Comments on: Super City structure released

By: Geoff Houtman

Geoff Houtman — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 10:50:44 +0000

Yes, yes and yes. But where do we cut 23,000 residents from? I suggest Mt Eden, Eden Terrace, Epsom North, Remuera West and Newmarket for starters.

But I don’t think that’d be anywhere near 23k.

I have found 2006 census stats and micro areas (mesh blocks?) on the net, but where are the 2008/9 figures to be found? The LGC has them… (we hope)

By: Geoff Houtman

Geoff Houtman — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 10:45:29 +0000

Ian, you are not alone. Many of us in Grey Lynn feel exactly the same way. We will be making the same submission as you for the same reasons.
Good on ya.

By: Gerrymandering Auckland city at The Standard

Gerrymandering Auckland city at The Standard — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:01:43 +0000

[...] electoral boundaries released on friday in traditional style. However jarbury has done a great analysis over at the Auckland Transport [...]

By: admin

admin — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 04:23:06 +0000

I think that the central “Mangawhau” ward needs to be smaller, say around a population of 65,000, so that it is more equal on a per-capita basis with the other wards.

The excuse given to over-representation in places like Howick/Botany/Pakuranga and Albany/East Coast Bays is that those areas are growing and over time they will become more “even”. The same argument could easily be applied to the central area – as its residential population is likely to grow significantly over the next 5-10 years.

By: Ian Bone

Ian Bone — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 03:05:13 +0000

The LGC report doesn’t even mention Mount Eden – it has vanished. This is possibly to gloss over the fact that the proposed ward boundary splits it in half down Valley Road – the northern half (including Maungawhau) being sucked into the Central City where it does’t belong and the Southern Half suddenly becoming part of Mt Roskill. I think the commissioners have become very concerned about the number balance and have ignored communities of interest in these inner suburbs.

As it stands our house on one side of Valley Road will be in a different ward to the local primary school (Mt Eden Normal). Mangawhau primary school of course is even further south.

I would like to see the ward boundary moved north to the railway line/motorway – and change the name of the Central City to something else, and give the Maungawhau name to the ward to the south. I shall certainly be making a submission on this.

By: Jeremy Harris

Jeremy Harris — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 02:44:18 +0000

My submission was for 3 three councillors for every national electorate seat plus 15% on top Maori seats… All up about 80 seats..!

By: admin

admin — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 02:22:27 +0000

Interesting thoughts about the at large seats. I think a lot of the worry about the at-large seats was due to them, historically, being captured by the Remuera crowd ( when Auckland City Council had them).

I think that we are bound to see less parochialism for local areas than at the moment, due to having one council rather than 8. I think Auckland probably needs about 50 councillors, perhaps with 10 at large?

By: Nicholas O'Kane

Nicholas O'Kane — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 02:12:16 +0000

“There are no at large seats now Nicholas, except for the mayor. They got the boot from the plan during the select committee process, thankfully.”
That changes things. I actually think the at large seats could have been a good thing if the total number of seats was raised. We could have had MMP as an Auckland electoral system.

I guess some debate is needed on the population varriance that should be allowed in local government districts. +-25% seems too high to me, but the need to retain existing comunities is still important.

Interesting the maori seats option (if implemented) would have left maori grossly overepresented, and been the worst case of gerrymandering possible (especially as maori seats are deliberately intended to gerrymander in favour of maori candidates).

Going on to public transport, the ward based system isn’t good for it, as no-one likes paying rates for a project that will not benefit their suburb. This means that all the councillors outside your ward, particularly those from wards with no rail lines, will have little incentive to back the CBD rail tunnel. This is quite worrying.

By: admin

admin — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 01:34:49 +0000

There are no at large seats now Nicholas, except for the mayor. They got the boot from the plan during the select committee process, thankfully.

By: Nicholas O'Kane

Nicholas O'Kane — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 01:19:15 +0000

“This basically means that someone’s vote in Rodney counts almost the same as two votes in my ward.”
and “Yes there’s some pretty blatant gerrymandering going on.”

You forgot the 8 at large seats. I do agree about the unfairness of the proposed boundaries, but to ignore the at large seats in these calculations (including the mayor) is dishonest. What will be an interesting comparison is the proposed variations in population per ward with the ones for existing councils.