Mixed feelings on Occupy movement

January 5, 2012

I’ve been pondering my attitude to the “Occupy” demonstration movement, given my history of taking part in demonstrations in my 20s and 30s and my empathy with people who are prepared to take an unpopular stand and be abused for it.

The curious thing for me is that I don’t seem to be able to muster much feeling about it, one way or the other. Why would that be?

Hopefully it’s not that I’ve passed a certain age when the discomfort of unpopular protesting is unattractive; when the people seen on the TV in their occupation tents look scruffy, insincere or thoughtless; when I think I have better things to do with my limited time. Pity help me if I’m letting that level of superficiality affect my judgment!

My first problem (and that of so many other people who are not up with spontaneous social media networking and the like) is that the target of the Occupy movement – especially in New Zealand – is not clearly defined. On the Vietnam war and the Springbok tour, we all knew precisely what the issue was and what we protesters (and our opposition) wanted. With Occupy, the target appears to be the ultra-rich 1% of the capitalist world. Or is it the capitalist system as a whole? Or is it the establishment? I guess the ambiguity reflects the difference between a “campaign” and a “movement”.

And if the target of the occupiers is one or all of these, exactly what is it that they would rather do and how would they start to achieve it. Unlike Vietnam or “the tour”, there is no single action or policy change that will stop excessive greed/wealth/capitalism.

So I find it difficult to rouse a feeling of solidarity with the occupiers as they camp out on public land in Auckland, Wellington and several other centres. Also, compared with the size of the occupying “forces” and the policing responses in America and the UK, the Kiwi groups are pretty ineffectual, apart from causing some short-term damage to grass cover, some health issues and general annoyance to a minority of opponents.

It’s actually a problem for protesters if no-one is inconvenienced or angered by them, so it is to be expected that the occupiers will persist and try new tactics even when many think they’ve had their fair time. But in the end their gains will be small, if any.

On the other side of the coin, the right to protest is in my opinion absolutely vital to any healthy society. Near the top of my list of life’s guiding principles will always be the knowledge that all it takes for a dictatorship to be established is for good people to say and do nothing. To not stand up against bad policies is to pay no respect to the people over the centuries who fought for democracy and individual freedom.

So the occupiers are right to keep before our faces one of the biggest societal problems the world is now facing – the growing gap between the ultra-wealthy 1% and the so-called 99% who must show restraint in their life choices or are simply too poor to have any economic options at all. The issue should be something we are all aware of and prepared to think about.

Is the wealth gap one of our biggest problems? Like an increasing number of commentators in recent months, I believe it is. Particularly the notion that the gap between the top few percent and the rest is actually widening. It’s a huge problem – and a potential time bomb – because the consequences affect every part of every society – even, eventually, the top 1%. But that’s too big an issue for me to tackle in this article, so I’ll give it some further thought in a separate post soon.

1 Comment | Community living, Economics, Social issues | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by David Armstrong

Christchurch developers, residents must collaborate on rebuild efforts

October 16, 2011

Sadly, but understandably in retrospect, the list of contentious issues and frustrations around the rebuilding of Christchurch’s CBD is growing, with a full-on verbal confrontation between property developers and investors on one side and Christchurch residents, through their city council, on the other adding to the dispiriting mix.

For those not familiar with the week-by-week progress (or lack of it) in planning for post-earthquake Christchurch, the list of majorly contentious issues includes unavailability of insurance, access to the partly demolished CBD, saving heritage buildings versus widespread demolition, delays in decisions on land status, payouts for red-zoners, and where displaced families will live.

Now there’s a relatively new one: how will the new CBD look and function, with residents and developers at odds over the draft plan put forward by the city council.

The council plan, developed from thousands of submitted ideas from across the community, sees greener spaces, fewer cars, restrictions on building heights and, over all, a planned and more people-friendly “look and feel”.

Developers say some of the proposed regulations would be too onerous and restrictive on the people who are expected to fund the rebuild – the CBD property owners and investors – and many will take their payout money elsewhere leaving no-one to finance and build what the populace wants.

Letters to the editor show a big divide: those supporting the free market solution of letting investors do what they want, and those who say this is a once in a lifetime opportunity to design a city that suits people.

Sadly, both are talking past each other, and I see few published opinions that seek to balance the two views, so here goes.

I may be wrong, but …. I believe the larger businesses and landowners with the money and the community-minded residents actually need each other.

Residents and town planners who seek to design spaces and facilities that will make for stronger and healthier communities simply do not have the money to do it. Nor do they legally own the land on which their dream will be built. The people who hope to live in the kind of ideal city environment suggested by the draft plan can only do so if they have jobs to pay for it through rates and consumer patronage. And this can happen only if those who have the money to invest in buildings for businesses see a financial return.

Big business must expect certain incentives to stay and get involved. But the people pushing the business side of this dispute do also need to get down off their high horses and realise one key factor – if the CDB that they rebuild is not attractive or friendly to the people of Christchurch, they will be wasting their money anyway.

They need to listen carefully to what ordinary punters are saying, and consider their own involvement in that light. Otherwise current trends of small businesses moving to the suburbs and shoppers buying from suburban malls will simply continue, and the city will remain hollowed out for decades and provide no incentive for investors.

Hopefully the current stand-off between CBD investors and council planners will cool down and each will see the need for the other if the city is to rebuild successfully. The right sort of investors and developers will seriously consult with their potential customers and shape their thinking to develop building solutions that make the city attractive enough to win over the populace. And environmentally minded citizens and planners will work with developers as partners, not adversaries, to show them what will and will not work and why; and be thankful that someone is prepared to put hunks of money back into their beloved city.

It is, in fact, a classic case of market forces at play. Developers must accommodate and plan for their potential clientele, while residents, as consumers and citizens, must rely on funders to give them the choices they want.

2 Comments | Business, Community living | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by David Armstrong

Supporting local businesses is in my best interests

July 21, 2011

I’ve blogged before about the many advantages of living in a community the size of Motueka (urban population about 7000), and one of them is the easy access (in my case, generally walking distance) to shops, eateries and services which supply most of my needs.

While acknowledging that many big ticket items are in short supply here (e.g. only two smallish car yards, one appliance retailer), and that occasionally some ordinary items have been short when I’ve needed them (e.g. no shop stocking white tennis socks on the day I’d run out), generally Motueka offers me an impressively good selection of the basics.

When more is needed, Nelson and Richmond are only a 30-40 minutes drive away and the selection of shops there would satisfy all but the most fastidious of buyers, I imagine. And of course, there’s the giant global shopping mall called the internet.

But I’ve firmed up now on a personal strategic policy of buying locally whenever possible and affordable. And there’s one good reason for this – it’s in my own best interests.

The maxim goes: The more I buy locally, the better those shops do and the more likely they are to still be in business when I need them.

The inverse is an even more convincing argument: Every time I choose to buy in Nelson or on the internet when I could have bought the same or similar in Motueka, I make it harder for a local businesses to survive, so the less likely that business is to be around when I need them.

It is in my interests to support them because I want to be part of a town which houses sustainable businesses that offer me solutions to my basic needs. When they thrive, my life gets better – they offer me more choices and better quality products and services so I don’t have the hassle of driving out of town to get them.

Every time I choose to top up my petrol tank in Nelson because the cost per litre may be 3 cents less (the sort of average we’re used to), I lessen fractionally the viability of our two High Street gas stations here. If, then, one went under it would be me that suffered as much as their owners because I will have lost an option into the longer-term future.

When I buy a book over the internet to save a few dollars and get it more quickly than it can be ordered in, I make it fractionally harder for my nearby stationer to survive; and if he went then so would so many other products he so usefully makes available to me at strolling distance.

I’m not going to name and single out any particular local businesses that I want to survive for my personal future benefit, and therefore will patronise whenever possible, but locals here will know and understand these examples.

If I need a new computer modem (as I did recently), I’d rather buy from the one local computer shop than save $15 getting one on the internet or spending that $15 on petrol to travel to Nelson to buy one for $10 less at Harvey Norman. The local computer shop now has a tiny extra chance of surviving and becoming even better – plus I got the local tech guy to help install it properly.

If I need new jeans or a sweatshirt, I’ll make sure that at least I try the local menswear retailer first and only consider a trip to the city if he has nothing at all suitable – which is in fact a rare situation. Likewise shoes – the choice available locally is surprisingly good and buying there helps that situation to continue (rather than forcing the retailer to cut down on his range if sales aren’t sufficient to sustain his offering)

I could go on; I trust you’ve well and truly got the picture by now. Even if I have to pay a little more on some purchases (and this isn’t all that often the case anyway), I would rather do that and help make the commercial activity of the community stronger, because in the long run it will make Motueka a better place for me to live, and certainly make me less reliant on driving to the city to buy what I need.

That’s what I call real commercial sustainability.

Leave a Comment » | Business, Community living, Economics | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by David Armstrong

Approval for Cera appointment highlights the value of good communication

May 19, 2011

It seems that the announcement that Roger Sutton will be the chief executive of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (Cera) has met with extraordinarily widespread approval, and I’m glad.

I’ve never met Roger, but I had already formed the seed of an opinion of the man from several things I’d read about him in recent  years and what I’d seen of him on the telly since the February earthquake.

From media reports, it’s clear that his new fan club includes a very broad cross-section of Christchurch and politicians country-wide. And the reason is clear – so clear that I hope it serves a huge, unequivocal message to other current and wannabe public sector leaders.

Roger’s appointment is a victory for engineering substance over bureaucratic fiddling, for direct communication over risk-averse media management.

I wrote a couple of months ago about my fears that the do-as-I-say approach to Christchurch people by military-trained Civil Defence leaders would do more harm than good after the initial crisis had passed. Until recently, when they began to realise that there’s no harm in listening, their view was based on the fundamental, unquestionable rule that “safety is paramount”. But rebuilding a city and a community must be about much more than just safety.

Now my fears have lessened considerably. If anyone can do the job it will be someone who commands far more respect than minister Gerry Brownlee, and that someone is Roger Sutton.

And this reinforces something we all know intuitively but often don’t appreciate directly – the value of plain speaking when we’re faced with a real challenge.

We saw it in the first weeks after the Pike River coalmine disaster: while the chief executive Peter Whittall was being admired and thanked for giving straight answers and treating us as grown ups, the police officer in charge Gary Knowles (who may be the finest fellow around for all I know) drew suspicion every time he spoke that he was hiding things and using “official speak” to avoid risking someone getting upset. “Trust me, safety is paramount, you don’t need to know any more.”

Gary’s performance felt to me like a doctor who is scared to tell a patient that they have a bad disease for fear of them not coping. Instead they resort to using unfamiliar words and leaving out bits thought to be dangerous if not managed by knowledgeable officials.

Back to Roger Sutton’s appointment. He has shown already that he is capable of talking directly about the good and bad bits without frightening the horses. And he appears to have a track record of facing technical and organisational challenges, applying a good mixture of common sense and engineering practice (which he knows is never a 100% art), and getting on with the job. And if decisions cannot be made just yet, he can explain to ordinary people why not.

Most people appreciate empathetic, honest communication far more than being nannied to remain safe.

————————

My apologies to those who would like to add genuine comments to my blog articles, but I have had to disable comments because I was being flooded with spam messages from people posting non-specific, automated comments aiming to get links to their dodgy sites included in commentary (doubtless to boost their Google ranking). If and when it ever stops, I will renew the comments feature.

Leave a Comment » | Community living, Social issues | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by David Armstrong

The future of Christchurch under Cera

April 25, 2011

I’m going to add my voice to the concerns being expressed widely in Christchurch about the approach the authorities (meaning the NZ government) are taking to the broken city’s reconstruction.

My wife and I spent last weekend in Christchurch, mainly for a big family celebration but also to see for ourselves, for the first time, some of the damage to the city we lived in for years and to catch up with a few close friends. It was our first trip there since February 22nd, and yes, we did experience the large aftershock on the Saturday evening.

In (very) brief, we saw how the events of the past seven months have so profoundly shaped the attitudes, thinking and day-to-day lives of our friends. We saw how and why the earthquake events have become the on-going major topic of all conversations. We saw how the people there (the ones we met, anyway) are doing what is almost unthinkable to us who learn about it only through the media – trying to get on with some sort of normal living when the whole atmosphere wrapping around the city is a giant fog of question marks.

I have frequently wondered over the past two months how I would have managed to stay positive had we still been living there. Our old house, as we saw, is still standing strongly – one of what appears to be a minority in the neighbourhood – but the surrounding suburban area is messy and only partially operating in the way we remember. And our weekend conversations were filled with stories about people who knew people whose lives have been turned on their heads, and are now trapped in a series of circumstances – disruptions to house, work, business, finances, toileting habits, families – which no longer resemble what they had in mind this time last year. I simply don’t know how I would be coping if it were me there.

These people have guts and patience, that’s for sure, and somehow they’re going to have to rely on those qualities to see them through at least one cold winter and hot summer ahead, and maybe a few more. What else can they do? Those with property commitments that cannot be cashed up simply have no alternative.

But back to my commentary on the future there, and the part that will be played by the new government-run authority, Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (Cera). It’s to be run by a politician whom I (along with most everyone I’ve talked with recently) have never respected, Gerry Brownlee. The government’s main “do as I say, I won’t tolerate any backchat” man.

Brownlee aside (for my concern would be much the same even if the politician in charge were someone I admired), I’m one of many who fear that the whole top-down, prescriptive approach to the decision making and planning that Cera is tasked by the new law to do will fail.

Physically, the city can be reconstructed in time – no doubt about it. To do that you do need a “tsar” (as the media is calling Brownlee’s role) who can decide everything and simply say what will be built where and when. Returning unviable suburban areas to nature, remaking sewers and water lines, building roads, houses and places of business. With the money and the workers, that’s no big deal for any first-world country.

But if you don’t take the people with you, if you don’t involve them in the decision making, it will almost certainly fail. Why? Because the city is the physical structures and the people.

As I talked with Christchurch people last weekend – most of them born and bred there – it became apparent that if they are not involved in the new development work, if they are expected to sit and make do for five years while the new city is designed and built, they will lose heart, interest, contacts, and the will to do their bit.

With the bulk of the population sitting on the sidelines, not taking any official part in the planning (except through the 20-person community feedback group, all appointed by Brownlee), businesses will decline in number and importance, people will leave, schools will shrink, fewer teachers, fewer pupils and parents, fewer jobs ….. It becomes a negative spiral. In five years time Christchurch could be comprised of a hard core of those who somehow managed to live well despite the events plus a few thousand tradespeople no longer needed after major rebuilding is over.

Five years down the track, all the physical structures will be there but not the people, and not the attitude of ownership that a great city requires of its inhabitants.

I really hope the Cera process somehow works, but as time stretches out before us and the wider picture is becoming less foggy, and particularly as the authorities make it clear that they won’t be wasting time talking with the communities that make the city, I’m increasingly, sadly, pessimistic of the outcome. Christchurch may never again be the glorious little city it once was.

Leave a Comment » | Community living, Politics, Social issues | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by David Armstrong

« Previous Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.