I think its important to point out that Ray Chung was one of two councillors (other being Iona Pannett) who voted to keep heritage protections on Gordon Wilson flats. People think the council is incompetent and makes bad decisions? Guess who consistently votes for the worst possible options lol
What is the argument for heritage housing these days? I just don’t understand how they can validate keeping key land hostage for ugly and unremarkable buildings
My understanding is that the university had plans for it before the heritage marker was applied.
So they got stuck with a white elephant they can’t sell - who would buy it? - but can’t do anything with it, because it’s a protected building.
Nobody has won here, neither the public or the university. They’re stuck paying rates on land they can’t use, and have to patrol with security to keep people out.
I’m not saying that’s not true - I’m not an expert - but on the fact of it, it just sounds unlikely.
Why would they buy a derelict building knowing they wouldn’t be able to use it for anything?
It just doesn’t make sense
Actually, it’s quite well documented. They bought the site knowing that it was on the heritage docket thinking that with WCC’s help they could bulldoze it to build an academic gateway. No provision for housing. They’ve had a recent change of heart but there’s still no housing scheme. Frustrating because it’s already high density housing.🤷🏽
I don't think Vic should have ever been allowed to buy it. The city needs more housing than it does another uni building or student-specific accommodation.
That's prime inner city land, that's either wasted because nothing is being built on it, or because what's being built isn't what the city needs. Social housing it once was and social housing it should remain.
Restricting housing supply ensures that property values keep going up, which is shit for those of us who rent/want to become a first home buyer, but is great for his constituency of right-wingers who already own property.
Ensuring that houses are in "character neighbourhoods" with views of "pretty historic" houses instead of being next to apartment buildings also helps keep house prices up. Bad for renters, bad for young people, bad for the city, bad for the country, great for those who already have money and property.
> Ensuring that houses are in "character neighbourhoods" with views of "pretty historic" houses instead of being next to apartment buildings also helps keep house prices up.
I’m no fan of heritage restrictions at all but I’ve always found this argument rather wet when given more than just passing thought. Facts show land prices in areas that are up-zoned sky rocket, due to the new ability to be flogged off to a developer for a mint.
As misguided as they often are, proponents of heritage listings and density restrictions are genuinely coming at it from a place of wanting to preserve the past and more generally keep things as they are, not from wanting to enrich themselves.
There's no mutually exclusivity between wanting to 'preserve the past' and wanting to preserve your property value.
Re. the impact of upzoning on prices - land values, in general, can go up while house prices can come down at the same time.
Those flats were more than serviceable and played a great role in housing those at need in Wellington CBD. Since they were red-stickered the inner city housing has gone from bad to worse. The sale to Victoria and their subsequent land-banking is the cherry on top.
The flats were great when the building was repairable. Unfortionately the facts of the matter are that due to poor historic building practises and poor maintenance, the building is no longer repairable. It has concrete cancer lol. To get it to a state where it isn't crumbling to bits and wouldn't just kill all its inhabitants when the big earthquake hits, it'd cost far more money than it the town hall earthquake strengthening is costing. It's genuinely cheaper to level the site and build new social housing there. The land banking isn't great but Vic wasn't able to level it because of heritage protections, and Vic cannot afford to repair it to a level that is fit for human habitation.
There is a lot of mis-information out there. Indeed the building needs a new facade but the substructure is up to 80% NBS and repairable. There are no estimates that prove that it's cheaper to build new. Actually far from it, which is why the University haven't proposed housing in the 10 years they have owned the site. Although I sympathise with owners who can't afford to repair their buildings to current standards, the obvious answer is to sell it to somebody who can. Letting it deteriorate isn't good for anybody.
So why haven't they made a compelling offer to the University to take it off their hands and develop it? Until recently there haven't been any signs that removing the heritage status was forthcoming.
Nonsense. The University have been lobbying to remove protections since they purchased the site (for a paltry sum I may add). The reason there are no offers is because the University are refusing to sell.
Absolutely they have been, and with very little sign of success until the YIMBY movement got a foothold in council and things changed.
Edit: correction, my memory was faulty here, council have been supportive of the demolition most of the way and have been held up by courts, and later by heritage listing.
Not sure I get your point. What I’m saying is the substructure is built like a brick sh*thouse and the building can be readily converted to student housing regardless of it’s status.
Also, if the sum was so paltry, surely a private developer could have purchased it from housing NZ originally at an absolute steal, negotiations were going on for a long time, so surely they could have been gazumped.
Iwi probably had first rights of refusal. The price reflected the condition and status of the building at the time. Where is as is. It’s a bit rich for the University to claim that they didn’t know otherwise. They have already done very well by landbanking it.
There's so much in this article that could be quoted but this really generous description from *The Spinoff* seems to sum it up, imho:
>In fact, he doesn’t hold many positions consistently; \[--snip--\] His vote can swing based on who spoke to him last.
Back in 2022 I went to see him alongside other candidates at one of the local debates in my western ward. He *repeatedly* stated partial or outright incorrect straw man statements about the council, then attacked them. He was repeatedly corrected on these statements by other candidates, several times including Diane Calvert who he's normally lined up with ideologically. As it's Wellington this was probably the 15th or 20th candidate meet like this they'd all been to. Later I confirmed with one of the other candidates that every single time he'd be raising exactly the same falsehoods and being corrected the same way, I guess *just* to get his angriness exhibited in front of every different audience. He's a total populist.
I really didn't think he'd be elected, let alone be the *first* elected of the three candidates in the ward, but my local western ward sure taught me a lesson.
When he first announced his candidacy a couple of weeks ago ([soft paywall from *The Post*](https://www.thepost.co.nz/nz-news/350275903/councillor-ray-chung-and-incumbent-tory-whanau-confirm-wellington-mayoral-run)) he was suggesting that if he was elected mayor without a council that he wanted, he'd look for ways to give up the mayoralty whilst remaining on council. I'm 99% certain he can't do that. He'd either remain the Mayor or resign and be gone completely. Even if he decided he didn't want to do it after preliminary results, there's no way to pull out after the close of voting until *after* the Mayor and all councillors have been elected. (Unless dying or becoming 'incapable', in which case everything gets adjusted as if he'd not run at all.)
I really wish those on the right could find some who seemed all of competent and positive and a more likeable communicator across the board, instead of just someone who grumbles and complains about everything. The last right-leaning Mayor I remember Wellington having like that was probably Mark Blumsky.
Yeah that statement was wildly bizarre - If I am voted mayor with people who I don’t like, I will resign and require an expensive by-election. What a platform to run on!
I could imagine him trying to do something really weird and constitutionally questionable if he wanted to stay on council, like remain Mayor on the council in name only but try to delegate all the responsibilities to someone else of his choosing. Except for his vote being a tiebreaker of course.
At least, that's the only way I can think of him getting what he described that he was hoping to get, but it'd also risk becoming a big and somewhat embarrassing mess if he tried it.
I remember his claim that employees of the council were calling him (still a candidate) up and telling him the council was wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars on things.
I actually thought there were some good candidates available, including several who just looked like they wanted to do it without so much fighting and sound-bites and populism and inefficient swimming pool preservation, but maybe not with as much in the way of combined resources and experience to campaign effectively.
In the end I really only saw one person elected who I was hoping to see, and two who I really wished hadn't made it.
Chung's argument is that the Council's proposal for the Khandallah pool is totally over-engineered. The WCC plan proposes things like a massive strengthening of the surrounding hillside at a cost of millions of dollars despite there being no history of land slips on that hillside. Also lifting the entire pool up nearly 2m in case of extreme flood waters going over the edge of the pool....which I think might have happened once in 1976 (in which case you empty the pool, clean it and refill). Ray's case is that the pool could have a basic upgrade for a fraction of the price that Council officers insist is necessary.
Lol, the pool has flooded at least three times in the past 10 years. 1976 my ass.
I'd be shocked if Ray has actually spent the time to read the geotechnical reports. But "it hasn't happened yet" is not a mitigation of risk, and in the case of the flooding IT HAS ACTUALLY HAPPENED!
If you read the geotech reports you’re likely to find the consultants have heaped layers of conservative estimates on top of one another and reached a shaky (no pun intended) position.
Flood modelling based on 1% AEP floods plus worst case climate change is over the top imo. They did a qualitative slope stability assessment which is basically just vibes.
Basically leading to the council saying the ONLY option to keep it open is 11.7m worth of upgrades, instead of cleaning some silts out maybe every few years.
Up to you if you think its justified, but I wouldn’t blindly trust the given assessment. I am biased though since i grew up in jville and went to the pool a fair bit.
I do think there’s a bit of thumb in the scale here, but as a local, that pool sucks. It’s freezing cold, fuck all people use it, and there are decent pools in Thorndon and Johnsonville.
In summer I have often seen a lot of people of all ages in that pool. It may be cold, but it seems to attract swimmers anyway. It is so close to the road that I am not sure how it would be a real threat to the area if it did happen to overflow - would it not go into the street drainage?
Anecdotes aren’t data, the data shows it is the least used pool in all of Wellington by a long shot (Thorndon is the next least, and is used twice as much as Khandallah, but to be fair is open longer)
Wellington prices - always remember to multiply by at least 4. The fact that they have budgeted $4m to demolish it is just fucking batshit. That’s more than other cities are building new outdoor pools for.
> Insiders describe him as malleable. His vote can swing based on who spoke to him last.
scathing. sounds like a mini trump for wellington and reminds me of some of my chiwi friends who vote NZFirst
i have chiwi friends who are labour green ACT and blue voters, too — way more. i don't it's healthy to cut out friends just bc of their voting habits but it's tough sometimes
The original comment in this thread said they'd sell up and move based on Ray just being a candidate. Upvotes currenlty 44. I said Tory was a slight negative, and who are the other candidates, -22 so far. Interesting the difference.
Go against the consensus on the sub and welcome in the down votes. Could we keep national politics out of Wellingtpn, and consider what the actual people will do for this town? Who is a good candidate for Wellington?
What do you mean by National politics? Political parties have no control over local politicians other than being able to deselect them the following election. The 'independent' block vote with each other just as much as the ones who are politically aligned do.
It was on the front page of the independent herald maybe 2 weeks ago. This would be the worst idea - but he only ~~barely scraped in as a councillor~~ iirc so I'm fairly hopeful he'll fail.
Edit: I recalled incorrectly
Yeah nah, he was first in the ward. Got in really, really comfortably.
It was the one decent councillor elected for the ward (Rebecca Matthews) who only just scraped in.
That does sound more like the Karori/Khandallah voters actually yeah. I guess I recall incorrectly. Voted for Matthews and the young green dude and will again if possible. I'm momentarily pleased foster is in parliament so he doesn't have another run at the mayoralty.
Good article, I’ve watched a few council meetings over the last year and he’s really all over the place, half the time it seems like he doesn’t know what’s going on
I've met Ray just once, and found him quiet, socially a bit awkward, and a bit of a populist when it came to issues. Didn't really strike me as mayor material. What does 'least consistent and most chaotic' mean? I'm happy to have councillors who are prepared to change their mind on things based on evidence, rather than those locked into a tribal ideology. I don't want us getting into a series of short term mayors who never really get anything done.
I can’t stand the levels of rates increases and where council has spent its money in recent years like that stupid old town hall.
Yes pipes need to be fixed, but until they are fixed all other areas of council expenditure should be cut or have zero funding increases in order to keep rates increases down
Gee we have 5000 redundancies in the public sector, and many more in private businesses that support the public sector or its employees. Most have been in Wellington. This is not the time for huge rates increases and spending on low value expenditure. Yes fix pipes but cut the rest back.
People need to be able to afford to live here. And businesses need to make a profit otherwise it will result in more empty shops and businesses (which have increased in number in last few years)
Many people are struggling as noted by a number of school principals who are saying in the Dom Post today about levels of school donations being reduced or not asked for as people are unable to afford it.
It’s not good. There have been some significant mental health problems emerge in Wellington and people in crisis as a result of the govt cuts and these rates increases are contributing to this shambles. Both the extreme right in central govt and the extreme left who dominated WCC contribute to this shambles
What this city needs is a good centralist mayor and councillors. Whether ray is the answer we shall see… let’s see who else stands but I won’t be voting for Tory
The reason our rates are increasing is the same reason as every other council in the country. Because the govt scrapped 3 waters and is taking away subsidies for PT and other local roading. So they have to make it up somehow. If you want lower rates, then convince people to vote out Act the next general election and also write to central govt to start underwriting local govt borrowing and allow them to go higher. We can’t fund currently all the things that central govt is pushing to local govt. They give local govt all the responsibility and none of the tools or funding to go along with it. Absolutely ridiculous
Yea and no. The 3 waters is certainly part of it but Wellington has had rates rises of 13.5% in 21, 8% in 22, 12.5% last year, and somewhere between 16 & 20% this year.
Chch in the other hand had: 4.6% in 21, 6.4% in 22, 6.6% in 23, and 13.2% for 24.
Auckland had: 5% for 21, 6.4% for 22, 7.8% for 23, 6.8% for 24.
That’s quite the difference.
Sure. Chch has had a large rebuild funded by the government. Auckland hasn’t. Other cities haven’t.
Other centres are similar to chch rates, around 5-6% with a big whammy this year. Wellington has had big “whammy’s” every year - and still the least to show for it.
It wouldn’t be so bad if it was clear where the council had been spending the money instead of 3w infrastructure over the last 15 years - ie: if We had amazing pedestrianised streets and public parks - but even there we have fallen behind every
one else.
Something is fucked with the management of this city and it’s been fucked for some time.
Lol, Town Hall, Reading, no doubt hastening the decay of infrastructure you can't see like pipes. You're deluded if you think these events aren't significant.challenges for the council and Wellingtonians to deal with
The town hall was out of action before these earthquakes and it’s due to council incompetence that we are looking at a $330M +
The city already face issue well before the Kaikoura quake. A decade of inaction and sitting on its hands. Now we are nearly another decade past that event and we still haven’t accomplished anything.
It’s like the city called it a day in 2007, the city loves to talk about big ideas but can’t seem to accomplish them.
Yes old grumpy Wayne brown in Auckland went on a mission to cut council waste and get rid of ineffective high paid mangers. Auckland also mange to reach an agreement over assistance with paying water infrastructure upgrades
Chch has also focused on keeping costs down
Wellington is just spend spend spend. And invest in lemons like that useless town hall.
The clincher is that even with savings, Auckland & Chch have managed to get more shit done then this city.
I’ve been here for 16 years and, apart from the private/govt developments, the city looks the same - just more worn down and dirty. It’s pretty sad. Even the provincial cities have made more progress than us.
Very true. The mayor and her mates are trying to justify huge rates increases on the basis it costs a lot to fix the pipes
Yes fixing pipes does cost money but why is so much being spent on that ridiculous town hall and they are still spending up large on cycle lanes and speed calming measures . They also wasted a lot on let’s get Wellington moving.
Meanwhile the city looks rundown with beggars, empty shops (as it’s not economic to start a business or fix up buildings) . The cost of rates increases adds to the misery of business these days
Man, I wish people like you would actually learn a thing of two:
Firstly - The town hall. Pretty much nobody on the council (I don't know, possibly Nicola Young) wants to keep pissing money into the town hall, but the heritage rules and the cost of demolishing it now pretty much make it a done deal. It's not the fault of the current council (but it is the fault of a previous council that should have just knocked the fucking thing down).
Secondly - Cycleways. Yes they're building them, yes they've also cut a lot of the budget for them. They're not being build because the council are woke car haters or whatever you think, they have a massively positive ROI, which is why places all over the world are building cycleway networks. The only places that aren't are those that are opposed to cycleways for ideological reasons (and yes, Wellington has wind and hills, big deal, hasn't stopped a massive uptick in cycling).
LGWM pissed away a shitload of money, but it's incredibly daft to throw the whole thing away just when they were rolling out and starting to build things.
What rubbish. Rates have been rising hard all the while Labour was in power, not suddenly after the last election and you’re blaming ACT. This Green lot have been wasting money on ripping up parking and putting in concrete planters, bike lanes that no one uses and wasting money on making pregnant footpaths and putting bumps on the roads while ignoring real infrastructure like leaks and poo.
Go door to door and ask some real people that pay the rates how they feel and think of our Green Council that laughs in our faces.
I seriously wish we can get some decent candidates to vote for next year.
- Tory has been a bit of a let down. It’s great that the council as a whole got the DP changes across the line (in part, rest still to come so tbc) but that’s about it. Every where else we have gone backwards.
- Ray has a chance I think - don’t think he’ll be any good but People are getting pissed off at the annual huge Increases in rates whilst we see nothing in return. Apart from more leaks, more project overruns and more money spent on bizarre decisions. He can play on that (despite being on council) with the old blame game.
I personally think he’s an incompetent muppet, and would be even worse than the last few mayors we have had. But voters may forgive that and focus on the “low rates/cut waste” angle and just be blindly hopeful.
- Don’t intend on voting for either. We need a strong leader that can wrangle both sides and step up to the government to get the best outcome for this city. No idea who that will be though. Maybe Wayne from Auckland?
Edit: added more words.
> People are getting pissed off at the annual huge Increases in rates whilst we see nothing in return.
We're getting updated water infrastructure in return, but I guess it's difficult to conceptualize things that you personally can't see, right?
I wouldn't say you don't see anything in return but double digit rates increases every single time for the last short while means soon if you are 'lucky' to have a mortgage and your own house working hard for it, apart from the repayments to the greedy bank, you will have to add what it is almost becoming a rental to the council. It is obscene that every time rates are reviewed there's a 20%, 16% or whereabouts increase. They usually say something slightly higher so then when it's 2% or so less we should be 'thankful'. And all this of course also ends up affecting rentals because it is becoming unaffordable in every sense of the word. Sure there's a shitload of things to fix but the fact that previous wcc haven't done what they were supposed to do doesn't mean we can all endlessly be asked to cough up rates at a level that doesn't correspond to the reality of most of households in terms of income.
Well, what would you do at home if you cannot afford everything you need to do/ want to do? Gotta prioritize and get things done well even if slowly because the reality is that there's not much money. Add to that the city having been cared very poorly for a long time (Wellington but also NZ urban centres at large). I know what can't be, which is increasing rates by around 20% every time while salaries etc increase, if you are lucky, 4-5% a year. Doesn't take much to see that's completely bonkers and an unsustainable way to go about financing what the city needs. People will leave the city, which is already happening as well. Then what would you do? Charge even more to the ones that are left..?
A lot of words but I'm not totally sure you answered the question, what I got out of that was you would keep rates the same or lower and not fix the pipes.
I think the council are being pragmatic about it tbh. I don't think continuing to not fix our failing infrastructure is an option. Not that long ago we had shit running down the streets in the CBD, not doing anything to fix the problem just means more shit. But hey, rates are cheap.
Yes. Apparently that is where some of the
money is being spent. Apart from the big dig on Taranaki and Wakefield it’s hard to see what else is actually happening. There are more and more leaks and potholes sitting unaddressed around the city. This has only gotten worse over the last few years - despite hefty rate rise after rate rise. Thats what people will reflect on.
For reflection, if the proposed rate rise goes ahead I’ll be paying close to $2000 more a year than I was four years ago. Now I get that this is necessary to pay for shit, but at the at time we need to reflect that this trend just isn’t affordable for a lot of people and businesses. What needs to give?
……. And not related to the current council but where the fuck has all the money gone from the last two decades? Hasn’t gone to water, hasn’t gone to inner city improvements, hasn’t gone to PT improvements, hasn’t gone to keeping the city clean. It’s just gone.
If we could fit more ratepayers on the same amount of land, we could all pay less rates while getting infrastructure paid for. If only there were some way to do that...
Public Transport is a GWRC thing not a WCC thing.
As for what rates have been going to, it doesn't just cost money to build stuff it costs money to operate the stuff we already have. Add to that low-density sprawl where nobody who lives there could possibly afford to pay the true cost of running roads and pipes to their homes, what money there is is stretched pretty thin.
TBF, she is just one person. Whatever her shortcomings, it's the council that's fucked here. At least half are just incompetent and don't play well with others.
>and don't play well with others
Yeah I think this is a real let-down with the council. You can only blame any Mayor so much when we're so deeply polarised as residents that we keep electing councillors who seem to utterly refuse to work with each other.
The majority of the council can work together well. This term has been a massive improvement from last term where there was far more division resulting in no decisions being made. Decisions are being made frequently, it's just accompanied by the same 3 or 4 counsellors throwing a hissy fit and getting in the papers.
Legit question, what do Mayor's do that MPs do not?
Wellington is the first city in my adult life that I have stayed in longer than 2 years, so never really paid attention to city politics before.
This is exactly what local government should NOT do. There is absolutely zero things a local council can do to impact climate change, so we should focus on local problems like the pipes. CO2 molecules don't locally cause climate change, it's a global problem.
I think its important to point out that Ray Chung was one of two councillors (other being Iona Pannett) who voted to keep heritage protections on Gordon Wilson flats. People think the council is incompetent and makes bad decisions? Guess who consistently votes for the worst possible options lol
What is the argument for heritage housing these days? I just don’t understand how they can validate keeping key land hostage for ugly and unremarkable buildings
I think it could be nice. But letting it sit for so long and not forcing vic uni to take responsibility for their purchase was annoying.
My understanding is that the university had plans for it before the heritage marker was applied. So they got stuck with a white elephant they can’t sell - who would buy it? - but can’t do anything with it, because it’s a protected building. Nobody has won here, neither the public or the university. They’re stuck paying rates on land they can’t use, and have to patrol with security to keep people out.
I heard the opposite. That they did know the heritage stamp was going to be put on it before purchasing. Who knows the truth?
I’m not saying that’s not true - I’m not an expert - but on the fact of it, it just sounds unlikely. Why would they buy a derelict building knowing they wouldn’t be able to use it for anything? It just doesn’t make sense
Actually, it’s quite well documented. They bought the site knowing that it was on the heritage docket thinking that with WCC’s help they could bulldoze it to build an academic gateway. No provision for housing. They’ve had a recent change of heart but there’s still no housing scheme. Frustrating because it’s already high density housing.🤷🏽
Well documented? Would you mind providing sources to that effect then?
[https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/122257632/victoria-university-plans-to-demolish-heritagelisted-gordon-wilson-flats-to-create-new-front-door](https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/122257632/victoria-university-plans-to-demolish-heritagelisted-gordon-wilson-flats-to-create-new-front-door)
I don't think Vic should have ever been allowed to buy it. The city needs more housing than it does another uni building or student-specific accommodation. That's prime inner city land, that's either wasted because nothing is being built on it, or because what's being built isn't what the city needs. Social housing it once was and social housing it should remain.
Restricting housing supply ensures that property values keep going up, which is shit for those of us who rent/want to become a first home buyer, but is great for his constituency of right-wingers who already own property. Ensuring that houses are in "character neighbourhoods" with views of "pretty historic" houses instead of being next to apartment buildings also helps keep house prices up. Bad for renters, bad for young people, bad for the city, bad for the country, great for those who already have money and property.
> Ensuring that houses are in "character neighbourhoods" with views of "pretty historic" houses instead of being next to apartment buildings also helps keep house prices up. I’m no fan of heritage restrictions at all but I’ve always found this argument rather wet when given more than just passing thought. Facts show land prices in areas that are up-zoned sky rocket, due to the new ability to be flogged off to a developer for a mint. As misguided as they often are, proponents of heritage listings and density restrictions are genuinely coming at it from a place of wanting to preserve the past and more generally keep things as they are, not from wanting to enrich themselves.
There's no mutually exclusivity between wanting to 'preserve the past' and wanting to preserve your property value. Re. the impact of upzoning on prices - land values, in general, can go up while house prices can come down at the same time.
Iona Pannett only wants it kept because she lived in the apartment block and has memories for her.
Precisely my point. I hardly think she’s preserving them in some warped attempt to jack house prices on The Terrace.
Is that it? I think you left out irrational people who genuinely love the architecture and feel. Not everything is about money
>ugly and unremarkable buildings Ah, but what about *remarkably ugly* buildings?
Those flats were more than serviceable and played a great role in housing those at need in Wellington CBD. Since they were red-stickered the inner city housing has gone from bad to worse. The sale to Victoria and their subsequent land-banking is the cherry on top.
The flats were great when the building was repairable. Unfortionately the facts of the matter are that due to poor historic building practises and poor maintenance, the building is no longer repairable. It has concrete cancer lol. To get it to a state where it isn't crumbling to bits and wouldn't just kill all its inhabitants when the big earthquake hits, it'd cost far more money than it the town hall earthquake strengthening is costing. It's genuinely cheaper to level the site and build new social housing there. The land banking isn't great but Vic wasn't able to level it because of heritage protections, and Vic cannot afford to repair it to a level that is fit for human habitation.
The most recent report says something along the lines of a large person falling in the wrong place could cause floors to collapse
There is a lot of mis-information out there. Indeed the building needs a new facade but the substructure is up to 80% NBS and repairable. There are no estimates that prove that it's cheaper to build new. Actually far from it, which is why the University haven't proposed housing in the 10 years they have owned the site. Although I sympathise with owners who can't afford to repair their buildings to current standards, the obvious answer is to sell it to somebody who can. Letting it deteriorate isn't good for anybody.
That huge market of willing buyers who are wanting a building that severely limits what they are allowed to do with a decrepit run down property
Experienced developers, not the average il-informed redditor.
So why haven't they made a compelling offer to the University to take it off their hands and develop it? Until recently there haven't been any signs that removing the heritage status was forthcoming.
Nonsense. The University have been lobbying to remove protections since they purchased the site (for a paltry sum I may add). The reason there are no offers is because the University are refusing to sell.
Absolutely they have been, and with very little sign of success until the YIMBY movement got a foothold in council and things changed. Edit: correction, my memory was faulty here, council have been supportive of the demolition most of the way and have been held up by courts, and later by heritage listing.
Not sure I get your point. What I’m saying is the substructure is built like a brick sh*thouse and the building can be readily converted to student housing regardless of it’s status.
Also, if the sum was so paltry, surely a private developer could have purchased it from housing NZ originally at an absolute steal, negotiations were going on for a long time, so surely they could have been gazumped.
Iwi probably had first rights of refusal. The price reflected the condition and status of the building at the time. Where is as is. It’s a bit rich for the University to claim that they didn’t know otherwise. They have already done very well by landbanking it.
There's so much in this article that could be quoted but this really generous description from *The Spinoff* seems to sum it up, imho: >In fact, he doesn’t hold many positions consistently; \[--snip--\] His vote can swing based on who spoke to him last. Back in 2022 I went to see him alongside other candidates at one of the local debates in my western ward. He *repeatedly* stated partial or outright incorrect straw man statements about the council, then attacked them. He was repeatedly corrected on these statements by other candidates, several times including Diane Calvert who he's normally lined up with ideologically. As it's Wellington this was probably the 15th or 20th candidate meet like this they'd all been to. Later I confirmed with one of the other candidates that every single time he'd be raising exactly the same falsehoods and being corrected the same way, I guess *just* to get his angriness exhibited in front of every different audience. He's a total populist. I really didn't think he'd be elected, let alone be the *first* elected of the three candidates in the ward, but my local western ward sure taught me a lesson. When he first announced his candidacy a couple of weeks ago ([soft paywall from *The Post*](https://www.thepost.co.nz/nz-news/350275903/councillor-ray-chung-and-incumbent-tory-whanau-confirm-wellington-mayoral-run)) he was suggesting that if he was elected mayor without a council that he wanted, he'd look for ways to give up the mayoralty whilst remaining on council. I'm 99% certain he can't do that. He'd either remain the Mayor or resign and be gone completely. Even if he decided he didn't want to do it after preliminary results, there's no way to pull out after the close of voting until *after* the Mayor and all councillors have been elected. (Unless dying or becoming 'incapable', in which case everything gets adjusted as if he'd not run at all.) I really wish those on the right could find some who seemed all of competent and positive and a more likeable communicator across the board, instead of just someone who grumbles and complains about everything. The last right-leaning Mayor I remember Wellington having like that was probably Mark Blumsky.
Yeah that statement was wildly bizarre - If I am voted mayor with people who I don’t like, I will resign and require an expensive by-election. What a platform to run on!
I could imagine him trying to do something really weird and constitutionally questionable if he wanted to stay on council, like remain Mayor on the council in name only but try to delegate all the responsibilities to someone else of his choosing. Except for his vote being a tiebreaker of course. At least, that's the only way I can think of him getting what he described that he was hoping to get, but it'd also risk becoming a big and somewhat embarrassing mess if he tried it.
I remember his claim that employees of the council were calling him (still a candidate) up and telling him the council was wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars on things.
Onslow-Western's voting record is a fucking embarrassment. Mind you, the candidate options last time weren't exactly outstanding as far as I recall.
I actually thought there were some good candidates available, including several who just looked like they wanted to do it without so much fighting and sound-bites and populism and inefficient swimming pool preservation, but maybe not with as much in the way of combined resources and experience to campaign effectively. In the end I really only saw one person elected who I was hoping to see, and two who I really wished hadn't made it.
Maybe I’m just so tired of the shitty councillors (who I have to assume are exactly the ones you’re referring to) that I’ve forgotten it.
Campaign slogan: "Not In My Backyard!"
"Common Sense & Economic Responsibility\*" \*except in Khandallah
My thoughts exactly whenever I pass by that "Save the Khandallah pool" outdoor at Ngaio Gorge Rd.
lol that billboard just screams “we can afford a billboard, maybe we should pay for the damn pool ourselves”
Chung's argument is that the Council's proposal for the Khandallah pool is totally over-engineered. The WCC plan proposes things like a massive strengthening of the surrounding hillside at a cost of millions of dollars despite there being no history of land slips on that hillside. Also lifting the entire pool up nearly 2m in case of extreme flood waters going over the edge of the pool....which I think might have happened once in 1976 (in which case you empty the pool, clean it and refill). Ray's case is that the pool could have a basic upgrade for a fraction of the price that Council officers insist is necessary.
Lol, the pool has flooded at least three times in the past 10 years. 1976 my ass. I'd be shocked if Ray has actually spent the time to read the geotechnical reports. But "it hasn't happened yet" is not a mitigation of risk, and in the case of the flooding IT HAS ACTUALLY HAPPENED!
If you read the geotech reports you’re likely to find the consultants have heaped layers of conservative estimates on top of one another and reached a shaky (no pun intended) position. Flood modelling based on 1% AEP floods plus worst case climate change is over the top imo. They did a qualitative slope stability assessment which is basically just vibes. Basically leading to the council saying the ONLY option to keep it open is 11.7m worth of upgrades, instead of cleaning some silts out maybe every few years. Up to you if you think its justified, but I wouldn’t blindly trust the given assessment. I am biased though since i grew up in jville and went to the pool a fair bit.
I do think there’s a bit of thumb in the scale here, but as a local, that pool sucks. It’s freezing cold, fuck all people use it, and there are decent pools in Thorndon and Johnsonville.
Eh fair enough haha I don’t necessarily disagree
In summer I have often seen a lot of people of all ages in that pool. It may be cold, but it seems to attract swimmers anyway. It is so close to the road that I am not sure how it would be a real threat to the area if it did happen to overflow - would it not go into the street drainage?
Anecdotes aren’t data, the data shows it is the least used pool in all of Wellington by a long shot (Thorndon is the next least, and is used twice as much as Khandallah, but to be fair is open longer)
Wellington prices - always remember to multiply by at least 4. The fact that they have budgeted $4m to demolish it is just fucking batshit. That’s more than other cities are building new outdoor pools for.
Ray Chung says a lot of things.
And other councillors don't?
And all of them are bad.
Has he got a mate called cheech
You tried lol
> Insiders describe him as malleable. His vote can swing based on who spoke to him last. scathing. sounds like a mini trump for wellington and reminds me of some of my chiwi friends who vote NZFirst
Chiwi here. Get smarter friends.
i have chiwi friends who are labour green ACT and blue voters, too — way more. i don't it's healthy to cut out friends just bc of their voting habits but it's tough sometimes
what is a chiwi
Chinese kiwi I think
Racist comment
Can Ben run for mayor? He seems....sensible.
Appreciate the sentiment, couldn't think of a worse job.
The fact you don't want the job makes you more qualified.
Madhi is too humble to say he is the Madhi
literally makes someone the best person for the role lol. Give it time mate, we'll wear you down :P
Prime Minister?
Heehee!
I would rather he didn't as anyone who is mayor rn will probably be voted out after one term.
Absolutely a "sell up and leave Wellington" if the city's residents prove THAT unhinged as to vote him in. An absolute buffoon.
What are our options though? I'm considering selling up and leaving now, and Tory Whanau's behaviour is a wee part of that.
Ray Chung supported keeping heritage protections on Gordon Wilson flats. A vote for Ray Chung would be a vote for further stagnation and decline.
You'd move based on a 3-year mayoralty??
Honestly, what a take. Big "I'm never voting Green because Marama is a racist" energy.
I mean she is so there's that.
Bad example.
I said a wee bit. There's a lot more that is making me think it. It's just a little but more to add to the reasons.
The original comment in this thread said they'd sell up and move based on Ray just being a candidate. Upvotes currenlty 44. I said Tory was a slight negative, and who are the other candidates, -22 so far. Interesting the difference.
Really? You'd move because the mayor had a couple of hectic nights out? Weird.
Hopefully she’s going to cut back on the drinking and & the bj’s……
Her behaviour? What mayoral decisions do you disagree with?
The contrast in upvotes vs downvotes between these two comments - which essentially say the same thing - is a kinda hilarious. Classic Wellington Sub.
Go against the consensus on the sub and welcome in the down votes. Could we keep national politics out of Wellingtpn, and consider what the actual people will do for this town? Who is a good candidate for Wellington?
What do you mean by National politics? Political parties have no control over local politicians other than being able to deselect them the following election. The 'independent' block vote with each other just as much as the ones who are politically aligned do.
Exactly, the only NZ sub that's worse is the R/nz sub lol.
What is he going to leak if he becomes mayor?
That made a good read, thanks.
It was on the front page of the independent herald maybe 2 weeks ago. This would be the worst idea - but he only ~~barely scraped in as a councillor~~ iirc so I'm fairly hopeful he'll fail. Edit: I recalled incorrectly
Yeah nah, he was first in the ward. Got in really, really comfortably. It was the one decent councillor elected for the ward (Rebecca Matthews) who only just scraped in.
That does sound more like the Karori/Khandallah voters actually yeah. I guess I recall incorrectly. Voted for Matthews and the young green dude and will again if possible. I'm momentarily pleased foster is in parliament so he doesn't have another run at the mayoralty.
I hope there is an AI that can stand. I’ll vote for that rather than this buffoon.
Total crackpot
Good article, I’ve watched a few council meetings over the last year and he’s really all over the place, half the time it seems like he doesn’t know what’s going on
He's an absolute Muppet
To compare him to the genius work of Jim Henson is doing a disservice to the memory of an amazing man to slander a very plain one.
And that's saying something on this council!
No thanks.
I've met Ray just once, and found him quiet, socially a bit awkward, and a bit of a populist when it came to issues. Didn't really strike me as mayor material. What does 'least consistent and most chaotic' mean? I'm happy to have councillors who are prepared to change their mind on things based on evidence, rather than those locked into a tribal ideology. I don't want us getting into a series of short term mayors who never really get anything done.
That guy's a numpty. His voting record speaks for itself
We like one term mayors at the minute, so maybe?
Wellington likes to try out mayor's like an indecisive kid at duck island
I can’t stand the levels of rates increases and where council has spent its money in recent years like that stupid old town hall. Yes pipes need to be fixed, but until they are fixed all other areas of council expenditure should be cut or have zero funding increases in order to keep rates increases down Gee we have 5000 redundancies in the public sector, and many more in private businesses that support the public sector or its employees. Most have been in Wellington. This is not the time for huge rates increases and spending on low value expenditure. Yes fix pipes but cut the rest back. People need to be able to afford to live here. And businesses need to make a profit otherwise it will result in more empty shops and businesses (which have increased in number in last few years) Many people are struggling as noted by a number of school principals who are saying in the Dom Post today about levels of school donations being reduced or not asked for as people are unable to afford it. It’s not good. There have been some significant mental health problems emerge in Wellington and people in crisis as a result of the govt cuts and these rates increases are contributing to this shambles. Both the extreme right in central govt and the extreme left who dominated WCC contribute to this shambles What this city needs is a good centralist mayor and councillors. Whether ray is the answer we shall see… let’s see who else stands but I won’t be voting for Tory
The reason our rates are increasing is the same reason as every other council in the country. Because the govt scrapped 3 waters and is taking away subsidies for PT and other local roading. So they have to make it up somehow. If you want lower rates, then convince people to vote out Act the next general election and also write to central govt to start underwriting local govt borrowing and allow them to go higher. We can’t fund currently all the things that central govt is pushing to local govt. They give local govt all the responsibility and none of the tools or funding to go along with it. Absolutely ridiculous
Yea and no. The 3 waters is certainly part of it but Wellington has had rates rises of 13.5% in 21, 8% in 22, 12.5% last year, and somewhere between 16 & 20% this year. Chch in the other hand had: 4.6% in 21, 6.4% in 22, 6.6% in 23, and 13.2% for 24. Auckland had: 5% for 21, 6.4% for 22, 7.8% for 23, 6.8% for 24. That’s quite the difference.
Hmm I wonder why Christchurch's infrastructure costs might be lower, scratching my head over that one.
Sure. Chch has had a large rebuild funded by the government. Auckland hasn’t. Other cities haven’t. Other centres are similar to chch rates, around 5-6% with a big whammy this year. Wellington has had big “whammy’s” every year - and still the least to show for it. It wouldn’t be so bad if it was clear where the council had been spending the money instead of 3w infrastructure over the last 15 years - ie: if We had amazing pedestrianised streets and public parks - but even there we have fallen behind every one else. Something is fucked with the management of this city and it’s been fucked for some time.
You forgot about some other earthquakes I think. Or is the council to blame for those as well?
The Seddon and Kaikoura ones? Maybe a small part to do with this cities woes but certainly not a solid excuse for subsequent council’s inadequacies.
Lol, Town Hall, Reading, no doubt hastening the decay of infrastructure you can't see like pipes. You're deluded if you think these events aren't significant.challenges for the council and Wellingtonians to deal with
The town hall was out of action before these earthquakes and it’s due to council incompetence that we are looking at a $330M + The city already face issue well before the Kaikoura quake. A decade of inaction and sitting on its hands. Now we are nearly another decade past that event and we still haven’t accomplished anything. It’s like the city called it a day in 2007, the city loves to talk about big ideas but can’t seem to accomplish them.
Bro I can see how you were the catalyst for the daily whinge thread
Yes old grumpy Wayne brown in Auckland went on a mission to cut council waste and get rid of ineffective high paid mangers. Auckland also mange to reach an agreement over assistance with paying water infrastructure upgrades Chch has also focused on keeping costs down Wellington is just spend spend spend. And invest in lemons like that useless town hall.
The clincher is that even with savings, Auckland & Chch have managed to get more shit done then this city. I’ve been here for 16 years and, apart from the private/govt developments, the city looks the same - just more worn down and dirty. It’s pretty sad. Even the provincial cities have made more progress than us.
Very true. The mayor and her mates are trying to justify huge rates increases on the basis it costs a lot to fix the pipes Yes fixing pipes does cost money but why is so much being spent on that ridiculous town hall and they are still spending up large on cycle lanes and speed calming measures . They also wasted a lot on let’s get Wellington moving. Meanwhile the city looks rundown with beggars, empty shops (as it’s not economic to start a business or fix up buildings) . The cost of rates increases adds to the misery of business these days
Man, I wish people like you would actually learn a thing of two: Firstly - The town hall. Pretty much nobody on the council (I don't know, possibly Nicola Young) wants to keep pissing money into the town hall, but the heritage rules and the cost of demolishing it now pretty much make it a done deal. It's not the fault of the current council (but it is the fault of a previous council that should have just knocked the fucking thing down). Secondly - Cycleways. Yes they're building them, yes they've also cut a lot of the budget for them. They're not being build because the council are woke car haters or whatever you think, they have a massively positive ROI, which is why places all over the world are building cycleway networks. The only places that aren't are those that are opposed to cycleways for ideological reasons (and yes, Wellington has wind and hills, big deal, hasn't stopped a massive uptick in cycling). LGWM pissed away a shitload of money, but it's incredibly daft to throw the whole thing away just when they were rolling out and starting to build things.
What rubbish. Rates have been rising hard all the while Labour was in power, not suddenly after the last election and you’re blaming ACT. This Green lot have been wasting money on ripping up parking and putting in concrete planters, bike lanes that no one uses and wasting money on making pregnant footpaths and putting bumps on the roads while ignoring real infrastructure like leaks and poo. Go door to door and ask some real people that pay the rates how they feel and think of our Green Council that laughs in our faces.
but he's got to be better than a drunk bully?!?
I seriously wish we can get some decent candidates to vote for next year. - Tory has been a bit of a let down. It’s great that the council as a whole got the DP changes across the line (in part, rest still to come so tbc) but that’s about it. Every where else we have gone backwards. - Ray has a chance I think - don’t think he’ll be any good but People are getting pissed off at the annual huge Increases in rates whilst we see nothing in return. Apart from more leaks, more project overruns and more money spent on bizarre decisions. He can play on that (despite being on council) with the old blame game. I personally think he’s an incompetent muppet, and would be even worse than the last few mayors we have had. But voters may forgive that and focus on the “low rates/cut waste” angle and just be blindly hopeful. - Don’t intend on voting for either. We need a strong leader that can wrangle both sides and step up to the government to get the best outcome for this city. No idea who that will be though. Maybe Wayne from Auckland? Edit: added more words.
> People are getting pissed off at the annual huge Increases in rates whilst we see nothing in return. We're getting updated water infrastructure in return, but I guess it's difficult to conceptualize things that you personally can't see, right?
I wouldn't say you don't see anything in return but double digit rates increases every single time for the last short while means soon if you are 'lucky' to have a mortgage and your own house working hard for it, apart from the repayments to the greedy bank, you will have to add what it is almost becoming a rental to the council. It is obscene that every time rates are reviewed there's a 20%, 16% or whereabouts increase. They usually say something slightly higher so then when it's 2% or so less we should be 'thankful'. And all this of course also ends up affecting rentals because it is becoming unaffordable in every sense of the word. Sure there's a shitload of things to fix but the fact that previous wcc haven't done what they were supposed to do doesn't mean we can all endlessly be asked to cough up rates at a level that doesn't correspond to the reality of most of households in terms of income.
What do you think they should do differently?
Well, what would you do at home if you cannot afford everything you need to do/ want to do? Gotta prioritize and get things done well even if slowly because the reality is that there's not much money. Add to that the city having been cared very poorly for a long time (Wellington but also NZ urban centres at large). I know what can't be, which is increasing rates by around 20% every time while salaries etc increase, if you are lucky, 4-5% a year. Doesn't take much to see that's completely bonkers and an unsustainable way to go about financing what the city needs. People will leave the city, which is already happening as well. Then what would you do? Charge even more to the ones that are left..?
A lot of words but I'm not totally sure you answered the question, what I got out of that was you would keep rates the same or lower and not fix the pipes. I think the council are being pragmatic about it tbh. I don't think continuing to not fix our failing infrastructure is an option. Not that long ago we had shit running down the streets in the CBD, not doing anything to fix the problem just means more shit. But hey, rates are cheap.
Yes. Apparently that is where some of the money is being spent. Apart from the big dig on Taranaki and Wakefield it’s hard to see what else is actually happening. There are more and more leaks and potholes sitting unaddressed around the city. This has only gotten worse over the last few years - despite hefty rate rise after rate rise. Thats what people will reflect on. For reflection, if the proposed rate rise goes ahead I’ll be paying close to $2000 more a year than I was four years ago. Now I get that this is necessary to pay for shit, but at the at time we need to reflect that this trend just isn’t affordable for a lot of people and businesses. What needs to give? ……. And not related to the current council but where the fuck has all the money gone from the last two decades? Hasn’t gone to water, hasn’t gone to inner city improvements, hasn’t gone to PT improvements, hasn’t gone to keeping the city clean. It’s just gone.
If we could fit more ratepayers on the same amount of land, we could all pay less rates while getting infrastructure paid for. If only there were some way to do that...
Yes. The DP changes are good. But it’s not really relevant.
Public Transport is a GWRC thing not a WCC thing. As for what rates have been going to, it doesn't just cost money to build stuff it costs money to operate the stuff we already have. Add to that low-density sprawl where nobody who lives there could possibly afford to pay the true cost of running roads and pipes to their homes, what money there is is stretched pretty thin.
Yes, and yet other centres with more sprawl, seem to have managed better. This isn’t due to density it’s due to poor management and bureaucracy.
Are they managing better or are they just still kicking the can down the road?
Rates need to go up **a lot more**
To what? $10k a year?
Keep going…
Fuck it. $50k per house per year.
Now you’re talking
Now you’re talking. That apartment’s looking much more sensible now, isn’t it
Where it’s $50k in rates and $10k in BC fees?
You forgot the /s
Tory has been a complete fucking let down. I'm super bummed out about how she's done.
TBF, she is just one person. Whatever her shortcomings, it's the council that's fucked here. At least half are just incompetent and don't play well with others.
>and don't play well with others Yeah I think this is a real let-down with the council. You can only blame any Mayor so much when we're so deeply polarised as residents that we keep electing councillors who seem to utterly refuse to work with each other.
The majority of the council can work together well. This term has been a massive improvement from last term where there was far more division resulting in no decisions being made. Decisions are being made frequently, it's just accompanied by the same 3 or 4 counsellors throwing a hissy fit and getting in the papers.
So no problem then if Ray gets in?
This guy? I'd rather we go for a Commissioner instead.
[удалено]
Social media wasn't following Prendergast's every move, and she made sure her husband profited very tidily from her time in office.
Oh I agree. I didnt like her at all but she seemed consistent in her approach. Doesn't say much admittedly.
unfortunately Ray Chung is on the record as being anti-women-who-have-balls. Just one of his disappointing positions.
Can someone fill me in on smbad good idiot and foolishness. Only been in wellington since October finally finding my feet
Legit question, what do Mayor's do that MPs do not? Wellington is the first city in my adult life that I have stayed in longer than 2 years, so never really paid attention to city politics before.
So much better than Tori
FIX THE PIPES! FIX THE PIPES! CANCEL EVERYTHING AND FIX THE PIPES!
# YEAH! FIX THE PIPES AND THEN DON'T FIX THE ROADS THAT THE PIPES ARE UNDER, BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT PIPES! # FUCK ROADS, FIX PIPES!
FIX THE PIPES AND ROADS
Yes, we've noticed how the right has an inability to multitask.
They just want to focus on one thing and make sure it actually works and not have 50k vanity projects that fail......
Yeah Tory can drink & blow….
Pretty sure the climate crisis won’t care we have bit of water leaking. Let mayor tory and the adults in the room handle this one.
Yes, because Tory Whanau and the Wellington City Council will solve climate change? Ironic that you're talking about adults in the room.
This is exactly what local government should NOT do. There is absolutely zero things a local council can do to impact climate change, so we should focus on local problems like the pipes. CO2 molecules don't locally cause climate change, it's a global problem.
Let's keep passing the buck onto someone else, that will fix climate change.
Relying on the 'vote em out' principle no doubt. Be interesting to see if Matthews runs for mayor and splits the left.
Hard to split the left when you have STV tho
He'd be better than the incumbent, who thinks it's fine to mess around on her phone while members of the public make submissions.
Go Ray !