous survey of March 2016, which was 1,559. IBRA's survey was another non-random survey, so the result can't safely be extrapolated to the whole population (despite the fact that IBRA tried to do exactly that) but it's interesting that the absolute number of people who 'voted' for the cycleway to be put back in the IBRA survey is almost exactly the same number of people who voted for Vicki Greco in this by-election. Of course, this means assuming every single vote Vicki got in the by-election was from Island Bay so the actual number could be lower.
Another important indicator is the results of the city council's recent consultation on the cycleway which are analysed in this report. There were 1,991 submissions from Island Bay in the consultation, 309 from The Parade and 1,687 from the rest of Island Bay (page 12). This is another non-random survey so once again the results can't be extrapolated to the whole population but according to the graph showing first preferences on page 21 90% of respondents from The Parade and 70% of respondents from the rest of Island Bay wanted a roadside cycleway as their first preference [Note 1], which adds up to 1,458 people! [Note 2].
While all three sources of evidence mentioned above have their flaws and can only be treated as indicative, taken together they provide fairly compelling evidence that there's around 1,500 people living in Island Bay who are actively opposed to the cycleway [Note 3]. That's about 20% of the population of 7,000 or around 30% of the adult population of just over 5,000. For that number to be any higher means assuming that there is a bloc of cycleway opposition who have never spoken out about it. For example, for opposition to the cycleway to be as high as the 80% of Island Bay residents which is sometimes claimed would mean that there are around 2,500 adults in Island Bay who are opposed to the cycleway but who didn't participate in the IBRA survey, didn't make a submission in the consultation and didn't vote for Vicki in the by-election [Note 4]. That simply isn't credible.
However, what's interesting about the 20% number is that although it's a minority it's still a significant minority. As such, it's not hard to see how a group of 1,500 people, representing 20% of the population, could easily believe themselves to be a much bigger number, maybe even a majority. After all, many of these people will be known to each other, moving in the same social circles, connected on social media etc. They will be talking to each other on a daily basis and probably correct in observing that "just about everyone I talk to is against the cycleway". 20% of the population of a community seems like just the right number of people to create the classic 'bubble' or 'echo chamber'. At the end of the day though, it's still a minority and having based pretty much their whole campaign on simplistic, all-or-nothing 'majority wins' rhetoric it's probably time that cycleway opponents accepted that. As previously explained here and here the truth is that the vast majority of Island Bay either support the cycleway or just don't care.
Note 1. It is important to note that the consultation was never set up to be a referendum. Using the first preferences in this way is a bastardisation of the methodology in order to roughly establish the absolute number of people who were 'against the cycleway' if the consultation had been a simplistic first-past-the-post vote.
Note 2. (309 x 0.9) + (1,687 x 0.7) = 1,458
Note 3. There are other sources of evidence but they are even less robust and none of them disprove the theory that the maximum number of Island Bay residents actively opposed to the cycleway is approximately 1,500. For example, 1,365 people signed this petition against the cycleway but many of them will not be from Island Bay. Another example is the 2016 local body elections where anti-cycleway candidate Brendan Bonner got 800 first preference votes and 1,269 votes in total, picking up a large number of 2nd preference votes from Paul Eagle but still finishing a distant third behind pro-cycleway candidate David Lee's 2,475 first preference votes and 3,230 votes in total.
Note 4. 80% of 5,000 is 4,000. 4,000 - 1,500 = 2,500
Godwin's law reared its ugly head in Island Bay this weekend, but not for the first time
It's been hard to avoid the fall-out from the Island Bay Residents Association's protest march at the weekend. You can read The Dominion Post's report on the march here and Radio New Zealand's report here. Wellington City Council also issued a correction of some incorrect reporting here.
Unfortunately, at some point between the end of the march and early evening Godwin's law came into effect and as reported by the Dominion Post a Nazi sign taken to the protest was put on by-election candidate Fleur Fitzsimon's fence. The story was also picked up by the New Zealand Herald 'Return of the Third Reich' sign put on Wellington Council candidate's fence, the Otago Daily Times Council candidate victim of Nazi slur and Newshub Anti-cycleway protester compares opponent to the Nazis which hardly seems like the kind of publicity the residents association were looking for.
I obviously agree with Fleur that this was a stupid and disappointing act. The sign shouldn't have been on the march in the first place, especially not when it was being carried by the husband of the Chair of the Island Bay Residents Association. It's disturbing that apparently not one other person at the march thought that the sign was inappropriate and should maybe go in the bin.
However, I see things a little differently to Fleur when she says we need to "bring the community back together". I've said many times that I don't think the cycleway divided Island Bay, it simply revealed the diversity that was already here. A desire to "bring the community back together" could be seen to imply that it was united in the first place. I don't think it was united so much as it was unchallenged, although debates about the seawall, marine reserve etc showed some cracks. A desire to "bring the community back together" could also imply that diversity of views is a 'problem' that then needs to be fixed. But people should be able to disagree. In fact, it can be very healthy to get outside your bubble and be challenged by different views
I see the real problem here as one of civics and civility i.e. it's why and how we are disagreeing with each other that's the issue. First, too many people don't seem to understand and respect the way local government decision-making actually works. Second, we don't always seem able to engage in a debate in a civilised way. That's what we really need to fix and that's where we need to see greater community leadership.
And this is where it gets a bit tricky. Fleur is right that "this kind of messaging is totally unacceptable" but the uncomfortable truth is that this type of rhetoric is not new. In my opinion the tone of the cycleway debate in Island Bay was established and then enabled over a number of years primarily by two people; ex-councillor and current Rongotai MP Paul Eagle and current councillor Nicola Young. Paul and Nicola both used language and tropes throughout the cycleway debate that in my view were often inflammatory and inappropriate. For example, Paul Eagle has previously used the Twitter hashtag #WCCGestapo to refer to the former Mayor, council staff and cycle advocates.
In another example Nicola Young compares the handling of the cycleway to "the Soviet occupation of Berlin after 1945". I also remember ex-councillor Ray Ahipene-Mercer referring to the "Green Taliban" during one council debate on the cycleway (that one will be on YouTube).
When community leaders use language like this is it any wonder that community members feel they have license to do the same? In this particular case I suspect that Fleur, as the Labour Party candidate, is on the receiving end of some anger in the Island Bay community regarding Paul Eagle's previous behaviour. Ironically, this includes his recent vote for the cycleway compromise which has been largely seen by cycleway opponents as a betrayal (for example in this Cook Strait News story on Vicki Greco's election campaign).
So if we really want to get Island Bay back to somewhere better I think we should focus on civics and civility and not some utopian ideal of "community" where we all think and act as one homogeneous hive-mind. I suspect that's what people who want to "bring the community back together" really mean anyway. In fact, Fleur subsequently clarified her own comments:
The point is you can't repair something unless you've correctly diagnosed what the problem is in the first place. I think we need to be much more honest about what really fueled the "division and tension" in Island Bay and that includes demanding much higher standards of behaviour from our community leaders. That also includes the organisations they belong to holding them to account. I applaud Mayor Justin Lester for his unequivocal statement about the Nazi sign that "I'd expect better standards from anybody who is elected to council, or running for council, or even aspiring for council. I'm disappointed by the behaviour". However, I have to wonder why Wellington City Council and the Labour Party a) never called Paul Eagle out on his own behaviour and b) actually seem to have rewarded him for it. There's a clear double standard at work here. As long as we're demanding apologies from people perhaps a sincere apology from Paul for his own behaviour over the past few years would be in order.
For my part, I still stand behind every word I've written across the Island Bay Cycle Way website, Facebook page & Twitter, and it's all still there for public scrutiny. I've certainly disagreed with people in the past but I've always tried to do it in a respectful way with my reasons fully explained, just as I have tried to do here. But that doesn't mean I haven't screwed up at some point and it's true that I've been accused of 'social media bullying' in general terms on a number of occasions, including by Paul Eagle himself [Note 1].
The interesting thing is that I'm yet to receive a single complaint about anything specific that I've written, the accusations have always been framed more broadly as "you're a social media bully". I've had plenty of positive feedback too, including being nominated for an NZTA Bike to the Future award, so I feel like I must be doing OK overall.
Regardless, if anyone has specific examples of when they think I've over-stepped the mark then please let me know. I will definitely take any issues raised very seriously.
Paul's accusation that I have been the "catalyst for lots of hate" towards him and his family is wide open to interpretation. On the one hand he could simply be highlighting that my criticism of his position on the cycleway led to others behaving inappropriately towards him and that might even be true. A less generous interpretation is that it was an attempt to use his position of power to try and publicly shame a constituent who hasn't actually done anything other than disagree with him.
I actually had the opportunity to discuss this with Paul in person in November 2016. The meeting was very amicable and when I asked him if he seriously believed that my criticism of him was illegitimate or that I should be held responsible for others' criticism of him of course he said no. He understood that as an elected representative he should expect his position on any matter to be publicly critiqued. He agreed that although what I had written often made him feel uncomfortable that I was well within my rights to say it. That tweet is still on his timeline though.
With Southern Ward by-election voting papers due to arrive in letterboxes any day now, here's everything you need to know about the candidates (or at least pretty much everything we could easily find out).
Here's links to their official WCC profile, their Cook Strait News profile, Scoop Wellington profile (if they have one), their Facebook page and their Twitter account (if they have one).
Scoop Wellington did a great write up of the Newtown Residents Association Meet the Candidates evening which you can read here.
Cycle Aware Wellington asked the candidates some questions about active transport and cycling. You can read their responses here.
Please let me know of any other interesting links and I'll add them.
The voting period for the election is 30 November - 22 December. Results will be announced on 28 December. Make sure you vote!
Mayor Justin Lester held a press conference this morning and proposed a compromise solution for the Island Bay Cycleway. The proposal is similar to the proposal put forward by council officers on Friday but with a few more tweaks. It looks like a pragmatic, sensible solution that carefully balances the differing views and needs of a variety of stakeholders.
Here's the video of the press conference:
Here's the full media release from the council:
Solution for Island Bay Cycleway launched
A compromise solution for the layout of The Parade will be proposed by Wellington City Councillors this week.
The proposed new layout (2MB) will have a dedicated cycleway between the footpath and the kerb at the same height, with cars once again parking up against the kerb.
The lanes on the road will be widened to 3.5 metres in each direction, and unmarked car parking will be restored along the length of The Parade.
“This is a common-sense solution that will improve the Parade for everyone,” Mayor Justin Lester said.
“It will mean the lanes on The Parade will be widened, the cycleway comes off the road, drivers will park against a fixed kerb and car parks will be saved.
“The outcome is a safer, separated cycleway, wider lanes on the road, and car parking available for residents and shoppers.”
The Council’s Walking, Cycling and Public Transport Portfolio Leader, Councillor Sarah Free, said the solution was informed by more than 3700 public submissions and discussions Councillors had at the drop-in sessions held in Island Bay earlier this year.
“There was a real diversity of opinion from the public – it was clear people weren’t anti-cycling but for a lot of people the current design simply wasn’t working. People wanted something that was safer, that gave drivers and buses more room to manoeuvre and that protected car parking, especially for local businesses. This solution achieves all of those goals.
“We will also make further safety improvements to reduce the cycling speed on the cycleway, be removing speed humps that were scraping against buses, and restoring angled car parking by the medical centre.
The new option would cost $4.1 million and be paid for out of existing council budgets, meaning no new rates money would be needed. A further $2 million will be set aside to reseal the road once the project is completed, and for contingencies.
Deputy Mayor Paul Eagle said the solution would make the Parade much better.
“People in Island Bay absolutely love their suburb, and they’re proud of The Parade. This solution sees the beautiful wide lanes restored, and the cycleway off the road. As an Island Bay resident, I’m thrilled.
“This has been a very long saga and it’s great we’ve got something that will work and that finds a good balance for most people. Not everyone will be happy, but I think most people will see we’ve done the best job possible of coming up with something that works.”
The option will be proposed as an amendment at Wednesday’s Council Meeting. If adopted, installation of the new layout will begin in early 2018. With this solution, the new design will include:
Here's the cross-section of the proposal:
I like pies and I like charts, so I really like pie charts. Here's the only chart you need to understand the latest Island Bay Cycleway consultation.
One of the most significant paragraphs in the Island Bay Cycleway Recommendations released by the council on Friday is this one on page 172:
Despite the fact that we have consistently been told that "the majority of Island Bay doesn't want the cycleway" only 24% of Island Bay residents actually participated in the final consultation. The truth is that the vast majority of Island Bay (76%) don't care enough about this issue to take 2 mins to fill in an online form.
The council have been absolutely clear that the consultation was not a vote but if you look at the preferences of those who did participate an even clearer picture emerges. According to page 187 of the report 59% of respondents from Island Bay expressed an overall general preference for a roadside cycleway and 41% expressed an overall general preference for a kerbside cycleway. These figures equate to 14% (24% x 59%) and 10% (24% x 41%) of the total population respectively (Note 1).
What this boils down to is that a grand total of 14% of the population of Island Bay expressed a clear preference for a roadside cycleway through this consultation. That is a long, long way from being any kind of majority. In fact, the majority of Island Bay (86%) have either expressed a preference for a kerbside cycleway or no preference at all.
In addition to the council's very clear statements that the consultation was not a vote another really important thing to remember is that it was a form of non-random, self-selecting survey. That means the quantitative 'results' can't be used to infer a result for the entire population, especially not with a 24% participation rate. This is just basic maths and has been discussed on this blog previously in regard to the Island Bay Residents Association's March 2016 survey and their mis-leading interpretation of the survey results. However, if we set those concerns aside for a moment and treat both the IBRA survey and the latest consultation results as at least indicative of the entire community's preferences we can see something else that is very interesting.
The residents association made the claim that their March 2016 survey showed 87% of Island Bay residents didn't want a kerbside cycleway. They have consistently stuck with that interpretation and repeated the claim as recently as the council's June 22 City Strategy Committee meeting. If that was true then the latest consultation results show a collapse in opposition to a kerbside cycleway from 87% to 59%. That's a 28% decline over just 18 months (Note 2) and if that trend continues then we can expect opposition to a kerbside cycleway to be in the minority within 6 months, by March 2018. That's actually prior to when work is expected to start on whatever option councillors agree on at this Wednesday's council meeting!
The consultation was not a vote but even so it provides more than enough evidence to conclusively state that the claim that the majority of Island Bay residents don't want a kerbside cycleway really is just pie in the sky.
The 59/41 split is based on the Borda counting method which takes into account 2nd, 3rd and 4th preferences to determine an overall general preference. The report also includes the first preference results in a chart on page 173. This shows an approximate 70/30 split using first preferences only. Using these figures would only change the percentage of the population of Island Bay expressing a clear preference for a roadside cycleway from 14% to 18%.
If the first preference split of 70/30 is used here instead of the Borda split of 59/41 there is still a 17% reduction in opposition to a kerbside cycleway over 18 months. If that trend continued then we could expect opposition to a kerbside cycleway to be in the minority within 21 months, by June 2019. That's less than 2 years, when the council is making a 20-30 year infrastructure decision.
News from Wellington City Council...
Work is continuing on the analysis of the 3763 submissions received on proposed options for a revamp of the cycleway on The Parade, Island Bay.
David Chick, Wellington City Council’s Chief City Planner, says the level of public engagement on the project has been encouraging and that it is great to see communities so involved in the future of the cycleway and The Parade.
“The volume of submissions and the depth of information we’ve received from members of the public is rich and detailed, which means we are forming a clearer picture of the aspirations and desire submitters have for The Parade. The Council will now review and decide on the final recommendations at its meeting on 27 September.
“This revised timeframe allows sufficient time to fully analyse the submissions and to prepare a well-briefed and scoped report for the Council to consider on 27 September. It also allows sufficient time for the independent peer reviews to be completed and considered,” Mr Chick says.
Since the period for submissions closed on 13 August the following process has been undertaken:
For further information please contact:
Media Manager | Communications & Engagement | Wellington City Council
P 04 801 3578 | M 021 227 8180 | F 04 801 3010
E firstname.lastname@example.org | W Wellington.govt.nz
The final consultation on the Island Bay Cycleway closes on Sunday 13 August at 9pm. If you haven't had your say yet please make sure you do! You can go straight to the online submission form by clicking this button:
If you support safe, comfortable cycling for all ages and abilities then the choice is clear. I recommend ranking Option C first, then B, then D. Any of those options would be a significant improvement on the current cycleway and make a big contribution to growing the number of people making active, sustainable transport choices. If you are concerned about the impact of lost parking at the Island Bay shops then you might want to consider ranking Option D first because under that option most of the parking is retained. You can read my full rationale in this blog: The final four options - analysis & recommendation. If you have time I also recommend reading the full Design Report and the Frequently Asked Questions.
The choice is clear. Are we going back to this?
Or do we move forward and build on this?
Choosing any other option than C, B or D would be a step backwards. Roadside bike lanes are not appropriate for a road with the volume of traffic that The Parade has and do not adhere to current NZTA guidelines. Implementing bike lanes that place a person on a bike within the 1.5m minimum safe passing distance recommended in the road code should be completely unacceptable. Just because that situation already exists in places around Wellington is no excuse. New projects must be built to current standards if there is the opportunity to do so. In most other situations we wouldn't even be questioning whether nationally recognised standards and the advice of technical experts should be ignored.
What happens in Island Bay will set a precedent for what happens across the rest of the Wellington Urban Cycleways Programme. While each area has its own set of circumstances that prevent a standard design or solution, we should always strive for the solution that maximises safety, comfort and the potential uptake along a route. Let's make sure that's what happens in Island Bay.
Thanks for your support. Let's do this!