|
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. 
2 Comments
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 [email protected] 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 
|
Archives
October 2022
|
RSS Feed