by frog
Some of the campaign highlights include Russel and Metiria’s visit to Te Kura Kaupapa Maori O Nga Maungarongo, a Maori language primary school in Haverstock Rd, Mt Albert.
The school community is worried about a Housing New Zealand proposal to increase the density of a state housing complex. Principal Dianne Pomare told Russel and Metiria that the plan to increase state house provision from 19 to 41 new places involves shifting the watercourse of Meola Creek which runs alongside the development.
“We are concerned that Housing NZ does not even consider this worth saving. To us this awa is known as Ahurangi and is special.”
The Co-Leaders were welcomed on to the kura wharenui with a powhiri. Russel acknowledged the maunga, the awa and the mana whenua, then went on to talk about the Green Party’s commitment to protecting the environment. Maps of the proposed housing development and details of the Meola Creek watercourse were handed out. Metiria sat down on the ground with the young kura pupils, laying out the maps to show them. In a flash, the youngsters crowded around the newly-elected Co-Leader.
The Neighbourhood Brew Bar was packed to capacity for Wednesday night’s live BackBenches show.
It was a claustrophobe’s nightmare, with patrons packed in like sardines. Many of those who attended had to watch TV the next day so they could actually hear what the candidates were saying.
Heavy drinking combined with territorial attitudes around one’s personal space and conflict over sign-waving produced some less than savoury crowd behaviour and a few testy interactions but luckily the mood wasn’t too aggressive. Interesting chants included “Free The Weed” from Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party candidate Dakta Green’s supporters, while Melissa Lee seemed bemused by the somewhat-irreverent-but-nevertheless-catchy “Bring Back Ravi!”.
The debate strategy has been a winner in this campaign, with voters flocking to the public debates at Unitec, Auckland University and hosted by groups such as Plunket, the Public Service Association, Combined Churches (Ecumenical Group) of Mt Albert at community halls around the electorate, and listeners tuning in to radio debates hosted by Bfm, NiuFM/531PI and Radio Live.
There’s a willingness to engage with the by-election campaign and strong interest from throughout the country, with Mt Albert by-election happenings regularly making the television news and getting reported in such august regional titles as the Westport News and the Gisborne Herald.
Russel and Katya Paquin’s appearance at the Pacific Music Awards at the TelstraClear Event Centre in the heart of Manukau City was noted by presenter and NiuFM breakfast show host Sela Alo, who namechecked Russel, then brought the house down with a topical joke about Melissa Lee being “still on the motorway”.
One of the many other highlights in Russel’s election campaign was his first visit to the Oakley Creek waterfall. Russel has visited the Balmoral Community Group to offer advice in their battle against a 24-hour McDonalds drive-thru in Balmoral, and has since attending resource consent hearings. He has also met with the St Lukes Community Association to support them in their fight against expansion of the Westfield St Lukes mall.
Thursday afternoon’s Unite Union debate at the Mt Albert YMCA was well attended by workers and marked by passionate questions from the floor. Russel was the clear winner in a show of hands taken at the end of the session.
Russel’s op ed on SuperCity plans that he has labelled Grand Theft Auckland was published in the Western Leader on Thursday.
Now it’s up to the people of Mt Albert to have their say on Saturday. People still have up until close of business Friday to enrol if they haven’t already. Go to www.elections.org.nz
Published in Environment & Resource Management by frog on Thu, June 11th, 2009
Tags: by-election, Campaign, Katya Paquin, Mt Albert, Pacific Music Awards, political debates, Russel Norman
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
yeah..i went to the unite debate..
http://whoar.co.nz/2009/comment-whoarmt-albert-bye-electionthe-last-meetingand-catherine-delahunty-would-like-it-known-by-all-and-sundrythat-she-was-never-a-member-of-the-allianceokand-david-shearer-just-didnt-answer-that-qu/
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
what is wrong with funneling crims into Mt Albert? We’ve formed a Union you know – and we’re against Mellissa’s freeway. Good CD’s in Mt Albert (apart from that Barry Manilow stuff)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
and i must say frog..you did a very poor job alerting/promoting those events..
..to the readers here at frogblog..
..eh..?
(kinda surprising really..eh..?..
that/such inaction/poor use of a powerful forum..
..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
With regards to the Housing New Zealand proposal, perhaps mitigation of effects on the creek could be done a bit better, but it’s a bit of a funny look for the Greens having a housing policy wanting thousands more state houses but then opposing the actual building of HNZC units.
They have to go somewhere…. and I didn’t think the Greens were much of a fan of urban sprawl.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
what is buried in that jar? “Urban sprawl” is a petro-chemical denomination – good if you have ‘Family’ in the concrete industry.
I have seen extensive habituated country with the land designed into it.
Your description most likely refers to the ‘flatten it” dept of engineers than any other.
The point is to live with the land – and if lessons need to be learned?
Impossible to argue with mother nature J
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
In a city water runs where it is told to run. Is this place “City”? Was it parkland? It would have to be pretty extraordinary to warrant this action. Can the creek be made into a really attractive place?
It’d be interesting to see the maps.
You do NOT reduce available housing by half in order to keep a creek where it just happens to be running now. Where was it 100 years ago?
There may be other issues relating to that density of State housing, but I don’t think much of this one at present.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I don’t really know the details of this particular development THAT well, and it would seem that diverting a creek is quite an extreme move. As I said above, perhaps environmental mitigation could have been done better, but the Green Party does need to recognise that their housing policies (which I am a BIG fan of, by the way) would involve significant residential intensification and probably raise the ire of every NIMBY around.
That is, unless the Green Party are more fond of providing extra state housing on the urban fringe, but I would be surprised if that’s the case.
Basically, I’m just saying there are potential conflicts between the social policies and environmental policies that should be recognised. This HNZC development is potentially a good example of that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BJ, You can find a technical assessment of what HCNZ is proposing to do here:
http://www.meolacreek.org.nz/page/3/
and an 1842 map here:
http://www.meolacreek.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/alberton-map-hr.pdf
I think the HCNZ development is roughly where the “Meola Stream” is printed on the map. For comparison here is the GoogleMap satellite view, the S bend in Mt Albert Rd provides a good reference point for comparing the two streams.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
http://maps.google.co.nz/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Haverstock+Rd&sll=-36.873699,174.716048&sspn=0.007656,0.013733&ie=UTF8&ll=-36.889712,174.726477&spn=0.007654,0.013733&t=h&z=16
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
THANK you Kevyn… not that I wanted to become deeply aware of a creek in Auckland but it is clear that they have some serious issues with the creek whether or not they build houses where it currently runs.
In other words, they have to fix their sewage issues and that is entirely independent of whether they build houses at the same time.
It isn’t “City” the way it might be… too open to be so completely controlled. So so so … I think they need to reduce the build by 3-5 sites and add infrastructure to manage the sewage overflow problem.. unless that is part of a larger plan (which I doubt). I think Jarbury has the point here. Mitigation isn’t just about what is to be built.
The mitigation plan has to address the pre-existing degradation due to sewage overflows as well as the changes that the additional housing sites would bring. It has the potential to make things cleaner. It is unlikely to do so as it is.
The point is that the area IS urbanized to such an extent that there is no possible way that the stream can remain “natural” and “clean”. If it is going to be clean, it has to be by work being done to ensure it remains clean. Work here and now and ongoing work as well…. far in excess of what natural processes might be available to clean it up. I’ve seen this enough in far more urbanized settings. It will be little more than an open sewer in another decade, with or without the housing increase, unless it is carefully protected by both councils and residents. A LOT of effort.
People might again be able to “gather watercress” but that would have to be a well controlled plantation.
This is where population increase becomes visible urbanization. It isn’t the nicest balance to have to strike. I have a lot of sympathy for the folks who live in places like that, every patch of open greenspace has value, but I also think that they have Buckley’s of stopping the process.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The resource consent process can be a catalyst for environmental improvement though – if council applies the right kind of conditions to mitigate environmental effects. For example, Auckland City Council could have said – in this case – that they would allow a few District Plan rules to be broken (rarely do we see a development that doesn’t break a rule btw) if, as mitigation, HNZC significantly ENHANCED the Meola Creek.
If they didn’t demand that, then that’s an issue that one should have with the Council, not necessarily with HNZC.
The argument can often get stuck at “should or shouldn’t this be built?” when the real question should be “how can we make this have positive environmental effects?” Most Greens supporters would like to see more state houses (I think) so the focus should be on mitigation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Jarbury
Well said sir!
The biggest inhibitor of success to the Green party (apart from the extremism of some prominent members,) is the negativity it expresses on almost anything! Ban this, stop that, shouldn’t be allowed; all terms that come to mind when the Greens are mentioned. Adoption of ‘do it this way”, “make it happen like this”, “facilitate it by” type thinking would make a big difference to the party’s image.
I once worked with an environmental control group. Their philosophy when I arrived was “what rule/regulations/laws/bylaws might your proposal break?” When I left, their approach was “how can we help you make your application compliant?” Their ‘customer satisfaction’ profile went soaring up and developers looked forward to their initial discussions as opposed to dreading them. It DOES work.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I agree Strings. The entire point of the resource consent process is to give opportunities for win-win situations – not just to give people a chance to oppose proposals.
Take the Westfield St Lukes expansion. I made a submission saying that if the plan change is to be approved by Auckland City Council then part of Exeter Road should be pedestrianised, Westfield should be made to provide a shuttle service between the mall and Morningside train station, the amount of parking spaces should be capped to encourage people to catch public transport, and development should be allowed only in stages – dependent upon reducing the extremely high proportion of shoppers who arrive by car (with the idea that this gives Westfield a big incentive to encourage public transport use by perhaps giving people free bus & train rides home if they spend $20, providing real time information signs within the mall, or something similar).
At the moment St Lukes is a highly car dependent white box. The proposal could result in far better interaction between the street and the mall, better provision for public transport and a great pedestrian public space. Do we really want to just oppose the proposal? Or do we want to push for changes to it so that we get a great outcome? As the current situation isn’t particularly good, I say the latter.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Whew! that was some long haul of events, meetings and walkabouts that Meyt and Russ got through, so my congrat’s on a good campaign.
Luck for tomoro, & I’m sure frog’s flippers are due for a soak in the frogpond after the excitements of the week that’s been.
Got my fingers & toes crossed, it’s a wierd feeling to be unable to participate in this election.
Guess we’ll all know the outcome by Saturday night/Sunday morning.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The biggest inhibitor of success to the Green party (apart from the extremism of some prominent members,) is the negativity it expresses on almost anything! Ban this, stop that, shouldn’t be allowed; all terms that come to mind when the Greens are mentioned. Adoption of ‘do it this way”, “make it happen like this”, “facilitate it by” type thinking would make a big difference to the party’s image.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
http://tvnz.co.nz/te-karere/2009-monday-video-1028653
nice site and information available
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)