Waterfront remains protected from politicians
Dave Burgess in the Dom Post reports:
Celia Wade-Brown has failed the first big political test of her mayoralty.
She has long been a supporter of moves to bring the Wellington Waterfront development company under full council control, and tried to rally support against a proposal yesterday to keep it as a standalone council-controlled organisation.
This is a good thing. Council should sign off on the major decisions, but it should not be directly managing the waterfront. A reversion to direct Council control would just be a nightmare.
But by the time her amendment was introduced, it had been watered down, and she said was not willing to muster councillors’ support on the issue.
“In the end, it is up to each of us in our own responsibilities. I’m not into herding cats or sheep, or whatever particular species you feel you represent.”
Umm Celia – that is in fact the role of the Mayor. If you want something badly, then you fight for it.
Its possible of course that Celia isn’t too upset that she lost. Sometimes you have to promise things to your supporters, but you also know that implementing them would be a big headache.
Councillor Helene Ritchie said there was vast management experience within the council, which should have full control of waterfront developments and should not allow any more bars.
Good God. Why not? This is exactly why politicians should not be in control. It would be bye bye to Dockside, St Johns, Foxglove, Shed 5 etc.
9(unknown*no*no*1)&guid=ON){kind=small}
February 18th, 2011 at 3:15 pm
“Good God. Why not? This is exactly why politicians should not be in control. It would be bye bye to Dockside, St Johns, Foxglove, Shed 5 etc.”
No it wouldn’t. They are already there. She said no more.
[DPF: Thin end of the wedge. Start banning new bars, and then they'll go after the existing ones]
February 18th, 2011 at 3:15 pm
You mean if there were designated Green party dance zones you wouldn’t be interest?
Cue those party campaign/conference videos.
February 18th, 2011 at 3:17 pm
Councillor Helene Ritchie said there was vast management experience within the council, which should have full control of waterfront developments and should not allow any more bars.
This comment from Helene tells us exactly how much experience she’s had in (or taken from) the real world: about none. Because the first rule of development is find a target audience and make them happy.
February 18th, 2011 at 3:18 pm
Celia Wade-Brown, the Luddite, will fail another political test in two and a half years and will find herself out of office.
Wellington will be the better for it.
February 18th, 2011 at 4:06 pm
When are they going to tear down those godawful sheds?
They ruin the view from the bar. And everywhere else.
February 18th, 2011 at 8:12 pm
Waterfront protected from politicians, now if only we could protect that Parliamenty looking building a few hundred metres up the hill from them too…
February 18th, 2011 at 9:18 pm
Do we know how many property developers/ real estate interests there are on the various city councils?
February 18th, 2011 at 9:28 pm
Wellington corruption – suitable for investigation by jouro
PostPosted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 10:39 am
Mayor of Wellington – Kerry Predergrast
Mayor’s husband, and property developer, ho-hum, Rex Nicholls.
Call me a cynic but when the mayor’s husband is involved in property development, ya know, bidding for contracts, etc, getting resource consent, and the mayor is your partner, do you think there might be a conflict of interest?
Hmmmmm, let me think about that for, oh, 1 second.This is the sort of thing any journo worth his salt would be all over…however, there are no decent investigative journos in New Zealand.
http://www.expatexposed.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=30513
February 18th, 2011 at 9:40 pm
Fintan Patrick Walsh was of celtic stock too.
I wonder?
February 18th, 2011 at 9:52 pm
You could do an incentive analysis?
February 19th, 2011 at 11:08 am
Look what developers did to one of the worlds most beautiful places:
Up the road in Queenstown, nature is in full flight.
Queenstown advertises itself as “The Adventure Capital of the World,” where you can bungy jump, heli-ski, jet-boat, or sky-dive. The confines of the modest town can no longer accommodate the throng of thrill-seekers. Soaring mountains still fringe the lake, but condos are creeping along the shore, a snake of traffic clogs the road into town, and Louis Vuitton has set up shop along with Global Culture, a clothes store.
If your idea of a holiday is a seething mass of cars and people, topped off by a cacophony of helicopters, Queenstown may be for you. Otherwise, it serves only as a warning of the perils of overdevelopment.
http://www.boston.com/travel/articles/2004/11/07/new_zealand_at_a_crossroads/
February 19th, 2011 at 12:04 pm
This decision is simply common sense but the wider political implications for CWB are more interesting. This is a major defeat. It categorically proves she does not have the support of her council. Her attempted last-minute amendments to delay decision making on this were snuffed out and significantly she was not supported by the Deputy Mayor or Cr Foster.
As for Helene Ritchie’s contribution it is astounding how this woman continues to attract votes. Has been there far too long and it is long past time she was put to pasture and some fresh and eminently more sensible ideas are brought to the council table