The Royal Commissioners reporting on Auckland Governance have an unenviable task.

They have been asked to solve a problem without being given the tools to do the job.

Anyone who has been following the debate about reorganizing Auckland’s local body administration would have to be aware of the widespread belief that getting the boundaries in the “right place”, and getting the “right number” of mayors and councillors, will solve Auckland’s problems and set the path to a glorious future.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Many cities have faced the same kind of problems and looked to the magic formula of amalgamation to solve them. The Local Government reforms of the eighties were in many ways bold and necessary but the one programme which failed to deliver on expectations was the widespread amalgamation of smaller units into large ones.

I, for one, look back on my time as a ratepayer within the tiny Newmarket Borough Council with great affection. I am surely not alone.

Toronto is a recent example of the failure of amalgamation. The end result of that “Super City” reform is even greater dissatisfaction, and higher costs and rates.

The problems of the Auckland Region are founded in numerous pieces of legislation, all of which are essentially outside the brief of the Commission.

It is worth remembering the adage “Amalgamation gives us a larger area to govern than the one we couldn’t govern last time.”

It is also noteworthy that France has a Mayor for every 300 people, but only five water companies manage all the water and wastewater on behalf of its 36,000 municipalities. The French understand that the economies of scale of business do not translate into democracy.

Generally, federalism is a good thing. When local bodies such as Rodney and Waitakere compete for residents and business they have to take note of the needs and desires of those people waiting outside in the wings. Otherwise the resident locals have all the say. The locals are happy to dictate where newcomers should be allowed to live. The newcomers themselves have quite different ideas.

However, the real reason large scale amalgamation fails to deliver on its promises is the simple tyranny of distance.

The Auckland Region is huge by international standards while the population of that region is tiny. The density of urbanized Auckland is high by New World standards – over two and a half times the density of similar cities in the US. But because so much of Auckland is empty, we continue to believe we suffer from urban sprawl.

In one sense we do. The notion of Food Miles has seized the public imagination. We need to consider Electoral Miles as a guide to the size of a territorial local authority.

Those who promote the “Super-City” talk of a Mayor who will speak with one voice for Auckland. Really?

Consider who will provide the votes which elect such a Super-Mayor, and then ask how much attention he or she would pay to the lonely resident of Port Albert, Waikaretu, or Whakatiwai? (You can find them on Google Earth – with some difficulty.)

More importantly, imagine you are a resident of one of these worthy coastal towns and want to run for Mayor or Council of the Super-City yourself. Would you really be prepared to spend three of four hours a day driving to and from the Queen Street offices of the Super-City Council?

Thousands of citizens are disenfranchised by such proposals.

A useful rule of thumb would be that no citizen should have to drive more than 45 minutes to their council office. The Greens should probably insist they be in walking or cycling distance – which is what the French have already achieved.

The last round of amalgamation seemed to ignore the cost of Electoral Miles. My own Kaipara District Council offices are in Dargaville, an hour and a half away. The costs of being a representative, especially with current petrol prices, are just too high. If, during the last round of reform, the Kaipara District had been split into two districts, the 45 minute rule would apply.

If government is serious about being energy-efficient and charging for carbon then maybe it should insist that Electoral Miles are taken into account when setting our local body boundaries.

Some hold out the promise of Community Boards to remedy this problem. They are a sham.

We know the adage “No taxation without representation”. The case for “No representation without taxation” is equally valid. Elected representatives must be able to strike a rate, and be held responsible for spending the money raised, if they are to be taken seriously by the voters.

A Regional Council should focus on pollution of the soil, water and air. Penny Webster, The Mayor of Rodney, is right to argue that the Regional Council should be an Environmental Protection Agency and should stop interfering with how local councils run their own affairs.

Auckland does not need a Regional Super-Planning Agency claiming to have the knowledge and expertise to run the economy of the region. If we knew how to do this, the cities of the Soviet Union would have been a success, albeit within the failing national economies. In fact the failure of central planning in the Soviet Cities was probably more evident than at the national level – if such is possible.

Auckland does need specialist regional organizations to focus on supplying specific regional services to the whole region, and which compete, in public, for available resources.

Central planning under one roof results in trade-offs between competing sectors, and the trade- offs are made behind closed doors.

If the promoters of urban rail had to compete in public with broadband providers for funds to reduce congestion on the roads, broadband would win, hands down. When planning agencies have multiple tasks then fads dominate decision-making.

We can only hope that the Royal Commission will point out that it has been able to do no more than tinker with the edges, and that Auckland’s future success depends on changes to its governing legislation – such as the Resource Management Act, the Local Government Act, the Land Transport Act, and a host of others.

Merging territories has little impact – unless we are determined to disenfranchise most of the Region’s population.

Reducing the Wages Gap – it’s Simple Really.

A Texan leading expert on residential real estate is betting housing affordability will be the “most significant growth stimulant” for Texas over the next 25 years.

“Texas is the most housing-affordable, high-growth state in the nation,” says Dr. Jim Gaines, research economist for the Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University.

“So far, skyrocketing home prices common to fast-growing states like California and Florida have not occurred in Texas.”

"Texas leads the nation in job creation. If Texas maintains its average employment-to-population ratio as expected during the next 25 years, the state will add another 4.5 to 5.8 million jobs," says Gaines.

“More people and more jobs will lead to higher personal income, ”says Gaines. "The 2005 Texas median household income of $42,139 could reach nearly $68,000 by 2030."

If anyone wants to know more about the Texan formula for success they could join me at the American Dream Coalition Conference, from May 16^th – 18^th at Houston, Texas.

Go to: http://americandreamcoalition.org/

You will see that Amalgamation, and Super-Cities, are not even on the forty three item Agenda. Maybe they know what really counts.

1237  words