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.


What worries me about Key’s face

October 13, 2011

This article will be something of a one-off, I hope, because I’m going to be accused (with a modicum of justification) of playing the man rather than the ball. In this case, the massively popular prime minister John Key.

I’m one of, apparently, a minority of New Zealanders who do not fully trust him, and my trust level is falling rather quickly now as the pressure of elections mounts and a variety of tough issues need addressing. [This is not a Labour party promo – I’ve already written once before about my problems with Phil Goff’s presentation.]

Like many, I didn’t know much about Key before 2008. He seemed a typically busy chap trying, as all opposition politicians do, to defeat the then Labour government at the 2008 election. But I do remember one incident in that election campaign which for the first time made me very uneasy about him.

I don’t recall the precise detail, but he had been publicly denying meeting some international person of interest (I think it was a campaign funder or strategist) and then on TV camera he was confronted with evidence that he had in fact met that person. The look on Key’s face was disturbing: his eyes flickered away from the interviewer, the smile became forced, the skin went a little shiny (microscopic sweat), and there was a slight sneer as he floundered away doing whatever came to him at the moment to divert attention. It reminded me of certain children I know when caught telling fibs.

It was the first time I’d seen something in his face that didn’t fit with the constantly smiling politician with the self-deprecating “shucks” style that resonates with many Kiwis.

I’m writing this now because in recent times I’ve seen that other face a few times again but with a somewhat more sinister arrogance added. It happened in his reaction to Nicky Hager’s book on what our troops are up to in Afghanistan, again last week when caught out misleading parliament about Standard & Poors’ credit rating cut for NZ, and his reaction to Labour’s complaint about Key’s reaction to the chap threatening to jump from parliament’s gallery.

It’s a look which us oldies see and dislike in many young people. The rolling of the eyes, the slight sneer, the look that says “Whatever!” to dismiss the argument.

I recall that when challenged recently on something pretty indefensible (I think it was the Hager claims) and he’d run out of ways of fudging the facts, he dismissed further discussion by saying “So sue me!” or something to that effect. That’s the grown-up version of “Whatever”. The man thinks he’s so popular and charming now that he can dismiss arguments in such an off-hand, arrogant and wide-boyish manner and get away with it.

The thing which prompted me to write this was his manner in his televised press conference about the Standard & Poors issue. After managing to evade any candid and truthful response by bending words for a while, he finally gave in to persistent questions about what he actually said in parliament and how that didn’t tally with the truth, for a few seconds his face lost its self-assured smile and instead displayed the surly curled lip, the shiny skin, the avoidance of eye contact, and that teenage look that effectively told the media, “So what. The people love me so I can say what I want. Who cares. Whatever.”

This swipe is more than just that I don’t like the man’s manner when he’s made to feel uneasy. What does concern me is that his way of dealing with difficult moments when he’s caught out shows that underneath the affable exterior there is a person who has some contempt for the people who seek deeper answers and who challenge his confidence. I don’t like that in a leader.

Right, that’s off my chest. Now back to talking about issues.


Cats know best how to live life

October 3, 2011

Every now and then I come across a piece of writing that speaks very directly to me in simple words and images, and last Saturday’s edition of The Press in Christchurch provided another such occasion.

I usually very much enjoy Michele A’Court’s column. She can enjoy a good laugh at herself but mainly talks about things that are within my personal experience. On Saturday she began: “I have been trying very hard not to write about my cat”. We knew a cat story was coming.

It was sweet, the sort of stuff that cat lovers could smile and nod to. A bit of history about Jim (his name), who is now 20 years old (“…he is so deaf that his meow has become a shout”), his convalescent activities (sleeping 23 hours a day in five favourite spots), and other things immediately familiar to cat owners.

The second half of the article turns to the lessons Jim can teach us all – and I for one am listening. I won’t try to summarise or paraphrase it; it’s so simply and well written that it deserves verbatim reproduction. So, hopefully not treading on anyone’s copyright too heavily, here’s what brought a lump to my throat and a wave of relief to my mind:

———————

I have days when engaging with the world leaves me almost unable to breathe.  Retrospective surveillance legislation, voluntary student unions and the collapse of the world economy can leave me gasping for air with the bewilderment, anger or fear.

When that happens, I disengage from the world and engage with Jim.  Stroking and nuzzling him don’t help clarify the issues or find solutions, but they make me move more slowly, soften my tone and breathe.  And once you notice that Jim is happy with the world because you are in it, you can’t help but feel a little bit happy with the world too.

So for 20 years, he has been teaching me about living.  Now, he is teaching me about dying.  Our vet has diagnosed him with cancer, saying he may have as little as a week or as much as a month.  That was two weeks ago, and he shows no signs yet of being either ill or unhappy.

Of course, he doesn’t know that he is dying.  He only knows that he is now living on a permanent diet of special treats – salmon, tuna pasta, grated cheese and an open invitation to lick the inside of popcorn bags.

He has no loose ends that need tying up, and feels none of the grief of saying goodbye.  He is not bothered by how few tomorrows he may have.  He just knows that today is a beautiful thing.

He has lived a good life and we are hoping to give him a good death, not just as practice for ourselves, but a little.

———————-

Thanks, Michelle, for sharing that with us. It’s made my day a little better.

 


“Matters to a Head” – a book review

September 29, 2011

I’ve just finished reading a most remarkable book. It wasn’t that the writing was exceptionally polished, or the editing, though both are well above average for a self-published book. It wasn’t that the plot had any great unexpected twists and turns, or a cast of notable characters. What made it remarkable to me was its unabashed truth-telling and unapologetic rawness. No euphemisms, no hedging; just telling it as it was.

The book is Matters to a Head, written by Kate K and set partly in my home town Motueka, and published last month. Many locals know Kate, the daughter of a past mayor, who went off the rails in her later teenage life. Some of them may not know that she has been able to turn her life around since then. This book is a straight-up, almost humourous at times, account of the downward slide to the absolute pits and the struggle back up.

Being a relatively recent “immigrant” to Motueka, I didn’t know Kate before now, but I had the honour of meeting and talking with her and her mum (whose long-suffering role figures often in the book) recently, a face-to-face which made the subsequent reading so poignant. I’m an exceptionally slow reader but once I got into this book I found it hard to put down.

The plot is simple. Kate became totally addicted to cannabis and alcohol and also developed bipolar depression. (She is not certain of the cause and effect, if any, between the two diagnoses, but is not afraid to consider the possibilities.) As a result, she spent some time in psychiatric institutions.

For the first two-thirds of the book she traces the events and actions which drew her to the absolute rock bottom. The remarkable thing to me is that during the process, over several years, she was sufficiently self-aware of the damage she was doing to herself that she could remember it so clearly to write about it afterwards.

We gain detailed insight into the state of mind of a drug addict, and painful views of what it’s like in a loony bin (my words). Like many readers, I imagine, I have no strong addictive traits so find it hard to see why someone can make such poor decisions and knowingly allow their life to be so damaged. As Kate tells you of the next time she got into a stoned existence yet again, just as you thought she was starting to work her way upward, you find yourself being like the kid watching the puppet show, yelling out “The monster is just behind you!!”. No Kate, don’t go back there!

If this sounds like a gritty drug expose, it’s actually very readable because, thankfully, Kate has a playful, wry sense of humour which she lets flow through some of the sad parts of the narrative.

The final one-third documents the seven-year (so far) struggle back to a degree of wellness, thanks largely to Narcotics Anonymous and supportive friends – and her great talent for direct, fearless writing. She talks of her growing awareness of the healing process which has been working for her.

She also writes about her hard-learned opinions about the way mental health services are provided in New Zealand, where it is damaging and why, and where new improvements are being made, in some places thanks to her own recent work as a registered nurse and advocate for peer support structures.

I spoke to her wonderful, long-suffering mum the other day and she said that Kate still had times when she could be vulnerable to depression, but that with support she now has the tools to make sure it didn’t happen. After reading of so much carnage and despair, it’s heartwarming to know that there can be happier endings.

Matters to a Head is available online at matterstoahead.co.nz


Chickens coming home to roost

September 26, 2011

That flapping you hear is the sound of chickens coming home to roost, both in European economies and around the US’s Middle East policy.

Those damn chickens are everywhere. And we realists, so often mocked as doomsayers and pessimists, are trying not to do the “I told you so” thing when we hear all the anguish and panicky guesswork coming from the capitalist world’s financial and political leaders.

Take first the world’s financial mess. What is it that makes some leaders determined to press on until the bitter end, hoping that some magic solution will soon emerge to enable us to avoid the inevitable consequences of two decades of borrowing to fund our expanding sense of self-worth and entitlement? We thought we deserved it, but in fact we deserve the consequences.

Most of us will know of certain high-flying business people who battle against the inevitable, seemingly certain that a solution to their financial problems will be found. I worked as an employee with/for two of them, one after the other, back 20-odd years ago. They were interesting (though also tragic) to watch as they told anyone who cared to listen that black was white, that a spoon was in fact a spade, and they actually seemed to believe their own lies. I remember spending hours trying to work out if they were simply deluded or exceptionally talented in telling blatent lies to suit their goals.

New Zealanders will be aware of two characters of recent or current times who have battled on for months trying to avert the inevitable – Wellington’s Terry Serepisos and Christchurch’s Dave Henderson. Their media presentations are totally plausible, just like those of the two employers I mentioned in my previous paragraph. “Problem? What problem? The solution is just around the corner! Just leave it to me.” Do you see a flicker in their eyes? A frown of self-doubt? No way! They actually believe what they’re saying, against odds that would be overwhelming to us mere mortals.

And in Henderson’s well documented case (and probably with many recently failed finance companies such as South Canterbury Finance), the answer when things get tough is to create new business entities, holding companies etc, which can lend money to each other when needed to give the appearance of business liquidity.

This seems to work as follows: Company A is struggling to pay its debts, so you create Company B, borrow money to start it up, then lend that money to Company A, just enough to get its creditors off its back for a few months. Company B won’t need to address its debt for a while yet, and when it does, a new Company C will lend it money. When creditors of Company B chase their debts, the directors say that they’re owed money by A so the creditors have to try somewhere else.

This goes on (as it appeared to do for a few years in Henderson’s case) until finally the major creditors have had enough and start working their way through the strands to wind up the core of the failing empire.

This leads to the next common feature of these debt situations – the owner of Company A, B, C etc says that if the receivers are called in or he is bankrupted, the creditors will get back very little if anything at all, so they should hang in there. In other words, his empire is too large to fail, and the best way (he says) of creditors getting anything significant out of the mess is to lend more or wait longer while the business gets on its feet. And round the circle we go yet again – everyone further in debt but too scared to call it quits. Next time around, it’s worse still.

To me, this is what is happening now in the capitalist world. We’ve lived beyond our means for a while (and got used to the lifestyle this has brought), and now the creditors are knocking on the door. So what do we do? In America you simply borrow more money (from Asia) in the hope that eventually the US will get back into the black. You’re way too big to fail.

In Europe you fluff around restructuring money and loans and bonds, shifting obligations from one entity or country or bank to another. Countries bale out other countries by borrowing from each other or from outside Europe, making it look like movement back toward financial solidity but in fact only making things worse and even more intractable.

I have no idea what it would take to remedy this, apart from winding everything back several pegs and hoping not too many people are hurt in the process. Stop borrowing for anything other than what is really needed. Buy what you need using money that you actually have. Step back to a simpler, less ambitious and less material style of life.

——————————————————

And those other chickens coming home to roost? Here I’m referring to America’s Middle East policy. I’ve long been convinced that The US’s foreign policy is riddled with double standards.

This is because it is based not on intrinsic relationships with other (equal) sovereign states, but on how best to use alliances and conflicts at that time to advance American interests. There are numerous examples of US allies becoming US enemies, and vice versa, because it suited the current strategy. Think Sadam Hussein and Osama bin Laden as allies who became demons, or Libya’s heroic revolutionary leaders who were only recently America’s enemies.

The double standards occur not only when an enemy becomes an ally, but also when two parallel situations exist and the US supports one but not the other. And this is what’s happening now in Palestine. America encourages freedom and democracy in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia and Syria but turns a blind eye in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia and is positively antagonistic to the thought of Palestinians getting a fair deal for their democratically elected leadership.

And finally Palestine has had enough. Buoyed by the events in Egypt etc, its leaders now have the confidence to give the US and Israel the fingers and seek international acceptance at the United Nations without having to forever grovel to the demands of the US and its proxy state Israel.

I say, good on you Palestine. Go for it. I know that there will still be conflict ahead, but the call to continue negotiations with Israel while Israel continues to make more settlements on Palestine land is simply a waste of time, and has been for many years. Israel can drag negotiations on for another 10 years if it wishes, all the time taking more land and making it harder for Palestine to ever get a viable homeland.

In fact, I see the action of hard-right Jewish settlers taking more land, supported or not by their political leaders, as little different from random rockets being fired into Israel by left-wing Palestinians, with or without the support of their political leaders. Both sides are acting in ways that seek to bully the other side.

The US and Israel are becoming increasingly isolated in a region where the bullying old ruling elites are being replaced. Largely I believe they brought it upon themselves. Those chickens are starting to roost.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 25 other followers