Later today an announcement will be made on the proposed central public projects. All these proposed projects will likely be loss makers, requiring on going ratepayer / taxpayer subsidies.
National and international research also illustrates the wider economic and social benefits are minimal ...- at best. Indeed - comprehensive and robust research often illustrates there are wide economic and social costs.
The focus should be on how best to provide these loss making services in whole or in part, at the lowest possible ongoing cost to ratepayers and taxpayers.
It is to be hoped the media makes a point of communicating with people both nationally and internationally, with credibility and expertise in these public projects.
In very general terms, if at the outset the development cost estimates are in the order of $800 million and because these projects appear to be rushed, it will be likely there will be substantial costs blowouts. The promoters need to be asked ( based on reputable international evidence and research ) what provision at this stage have they made for likely cost blowouts.
By rushing in to these projects, the promoters will be forced to pay excessive land costs. Going forward, central area land values are expected to fall dramatically. The public deserves to be fully informed of the additional land costs involved with these proposed rushed projects.
Even based on the initial costs estimates of around $800 million, when the ongoing costs of capital and operating losses (including insurances, maintenance, depreciation, staffing etc. etc.) are factored in, it seems likely these could be in the order of at least some 10% or $80 million a year of ongoing losses.
With a little over 150,000 households, this is in the order of $533 per household - more if there are cost blowouts.
While of course the commercial / industrial sector pay a substantial proportion of the Local Authority rates - the losses are still a cost to us all as citizens. The commercial / industrial sector will simply pass on these increased rates costs in the prices they charge for the goods and services they provide. Business is simply an intermediary.
And in the broader sense - have we got our priorities right - with people first - housing second - and business third.
Quality decisions can only be made if the citizens of Christchurch are provided with honest and credible information.
The citizens of Christchurch most certainly deserve to be treated with respect. They deserve much better than to be inflicted with infantile boosterism.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Hugh Pavletich - 'infantile boosterism'
The citizens of Christchurch deserve more respect than to have inflicted on them more infantile boosterism, says Hugh Pavletich, Coordinator of Cantabrians Unite.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I wouldn't trust this guy if I were you.
I was in a meeting with him once, his attitude to urban planning was appalling.
Unless he has changed his ways, he certainly won't like the proposed green spaces based on my experience with the guy.
"Only interested in what brings people in the door and spending money"
Not my kind of urban planning.
I'm pleasantly surprised to see you're promoting a request for fiscal responsibility.
Paranormal
Ha!
Should'a' read it before I posted it :-)
Call it "for the sake of balance".
like all things robert Hugh's thinking contains both good and bad
Much of what Hugh P is on about is to the left of Rob Muldoon. He is an ardent advocate for cheap land and he is right - not much point in putting half million dollar homes on the market for people who can at most afford 200k mortgages which is most of eastern chch - and the fastest way to get chch working is to have everyone housed and back on the job
The sheer daftness of building mausoleums such as those proposed show that this is more about architects fees than the future of canterbury and the city. The city centre was dead in the 1970's and has been on life support from the CCC District Plan ever since.
Chch Businesses migrated out of the cbd with alacrity post the earthquakes to localities better suited to their needs - and oddly enough are forming a sustainable city in the process as most people are now working close to where they live.
CBD's only sustain the car-centricity of society and even then not well. Towns function as communities best at around 100k inhabitants. Chch has always been four towns and the CBD has been on life support ever since each of those towns built its own retail core.
Without those separate cores the city would have been in a far worse situation than it is - three quarters of the city still works just fine - if the same thing happened to an old fashioned town like dunedin or Invers there would be paralysis as the entire commercial core would be gone.
The new city plan is a microcosmic example of this current governments belief in the genie of the market place - rub it hard enough and all your wishes will be granted. No imagination no commonsense and too much power, control and cronyism
That's much the way I see it, darkhorse, despite not knowing the 'four towns' bit. The fascination with conference centres and stadiums reveals the paucity of creative thinintg at the outset and there's little else that gives me cause for celebration. I did infact, read the thing. I just don't like to give para any opportunity to score points :-)
Saw your avatar, very nice.
Fill the city center with cabbage trees and be done with it.
I /never/ go to the city center (other than the botanical gardens) when in Christchurch, and most shopahollics I know go to one or more of the malls.
Interesting about the 4 towns thing, I'd never looked at it that way before.
What are these 'malls' you speak of, Shunda?
Are they similar somehow, to the Ol' Genril Store I buy my grits 'n' vittals from here in Southland?
Shunda is right on the money with his assessment of the self-serving Pavletich. A deluded monument to right-wing intellectual vanity, minus the intellect.
Post a Comment