Listen to ‘nimbys’ on housing — their views are valid

Housing Minister Phil Twyford is getting very forceful about his new plan to ride roughshod over what used to be the rights of citizens. Apparently the infamous Unitary Plan, so complex and impenetrable, must have left some vestigial rights for the hapless Aucklanders.

In his rush of enthusiasm to convince us his plan (one of many) will work, the minister focuses on the common enemy of governments, councils, and developers. This, he says, is the “nimbys” who are “vested interests”.

Strange that. Many people would have thought the “vested interests” were, in fact, large landowners, large construction companies, freelance and council planners, not forgetting financial institutions and the Government. But using the old political trick of pointing to others, while drawing attention away from the basic problem makers, they are easily lumped as the source of the problems.

This stance ignores the following: that successive governments (Labour, National and now Labour again,) have caused major problems, including housing shortages, not just for Auckland but spilling over to much of New Zealand. Both National and Labour wanted a “Super City” and in their view this needed a new model of government for the Auckland region.

Allied to that has been the heavy numbers of new immigrants flooding into New Zealand, with little ability to reduce or stop these numbers growing because of things such as the free trade agreements with China and other countries.

This “unitary council” model for Auckland was imposed upon us. No vote for or against the Government’s decision was allowed. It was another dictatorial government decision not applied anywhere else in the country. This was followed by a further imposition on the people, the Unitary Plan.

This removed many of the democratic systems established under the Resource Management Act, yet Minister Twyford now says the Government needs even more powers to move even more quickly.

It seems likely that powers and speed are not the myrrh the minister would have us believe, especially when one examines the number of building companies that are in financial or planning difficulties, some caused by the council. Latest revelations tend to confirm that greater speed is likely to produce greater difficulties, not solve them.

I believe the views of the “nimbys” are the essence of our democracy and in protecting our environment.

Mayor Goff is now on record as offering the Government a warning about attacking nimbys. “They can be negative or good,” he said. They may “stand up for heritage, lifestyle, and greenness . . . We should be careful not to generalise.”

Yes, Mr Goff, many would support that view and would hope you would extend it to others who want to express political views and actions different from yours. One commentator says, “Obstructionism can be a bad thing sometimes but other times the obstruction of some new project in the neighbourhood might be closer to heroism,” and points out, “low-income communities are often the brunt of the build-anything-anywhere mantra, since developers will dump the most environmentally damaging projects in the lowest land-priced neighbourhoods and some are desperate for an advocate to scream “not in my backyard” for them.”

But nimby-ism often provides an insight into a deeply flawed system of development. To this extent, planners and developers have a lot to learn from their most vocal adversaries. After all, they will know a lot more about their area than the “newby” armies of developers, bureaucrats and planners, and they will care a lot more about how to conserve the key elements of the area and community.

I urge Mr Twyford, Mr Goff, their officials, developers, contractors and the like, to treat these people with some respect, listen to their concerns and suggestions. They may learn something. I believe they are the essence of our democracy and protecting our environment.