Three years ago, we voted to elect Wellington City Council. Three years of progress and controversy, hope and disappointments. With another election looming forward, now is a good time to look at what surprised us in a positive way, and where we have felt let down by our elected members in the past triennium. I will be particularly interested in looking at the contradictions between the words and the acts, especially from an environmental point of view, with the biggest crisis human kind has ever faced fast approaching. Has the council been up to the task? Has it been consistent? This essay is an opinionated analysis so I should state here that I have been living in the Eastern suburbs for more than a decade, and that I voted for Mr Lester in 2016.

Before we look at the controversial moves, let's look at the positive. During three years, we've seen an explosion of cycle ways, delivered or in development. Some will struggle to see that as a benefit, but no one can argue against an initiative that is improving safety for bike users. Better cycle ways mean safer ways to bike from one place to another. As more people feel safe to commute on their bikes, less greenhouse emissions are produced, and in an age when fewer and fewer argue over climate change, this too, should be seen as a step in the right direction. This will, eventually, create a better balance between different mode of transports, active versus cars (we will talk public transport in a minute). However, for full decarbonisation, cars should be transitioned to zero emission vehicles, but this is hardly a city prerogative. The best a city can do to incentivise this transition, beyond installing sporadic charging stations, is to exempt EVs from carpark charges, or congestion charges (or, let's be bold, impose charging stations in all carparks), but it's not something that appears to be on the cards. So cycle ways have got council's attention, and we put that in the positive.

Another positive is on inclusion. It is difficult to find a more outwardly inclusive council than Wellington's one. With many community events supported or attended by the council, one would be forgiven to believe our elected members belong to the "MC" party. More seriously, be it to celebrate Te Reo, or to paint a giant rainbow flag on the side of the runway, to support the Hurricanes or show compassion after the atrocious Christchurch attack, the council, and Mr Lester, have shown exceptional presence, which has, in turn, contributed to helping people and communities to live better together.

But now, let's have a look at the negatives. It would be difficult to rank them in an appropriate order, so let's go with chronological. But before we do so, let's remind the reader of the consultation for the Long Term Plan that happened in May 2018. About 2,000 took part in this consultation, where 5 programs, for 5 priority areas, were proposed. The question, for each priority area, was: do you support our program of work, or don't you, and nothing will be done in that priority area? Each program contained many initiatives, but it was not possible to detail them out, as it was a yes or a no for the whole package. While it was difficult to make detailed remarks, it was still possible to vote for the top priority area and "Environment and resilience" came first (https://10yearplan.wellington.govt.nz/). This should have led to a significant changes to the LTP but sadly, only two minors adjustments were made, and the reading the council made of the consultation was that 72% supported the budget, when the alternative was to doing nothing. With this level of engagement, and such clear support for Environment and resilience from Wellingtonians, more changes should have been introduced, and this priority area given a clear way above 20% in the budget.

This takes us to the next point which attracted controversy, as the next big project that got voted in was the convention centre. Its announced budget varies between $150M and $200M (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/AK1812/S00320/wellington-to-forge-ahead-with-convention-centre.htm), and while a few would argue the area needs a lift, many would question the sense of priority, and how it is a reflection of the priority area chosen in LTP. Justin Lester argued that Art and culture was another priority area, but then, surely there would be projects for Environment and resilience that would amount for more? At this stage, the only significant project falling in that category is the reservoir, which amounts for $58M over four years (https://twitter.com/justin_lester/status/1118796596978671616). How is that for listening to the consultation outcome? Also, a convention centre, while a boost for the economy, can only attract more traffic, by car or by plane. One can hardly imagine conference attendees flying in and biking to the CBD. This convention centre, supposedly delivered in four years will impact city's emission, way before Let’s Get Wellington Moving (LGWM)'s mass transit kicks in (https://getwellymoving.co.nz/assets/Documents/The-Plan/LGWM-RPI.pdf, page 16). At a time where climate change is fast approaching with an alarming deadline, when insurance premiums soar in part because of it, timing is essential, if listening to Wellingtonian’s priorities wasn't.

Continuing on climate changes considerations, how to make sense of Mr Lester’s continuous support for the runway extension? Some say this project is definitively abandoned, some say the Council can’t justify it. But the airport repeats it’ll resubmit a resource consent next year, and not to address safety concerns, but truly to create more air traffic, presented on the WCC web site as essential for our economy (https://www.wellingtonnz.com/about-wellingtonnz/positively-informed/tourism/project-runway-airport-extension-vital-for-wellingtons-economic-growth/). This, of course, means more planes, bigger planes, louder, producing more greenhouse emission, and one could expect, at any time of day and night. Perhaps this nuisance is acceptable to Mr Lester, and he would positively consider moving his family next to the airport. Doing so, however, wouldn’t save the Eastern suburbs from significantly drop in quality of life, more traffic to the city, and getting the whole region to worsen the climate crisis. It is therefore truly difficult to trust Mr Lester’s sincerity when he claims he wants to combat climate change while at the same time, wanting to spend hundreds of millions towards this project.

The only positive outcome brought out, some argue, is one of an economic boost. This, however, only repeats a development pattern used over the past decades, which is leading the planet and its ecosystem to the verge of extinction. But even very selfishly and locally, this race for growth is questionable: looking at the housing market, and the struggle families face to buy or rent, is an obvious indication Wellington has growth already, and some would argue, too much. The absurd prices for putting a roof on one’s head would not be helped by yet more growth, quite the contrary in fact. Here again, priorities seem to be mixed up, by supporting the runway extension, for untimely, growth on steroids, against climate change evidences, against the will of Wellingtonians as expressed during LTP.

Speaking of confusion, priorities and extensions, LGWM has sadly scored well in these three categories. On the front of the railway station, we had three figures of our local politics unveiling the master plan to address traffic issues through Wellington, especially leading to the airport. A budget was announced, as well as a vision. Mr Laidlaw said « we don’t need more road » (https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/112806159/a-onceinageneration-opportunity-to-get-wellington-moving). At the same time, the recommended program for LGWM was released which laid out two significant projects: a mass transit system to the airport, and a second Mount Victoria tunnel. The latter was further detailed, delivering, in a nutshell, the famous four lanes to the planes. Its delivery date is 2026, while the mass transit system would reach the airport in 2029. While addressing the very valid traffic problem from and to the airport, exacerbated by the bustastrophe (we’ll get there in a minute), this motorway extension hardly aligns with Mr Twyford statement that « we don’t need more road ». Mr Lester can repeat, ad libitum, the mass transit has priority, the motorway will be extended and delivered first. Or LGWM’s recommended program is misleading.

Whichever way LGWM delivers (with big « if » and « when » hanging on top of it), it will never come soon enough, to address current congestion, and the one Shelly Bay will obviously generate. For those who’ve lived in a cave, this development is looking at building 350 houses on a wild stretch of coast in the Miramar Peninsula. Upon completion, in 13 years, 1,500 families could be homed in 8 to 9 storeys buildings. The impact on the traffic, the demolition of a beautiful shore enjoyed by many, and the proximity with an ever-rising sea level has created a lot of controversy. Sadly, any agitation is useless at this point, as the council voted to make this area a Special Housing Area (SHA, although the WCC web site says the SHA status is elapsed (https://wellington.govt.nz/your-council/plans-policies-and-bylaws/urban-development/housing-accord/special-housing-areas, which doesn’t seem to change anything). Mr Lester was one voting in favour of this status which achieved two things simultaneously: relinquishing any possibility of the public to have a say, and lifting the height limit set in the district plan, effectively allowing such monstrous development to be even proposed. Today, the default position taken by the handful of councillors daring to speak out on this project is that Shelly Bay is a private development no-one can possibly comment without taking the risk of interfering with the resource consent process. The problem of course is that it can only have adverse effects for the local residents, and for the significant natural heritage of the area. The big beneficiary is the developer, who will be long gone when the new owners have their feet in the sea. This is very disappointing and frustrating. Of course, no one in Wellington can argue the need for more housing, and it would be very selfish to fully oppose this project, but district plans have a purpose, and in Wellington’s case, would have limited it to a lighter touch, less destructive impact on the area.

This “bulldozer” approach is not isolated in the Miramar peninsula. Recently, a section was sold on Seatoun Heights road. This section was made of bush, with one house, and two other sections, totalling about 2,000 sqm. It is now free of any tree, and 17 dwellings are being built (https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/business/residential-property/111181875/15m-plan-to-build-townhouses-on-three-sections-in-wellington-coastal-suburb). Seventeen. Before you scream “NIMBYs”, try to picture yourself living the suburb life, and going from one neighbour to seventeen neighbours in one go. Of course, anyone is allowed to do what they want of their land, but in this case, the impact on locals is so huge one could be forgiven to have hoped for safeguards, and again, a lighter development.

Sensible development, respectful of the environment, the communities, the people; Protection against savage assaults from the market; Well-articulated, timely strategy, delivering better before bigger: is it too much to ask? LGWM’s vision should be lauded, but shouldn’t Wellington get good buses first? No one can ignore now the current state has been a succession of poor decisions and poor execution by the regional council. Two years after the decommissioning of the 50 trolley buses, the “temporary” thirty years old diesel buses are still roaming the streets, with no plan (yes, no plan) to electrify the fleet beyond the mighty 10 electric buses (are there 10?) one can occasionally spot at peak hour. In this day and age, this is a disgrace when every modern city around the world is electrifying its fleet (https://www.sustainable-bus.com/electric-bus/electric-bus-public-transport-main-fleets-projects-around-world/ or ban petrol cars altogether https://www.businessinsider.com.au/cities-going-car-free-ban-2018-12?r=US&IR=T).

Another disgrace is how violently the new network, deployed in 2018, has impacted the life of Wellingtonians, especially Karori, especially Miramar. There would be teething issues, they said (https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/105506002/wellingtons-new-bus-network-hits-road-for-first-weekday?rm=a). There is nothing they would have done differently, they added (https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/107392674/parliamentary-select-committee-briefing-into-wellington-bus-fiasco-under-way). Following, the city councillors advocated for better services, relaying complaints after another. But if this debacle had been so obvious, how come no one, from the council, raised the alarm publicly before the new network went live? How come the city council didn’t draw a line in the sand saying “in Wellington, a minimum of 10% of the bus fleet should be electric by 2025, 25% by 2030, etc”? This failure is collective, and no hand washing (on the regional council, on the operator, on PTOM, on the full moon) can take away Wellington is now stuck with this level of service for the next 10 years (well, nine now), with diesel buses everywhere.

This picture is very bleak, and raise concerns for our local bodies and elected members’ ability to address other, very pressing issues: Wellington welcomes more than 100 cruise ships in any given season. While they play an essential part in Wellington’s economy, cruise ships release 10 times more the amount of NOx in the atmosphere than ... 260 million cars (https://www.euronews.com/2019/06/10/carnival-cruise-ships-produce-more-sulphur-oxide-than-all-europe-s-cars-analysis-claims)!!!

Then the list goes on: Recycling is on your top priority? You’re out of luck for soft plastic which all end up in the landfill, with no plan to address the issue anytime soon (https://twitter.com/IonaPannett/status/1137855910062116870). City’s debt is of concern? So how will the council fix the library and the town hall while delivering a convention centre and an arena? So is Noise pollution your concern? You feel there are too many jetskis? Too many recreational aircrafts destroying your soundscape on a beautiful day? Try the council, and realise you’re on your own (no source here, as it’s hard to point to lack of response).

Do you think it’d make sense for the council to appoint contractors with solid electrification plans for operations (such as waste collection) or infrastructure work? You would be out of luck too since there is no such constraints on contractors, and no plan to have one. You would then feel confused since Wellingtonians said the environment was their priority. And that’s when you would realise that a consultation is in no way binding, but only a mandatory process the council is compelled to follow. A good example of pointless consultation was in 2018 when the council decided to start charging for parking in the CBD over the weekend: you might be for or against it, but the consultation showed that 50% opposed it, 30% were undecided, and 20% for it. Mr Lester proudly listed these figures on the television, and came to the conclusion, it had to be implemented anyway. The jury is out in terms of the impact on this decision on the local businesses (https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/wellington/113212928/sales-decrease-by-half-for-some-stores-on-the-golden-mile-after-weekend-parking-and-bus-woes).

Listening to your residents. Communicate openly and frankly on what you are trying to achieve. Accept to be contradicted. A few qualities essential for local politics to function in a healthy manner. Yet, Mr Lester has constantly rebuked the contradictions: a runway extension and limiting greenhouse emission, a priority on environment and a convention centre, a priority on the mass transit, when LGWM documents clearly show four lanes to the planes will be delivered first, a bustatrophe which has turned into a blaming exercise, and then, Shelly Bay, that he has supported wholeheartedly, without engaging the community.

For those interested in a city truly centred on people and caring for the environment, this might seem a bit bleak, and each and every one will need to decide for themselves if the current council has delivered enough in these domains, if important priorities & timing were consistent with PR speech, and if we are better off than three years ago.