
Windbag: Khandallah Pool and the high price of inequality
Windbag is The Spinoff's Wellington issues column, written by Wellington editor Joel MacManus. Subscribe to the Windbag newsletter to receive columns early.
On Thursday, as the nation's media were preoccupied with the government's budget, another budget was passed, less than a kilometre from parliament: Wellington City Council's Long Term Plan.
One of the most controversial debates in the final weeks was about whether to spend $7.5m repairing Khandallah Pool. The 100-year-old unheated outdoor pool is not particularly well used. It gets about 10,000 users annually (down from 45,000 in its heyday), the lowest of any public pool in Wellington. By some estimates, ratepayers will subsidise swimmers to the tune of $60 to $80 per swim. Khandallah residents campaigned hard to save their pool and the council ultimately agreed to fund the repairs.
The fact that the pool is heavily subsidised isn't inherently a problem; all council facilities are subsidised. The problem comes from the political processes that decide what the council spends money on. Councillors increasingly see community facilities as 'bread and circuses' politics. They'll spend money on whatever councillors think will make their constituents happy, which biases decision-making towards the loudest voices. That's a recipe for short-sighted decision-making and white elephant projects.
Every council spending decision is an investment in city land. Land connected to serviced roads and mains water is more valuable than land without those things. That also applies to libraries, pools, parks, community centres and theatres. Land with nearby amenities is more valuable than land in the middle of nowhere.
A 2019 meta-analysis of 33 studies by Texas A&M and Swansea University researchers found there was an 8%-10% premium in house prices when they were located near a public park. For a small public park, the increase in value is quite localised. Once you're more than 750 metres away, the price premium all but disappears. A destination park, like a botanical garden or a multi-sports field, will spread its benefits across a larger area. Major facilities, like a stadium or art gallery, will add some small value to every property in the city, but will have a greater impact on nearby commercial properties because they attract customers.
Khandallah Pool is a value-add for nearby residents. They get the benefit of a pool without the cost of installing one on their property. To justify the investment, the council must hope that the pool will make Khandallah a more appealing place to live, encouraging higher property values and more development, which means more rates revenue for the council.
The problem is that Khandallah residents don't seem to want that. The Onslow Residents' Community Association, which represents Khandallah, has consistently fought against new housing in its area. One of the reasons for the drop in Khandallah Pool users is that the number of school-aged children in the suburb is declining, down 19% since 2015. Young families are being priced out. Khandallah is increasingly a community of elderly people sitting on $2 million properties, watching their grandchildren grow up over Zoom.
Recent zoning changes under the district plan should help to address this, but some suburbs are still highly motivated to fight back. In Mt Victoria, a group of residents led by Dame Gaylene Preston is organising sustained protest action to block a seven-storey apartment development. In financial terms, for the council, this apartment building contains 32 units, which would generate about $500,000 per year in rates. The single-storey building that stood there previously generated about $30,000 annually. Would Mt Victoria residents be willing to accept lower council spending in their community in exchange for cancelling the development? I doubt it.
Wealthy and well-organised communities like Khandallah and Mt Victoria are very effective at demanding investment in their areas while simultaneously opposing the growth that pays for it. That means the younger, poorer, denser neighbourhoods are subsidising the lifestyles of the leafy suburbs. A Greater Wellington Regional Council study last year found councils were spending three to five times more per dwelling to provide infrastructure to the outer suburbs than in the inner city.
So what's the answer? We could go down a convoluted rabbit hole of targeted rates and development levies earmarked for local projects, but that's probably more effort than it's worth. There's a far more elegant solution waiting in the wings: switch from property value rates to land value rates.
Land value rates allow councils to directly recoup their investments. If your land value goes up because the council upgraded the road and built a new pool, it's fair enough that you should pay more rates. On the other hand, if you increase your property value by renovating your house, the council hasn't added anything.
The major benefit of land value rates is that they are based on developable capacity, which encourages more efficient land use. People who own large, underdeveloped sections would pay higher rates, which would encourage them to sell up or develop the land into apartments or townhouses. That's what this is all about, really – allowing more people to enjoy the benefits of council facilities. Now that Wellington City Council has decided to repair Khandallah Pool, we should want more people to live near it and use it.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Spinoff
5 hours ago
- The Spinoff
Echo Chamber: Aussie roolz, NZ droolz
Every party in parliament agrees Australia is richer, cooler, prettier, better dressed, and will probably steal your man. Echo Chamber is The Spinoff's dispatch from the press gallery, recapping sessions in the House. Columns are written by politics reporter Lyric Waiwiri-Smith and Wellington editor Joel MacManus. Did you know that the different parties in parliament have fundamental disagreements about economic policy? The New Zealand Labour Party thinks everything in this country is fucked because of the current government. The New Zealand National Party thinks everything in this country is fucked because of the previous government (the one run by the New Zealand Labour Party). New Zealand First, meanwhile, thinks everything in this country is fucked because of the word 'Aotearoa'. The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand think this country is fucked because of a long-standing guillotine shortage. Te Pāti Māori think the country is fucked because of an Atlas Network conspiracy to destroy indigenous rights. And the Act Party thinks the country is fucked because sometimes university professors say mean things about David Seymour. Of course, none of them are right. The country is fucked because RJ's stopped making Jaffas. After an extended winter break, the members of New Zealand's parliament have returned to Wellington to resume arguing with one another. One might have hoped that over the break, they might have figured out some new angles, but alas. It's all the same shit. During Wednesday's question time, Labour's Chris Hipkins and Barbara Edmonds were very keen to hammer the government over a new builder sentiment report, which showed the construction sector cratering with 15,000 job losses and masses of workers moving to Australia. They blamed the current government for cancelling a whole bunch of projects to build state homes, school upgrades, hospitals and public transport. National's Christopher Luxon and Nicola Willis responded with a formal 'nuh-uh it's your fault' and blamed the previous government for spending too much money on nonsense like state homes, school upgrades, hospitals and nonexistent light rail; thereby contributing to inflation, forcing the Reserve Bank to raise interest rates and creating a recession. Both major parties are essentially stuck in an ever-revolving hamster wheel of argument, where neither side is entirely wrong and neither side is entirely right. National swept to power on a wave of voter dissatisfaction with inflation and stagnating growth. Many people fairly blamed the Labour government's policies for contributing to that inflation. But while inflation has come down, economic conditions under the current government haven't turned around as quickly as many would have hoped. Nearly two years into the government, Labour hopes voters are forgetting about the last government, and National is determined to remind them. Finger-pointing is reaching record levels. Following on from the previous day's theme, Green leader Chlöe Swarbrick took aim at the government for the number of New Zealanders leaving the country – 191 people per day, according to analysis from Bernard Hickey. She quoted one young worker who described New Zealand with the phrase 'No work. Shit pay. Why stay?' That earned her a telling-off from speaker Gerry Brownlee, who is clearly feeling a bit sensitive about swears after Brooke van Velden dropped the c-bomb back in May. Using emigration rates as evidence of a government's failings is an old tactic. John Key used it with particular effectiveness as opposition leader, famously using Wellington Stadium in his 2008 election campaign to emphasise the number of people leaving for Australia annually. There was no attempt to defend this point from the government benches. Their response was, basically, 'yeah, obviously people are leaving, it sucks here, but it's the last government's fault'. 'Australia, for example, is a wealthier country than New Zealand and can pay higher wages,' said Nicola Willis. Everyone in parliament agrees Australia is richer, cooler, prettier, better dressed, and will probably steal your man. They're just arguing about who to blame. Luxon said the emigration numbers proved the Green Party should support fossil fuel industries. 'Where do Kiwis go when they go to Australia? They go to work in oil and gas and mining,' he said. (Are there a lot of mines on the Gold Coast?) Winston Peters, too, kept with the theme of repeating the same old hits. When Green MP Benjamin Doyle asked questions to health minister Casey Castello about the government falling behind on its goal of eliminating locally transmitted HIV in Aotearoa, Peter was very angry about that last word. 'Point of order, Mr Speaker. How did this question get approved by you or your staff when in the last few words, he mentioned a country that is not known in this world, nor was it recognised by the United Nations?' he said. Brownlee made Doyle repeat the question – they simply changed it to 'Aotearoa New Zealand'. This is an ongoing game between the Greens and New Zealand First, which has no foreseeable end. The more Peters complains about the word 'Aotearoa', the more the Greens will keep saying it. Around and around we go, spiralling continually inwards, getting nowhere. One for the record Parliament often welcomes delegations of visiting international politicians to sit in the public gallery and observe question time. The speaker traditionally kicks things off by welcoming the manuhiri, and the MPs stand to applaud them in acknowledgement. On Wednesday, a small group from France was in attendance. During his questions, Te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi focused on concerns raised by the UN special rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, Albert K Barume, about the Regulatory Standards Bill. But it became clear that Waititi didn't know how to pronounce 'rapporteur'.


The Spinoff
a day ago
- The Spinoff
Echo Chamber: Shane Jones, greatest ever Australian politician?
Nearly 30,000 New Zealanders crossed the ditch last year. Could the minister for resources be next? Echo Chamber is The Spinoff's dispatch from the press gallery, recapping sessions in the House. Columns are written by politics reporter Lyric Waiwiri-Smith and Wellington editor Joel MacManus. The last time the 54th parliament of New Zealand was gathered in the House for question time was about two weeks ago. Back then, the price of butter was the main thing on the minds of the Labour Party caucus, who appeared to see the rising cost of dairy products as a sign of the end times. On Tuesday, the new objective was to put the spotlight on the nearly 30,000 New Zealanders who left the country for Australia in 2024. So long as there remains plenty of problems to pin to the government, Labour won't have to make the effort to dream up any of its own policies. There have been two significant changes in the House since then as well. The death of Takutai Tarsh Kemp leaves an open seat for either Labour to bring in the next candidate on its list or for former broadcaster Oriini Kaipara to make her parliamentary debut for Te Pāti Māori, depending on who wins the Tāmaki Makaurau byelection on September 6. And, following the sudden departure of NZ First MP Tanya Unkovich, the House welcomed a new politician into its fold: David Williams. There was heckling from the opposition benches right off the bat when Labour leader Chris Hipkins rose to ask prime minister Christopher Luxon whether he stood by the government's actions, which he took as an opportunity to laud vocational education minister Penny Simmonds' recent Te Pūkenga restructure announcement, but the jeers drowned him out. When Hipkins came back with 'how many Kiwis have left New Zealand since he became prime minister?', a group of high school students sitting in the public gallery gasped 'ooouusshh!' Resources minister Shane Jones, answering a question from NZ First MP Andy Foster about economic growth in his sector, announced – 'with characteristic modesty' – that he had recently travelled to Singapore and Sydney, and amazed his peers by waxing lyrical about overturning the 'foolish' ban on oil and gas exploration and giving a 'glowing account' of the fast-track laws, the 'most permissive regime in Australasia'. The Greens co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick raised her eyebrows. Jones' characteristic modesty shone through again. 'I have endeavoured to assure investors in the resources sector that we have decriminalised the coal industry,' the minister declared. 'I had the privilege of addressing a host of mining investors [and] professionals in Sydney … They regard the quality of leadership I have shown on behalf of the government of such stature that they invited me to be a politician in Canberra.' 'Take it up!' Labour's Duncan Webb jeered. It's good to know that despite burgeoning opportunities overseas, our best talent stays at home. It wasn't over there. NZ First leader and foreign affairs minister – as he liked to remind his coalition partners before he entered the House on Tuesday – Winston Peters decided to rise and ask the minister if he was saying he'd stop 'virtue signalling' by using local coal rather than 'inferior' offshore coal? It gave Brownlee a moment to consider the importance of phrasing – well, he said, that question is sort of interesting, 'because it's hardly factual as soon as you say 'virtue signalling', but anyway'. When health minister Simeon Brown took patsies from fellow National Party MP Carlos Cheung, it gave deputy prime minister David Seymour a chance to show off his wealth of knowledge on political theory by quoting China's former paramount leader Deng Xiaoping: 'Does the minister subscribe to the philosophy … that it doesn't matter if the cat is black or white, so long as it catches the mice?' Brown grinned and rose to his feet, but Brownlee wouldn't let him answer – it would only be a reasonable question, the speaker said, if the minister was some kind of expert in rodent control. The Act Party leader sought leave for his question to be answered, but was shut down again. 'Well, the House is the master of its own destiny,' Seymour said, sagely. Then Swarbrick's voice popped up: 'Get a grip!' Back on the brain drain, Labour's jobs and income spokesperson Ginny Andersen wanted to know whether finance minister Nicola Willis thought the government was doing enough to 'deliver jobs' despite the tens of thousands headed across the Tasman. Andersen quoted Luxon and Seymour's sentiments that Aotearoa is where the opportunities are and having people leave is 'bad', to which Seymour took offence. Who would want a deputy prime minister who thinks New Zealanders leaving the country is a good thing, Seymour asked, then suggested that such a thing might be possible if the New Zealander doing the leaving was Ginny Andersen. His comment had Brownlee reminding the House, yet again, that question time is not an opportunity to attack the opposition. Up in the backbenches, Labour MP Shanan Halbert made his read of Seymour's comments clear: 'Misogynist!' Maybe Seymour could've tried it a different way: it doesn't matter if the cat is in New Zealand or Australia, as long as it still agrees the government is doing a good job.


Otago Daily Times
3 days ago
- Otago Daily Times
Ray Chung's 'vile' email condemned across the political spectrum
By Lillian Hanly of RNZ Both the prime minister and the opposition leader have given scathing rebukes of Wellington councillor Ray Chung's email about Mayor Tory Whanau, saying it is "absolutely disgusting" and calling it "vile and unacceptable." Whanau has rejected the contents of the email, saying it is false and contains "malicious and sexist" rumour. The email - seen by RNZ - was sent to three fellow councillors, recounting a story Chung had been told by his neighbour about the neighbour's son allegedly having a sexual encounter with the mayor. The mayor received an apology from Chung earlier today over the email claims, which he sent to other councillors in 2023, but surfaced last week. Asked about the email in today's post-cabinet media conference, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said first and foremost it was "unacceptable" and "really pretty vile" stuff. Luxon said he did not know Chung, and did not remember meeting him. "I wouldn't be able to tell you who he is or point out who he is." With the upcoming local body elections, Luxon said "you get what you deserve" if you don't show up and vote, and "get good candidates in races". Asked whether Chung should stand down, Luxon replied: "I think the email was entirely inappropriate and utterly unacceptable. "But ultimately, it's up to the fine people of Wellington, who I'm sure will work through who they would like to represent them in that role." Chris Hipkins also criticised the councillor, saying the email was "absolutely disgusting" and there was no place for that content in "good, civilised, democratic debate". "Critiquing an opponent is one thing - those kind of personal, abusive, denigratory messages are just totally unacceptable." Asked whether Chung should stand down, Hipkins said it was a matter for Chung. "But I just think that kind of language should be called out in the strongest possible terms. "It denigrates an opponent. It's undoubtedly sexist, if not misogynist, and I just think there's no place for that in a fair election competition." Strained council relationships could undermine the 'good work' - observer Meanwhile, Lindsay McKenzie, the Crown Observer assigned to Wellington City Council, said he had made his concerns about the events known to Local Government Minister Simeon Brown as well as Mayor Whanau, councillors and council chief executive Matt Prosser. He said it was likely that the community perceptions of elected members "will be further harmed by what has gone on and will adversely affect the organisation". McKenzie said the strained relationships could undermine the "good work" the council had achieved over the eight months since he was brought in. He said the council still had significant decisions to be made ahead of implementing the amendment to the Long Term Plan and submitting the quality water services delivery plan. "Despite their focus on the election ahead, candidates who are councillors have been reminded that they are still elected members, are still being remunerated and should be focused on the duties and obligations that go with that status. "I have sought reassurances that elected members will stay focused on the interests of the community they are there to serve," McKenzie said. McKenzie said his role with the council would finish at the end of this month and he had no part in the "the formal pre-election period or in relation to electioneering". "I do have a stake in seeing that the gains of the past seven months or so are not lost and Council successfully navigates its way to the end of this term of office," McKenzie said. Prosser confirmed "a number of complaints" had been made against Chung following the revelations. "A number of complaints against the elected member have been received, including some complaints under Wellington City Council's Code of Conduct. Those complaints are currently being reviewed," Prosser said.