Latest news with #Windbag
The Spinoff
07-07-2025
- Politics
- The Spinoff
Windbag: Metro Water to the rescue
Wellington's councils have agreed to create a new water service entity. Will it be the answer to the region's pipe crisis? Windbag is The Spinoff's Wellington issues column, written by Wellington editor Joel MacManus. Subscribe to the Windbag newsletter to receive columns early. It's no secret that Wellington's water network is a shambles. At this point, it's one of the city's defining traits. Just last week, Johnston Street became the latest in an ever-growing list of streets to be flooded by a burst pipe. There's really no need to rehash all the ways in which the water system is failing, but here are a few stats: 45% of the Wellington region's drinking water is lost to leaks before it reaches the tap; 21% of pipe infrastructure is worn out; and for wastewater pipes, it's 33%. The region's water infrastructure needs $15-17b of investment over the next 20-25 years to maintain service and keep up with population growth. There is plenty of blame to go around. The existing water entity, Wellington Water, has been shambolic at times. Councils have underfunded water for decades. Earthquakes haven't helped the pipes either. If you want to point the finger at someone, check out my handy user's guide to working out who to blame for Wellington's water issues. 'Our three waters system has for many years been largely out of sight, out of mind,' a report by Andy Foster's mayoral taskforce on three waters concluded in 2021. Their recommendation was clear: 'Tinkering is not going to cut it. Transformational reform is required.' Then, councils and the government spent four years tinkering and arguing about the exact specifics of that transformational reform. There are no organisational restructures or legislative tweaks that can change the underlying problem – namely, that all the pipes are munted and someone has to pay for it. But it has been clear for years that Wellington Water needed to be replaced with a new, more powerful entity with different financial powers. First, this change was going to be part of Labour's Three Waters Reforms. Then, Labour's Affordable Water Reforms. And now, they're part of National's Local Water Done Well. A technical advisory group led by former mayor Kerry Prendergast (one of the people most responsible for the chronic underfunding) released a lengthy report last year on a recommended regional approach. With the final vote last week, all five of the metropolitan councils – Hutt City Council, Porirua City Council, Upper Hutt City Council, Wellington City Council and Greater Wellington Regional Council – have now confirmed they are on board with the plan. Wellington's new water entity is called Metro Water. Except it won't actually be its name. It's just a working title until they think of a better one. But for now, Metro Water is the name in all the documents, so it's what I'm going to use. As of July 2026, Wellington Water will be dissolved, and Metro Water will be in charge of all water services in wider Wellington. It won't be a complete changing of the guard. Metro Water will absorb all of Wellington Water's staff below the senior management level. Like Wellington Water, it will be a council-controlled organisation owned jointly by the five councils, with an independent board featuring representatives from Ngāti Toa Rangitira and Taranaki Whānui (yes, that's right, co-governance *gasp*). However, rather than councils owning the pipe assets and paying Wellington Water to run them, councils will transfer ownership of their pipes to Metro Water's books. Importantly, Metro Water will have the ability to take out loans directly. This matters because most councils are approaching their borrowing limits. Metro Water will be able to take out larger loans and spread the costs over a longer term, which means lower annual costs. The technical advisory group estimates this could lower ongoing costs up to a third. The annual cost per connection, which currently sits at $1,711, would rise to $2,596 over 20 years under Metro Water. The business-as-usual approach is estimated to cost as much as $4,000 per year. The downside for Metro Water is that an independent entity likely won't have access to the same cheap loans that councils get. So they're essentially paying more, but spreading it over a longer period. This is essentially the same accounting trick that Auckland Council used earlier this year to separate Watercare's balance sheet from the council's, which was a large reason why Auckland had one of the lowest rate increases this year, at 5.8% for council rates and 7.2% for water rates. By comparison, Wellington City Council had an all-inclusive 12% increase. For ratepayers, there will be one obvious immediate change: water metering. Households will receive a separate bill for water usage. On the whole, this will be more equitable – suburbanites who waste bathloads of water on oversized lawns will pay more than people living in water-efficient apartments and townhouses. But the change will also sting renters, who will find themselves paying a separate water bill that was previously lumped in with their rent. The most surprising part of this new solution is how unsurprising it is. There is very little here that is different to how things would have looked under Labour. The Three Waters Reforms didn't make sense everywhere – it was messy in Auckland, which already had a combined water services operator, and it was controversial in rural areas, where there were concerns about how it could affect water access for irrigation (and of course, there was lots of scaremongering about co-governance) – but in Wellington, it was always obvious that the solution would involve councils transferring ownership of the pipe assets to a combined independent entity that would introduce water metering. National's policy gave councils the ability to choose their future, while Labour's would have dictated it. But in the end, they reached the same outcome.
The Spinoff
26-05-2025
- Politics
- The Spinoff
Windbag: Khandallah Pool and the high price of inequality
The quiet suburban pool is a microcosm of everything wrong with New Zealand's broken rates system. 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.
The Spinoff
19-05-2025
- Politics
- The Spinoff
Windbag: Why Wellington's vibe shift is coming in 2026
Things are about to change in the capital, and it has nothing to do with the mayoral race. Windbag is The Spinoff's Wellington issues column, written by Wellington editor Joel MacManus. Subscribe to the Windbag newsletter to receive columns early. Wellington spends an inordinate amount of time naval-gazing about vibes or the perceived lack thereof. Vibes are ill-defined, intangible, immeasurable but ever-present, and any effort to change them is more art than science. If there is one moment that triggered the capital's vibecession, it would be the 2013 Seddon earthquake. Then, the 2016 Kaikōura earthquake, Covid-19, public sector layoffs and a general economic downturn. It's been a long, slow rolling maul of decline. When understanding the city's vibes, we shouldn't overthink it. Media and politicians can get too in-the-weeds, thinking too much about budgets and rates and consultations, but those things aren't what shape vibes. Vibes are just another way of describing word-of-mouth. When people have conversations about their city, either with their fellow residents or with tourists, what do they talk about? At a basic level, cities are experiential. They're a dense collection of stuff to do, places to go, things to see, and people to meet. Cities have good vibes when people are talking about this great new place they tried that you simply must check out (restaurants, gigs, new developments, tourist attractions, activities). They develop bad vibes when there is a dearth of exciting new stuff, and when the existing stuff is declining. That's what's happened in Wellington for the past decade. Many major buildings and activity centres have closed, and there have been few new developments to counterweight the loss. However, that's about to change. I'm predicting a significant vibe shift as early as next year (and no, it'll have nothing to do with the new mayor). Several major projects are due to be completed in 2026 (provided construction schedules don't change) that will give locals and visitors something to be excited about. Te Matapihi Central Library: due to open March 2026 Wellington's Central Library closed in March 2019 after an engineers' report raised concerns about earthquake safety. The council was not legally obliged to close the building, but then mayor Justin Lester said he felt 'morally obliged'. Following the closure, there was an extended fight over whether it was better to demolish the building and rebuild something new or to try to repair and upgrade the existing building. In the midst of the debate, Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga listed it as a category 1 heritage building despite it being less than 30 years old. 'Save our library' successfully pushed for the council to retrofit the building with base isolators and other earthquake safety features for $189 million. Whether it was the right choice or not, there's no point relitigating the decisions. The money is spent, and the rebuild is nearly complete. When the library reopens in March next year, it'll be a moment of celebration. Losing the 'living room of the city' was a huge vibe killer, and getting a new, better version back will give people something worth talking about. Te Whare Whakarauika Wellington Town Hall: due to open in July 2026 Another long and complex collision of earthquake damage and heritage protections, the Town Hall closed in 2013 after the Seddon earthquake. Repairs were initially budgeted at $30 million but ballooned out as high as $330m due to a messy mixture of scope creep and sunk-cost fallacy. (It should be noted that part of the increased cost was to create custom spaces for the new National Music Centre.) However, like the library, what's done is done. The money has already been spent. The good news is that progress is ahead of schedule. The latest council update moved the expected opening forward by eight months to July 2026. The Town Hall is an important and impressive public building that can be a point of civic pride. Importantly, it will add another much-needed performance venue to the city, meaning Wellington can host events, providing more flow-on commerce for nearby businesses. Te Ngākau Civic Precinct: due to open in March 2026 The entire Civic Square plaza is currently closed for a makeover. The timing is ideal; the whole place is a dead zone due to the Central Library and Town Hall construction, and City Gallery has temporarily moved to the National Library. Civic Square will open in March 2026 alongside the library, with new paving and landscaping. It's a vital public space for gathering, hanging out or eating lunch, so having a new and refreshed area to experience will be something for people to talk about. Te Ara Tupua: due to open in April 2026 After flooding in 2013 and 2015, it became clear that Wellington needed a seawall to protect the railway line and highway between the city and the Hutt. The great bonus when you build a seawall is that you can put a shared cycling and walking path on top and add a great public amenity for minimal additional cost. However, NZTA Waka Kotahi got cheeky with the numbers and funded the entire $348.7 million project through its cycling budget, even though it was primarily intended to protect the road and rail. This left little money for other cycling projects nationwide. Despite the dodgy funding, the shared walking and cycling path will be truly remarkable. Named Te Ara Tupua and designed with mana whenua, the project will include five artificial gravel beaches providing access to the water for fishing and diving, and six new gathering spaces with planting, seating and bike stands. A rail overbridge is designed to honour Te Wharepouri, a significant rangatira who lived in the area. The western coast of Wellington Harbour offers stunning views, but until now, they've only been accessible out of the window of a moving vehicle. Te Ara Tupua opens that area to people. For commuters, especially on e-bikes, the safe and scenic route will be a vast improvement over the current option, a terrifying ride along the shoulder of a busy highway. For recreational bikers, it's even more exciting. Te Ara Tupua will link up the Great Harbour Way, meaning there will be a protected, paved, coastal cycleway from Miramar to Days Bay (and eventually from Pencarrow to Owhiro Bay, a distance of 70km). It will become a must-do activity and tourist attraction. East by West ferries are already planning for a surge in traffic from people crossing to Days Bay with their bikes and riding back to the city (or vice versa).
The Spinoff
12-05-2025
- Entertainment
- The Spinoff
Windbag: The urbanist value of a rainbow crossing
Roadway art like Wellington's rainbow crossing can be a cheap way to improve inner-city vibrancy and pedestrian safety. Windbag is The Spinoff's Wellington issues column, written by Wellington editor Joel MacManus. Subscribe to the Windbag newsletter to receive columns early. Wellington's rainbow crossing at Cuba Street and Dixon Street opened with pomp and circumstance on October 10, 2018. The date marked the birthday of Carmen Rupe, the local celebrity drag queen whose silhouette appears on the green pedestrian lights along Cuba Street. The mayor at the time, Justin Lester, helped to paint the crossing. After the ceremonial cutting of the rainbow ribbon, drag performers strutted over the rainbow to cheers from an assembled crowd. Rainbow crossings became a global trend after the first one was installed in West Hollywood during Pride Month in 2012. LGBTQ+ communities embraced them as a symbol that said we are here. Cities – and specifically, liberal politicians within those cities – introduced them as a way to say we welcome you. That's exactly what Lester said in his speech: 'Everyone's welcome in Wellington.' Of course, painting a rainbow on the road costs money, and every use of public funds is open to criticism. Wellington's rainbow crossing cost $26,844 to install and $5,314 to repaint in 2022. That's about 20% more than a standard zebra crossing. But there are other examples where they've become boondoggles – such as a recently abandoned rainbow intersection in Dunedin, which blew out to an estimated $276,000. Comparing the cost of the rainbow crossing to a zebra crossing is slightly misleading, because a rainbow crossing is not an official pedestrian crossing. In a legal sense, it's just paint on the road. Still, paint on the road makes a difference. Compared to multi-year, multi-million-dollar transformations like the Golden Mile upgrade, a lick of paint is a cheap and quick way to add a bit of flair and personality to an otherwise dreary bit of concrete. It also helps to add a sense of pedestrian priority by acting as a colourful reminder to drivers to look out for people crossing. From the moment rainbow crossings arrived in cities, anti-LGBTQ+ groups opposed them. Often, they couched their opposition in costs or safety concerns, but the underlying message was clear: we don't welcome you. That's why Destiny Church members painted over the Karangahape Road rainbow crossing in Auckland. And it's why a group of individuals affiliated with Destiny Church launched a judicial review against Wellington's crossing on Cuba Street earlier this year. The challenge was on narrow legal grounds. They argued that the rainbow crossing breached the NZTA guidelines for road markings because it could be confused with a standard pedestrian crossing. There was some basis for this; emails from 2017 and 2018 showed that NZTA Waka Kotahi officials told Wellington City Council that a rainbow crossing would not comply with traffic control rules. The rules were changed in 2020 under transport minister Phil Twyford to introduce the concept of 'roadway art', which is allowed as long as it is in a 'lower-risk environment' and doesn't resemble a standard road marking. NZTA Waka Kotahi's Handbook for Tactical Urbanism in Aotearoa says road art may be used to create a sense of place, highlight pedestrian crossings, encourage slower vehicle speeds, show support for a community, or enhance the streetscape by contributing to liveability and vibrancy. Justice Jason McHerran found that Dixon Street was a 'lower risk environment' based on the 85th percentile vehicle speed of 24km/h. On the matter of whether people inaccurately believed the rainbow crossing to be a legal pedestrian crossing, a Stantec report showed that the vast majority of pedestrians crossed during the green light, showing they understood it did not function as a zebra crossing. McHerran ruled that the rainbow crossing was allowed under the 2020 rules and also would have been acceptable under the previous rules. It was a win for the council and the LGBTQ+ activists who requested it in the first place. It also helps to set a precedent that should give councils far more confidence to do creative stuff with their streets. The rainbow crossing case was only marginal because of its horizontal stripes. Any roadway art with vertical stripes, geometric shapes, patterns or pictures can be safely assumed to be legal, as long as it is in an appropriate location. Riddiford Street in Newtown could use a spruce-up. Some roadway art at the pedestrian lights on the corner of Constable Street wouldn't hurt. The same goes for Bay Road in Kilbirnie, Aro Street in Aro Valley, or countless other streets in suburbs and towns across New Zealand that might want a splash of colour in their community.
The Spinoff
05-05-2025
- Politics
- The Spinoff
Windbag: Tory Whanau is the anti-Jacinda
They're both young, female, progressive leaders whose career trajectories are intertwined with Andrew Little. But their strengths, weaknesses, governing style and political legacies couldn't be more different. Windbag is The Spinoff's Wellington issues column, written by Wellington editor Joel MacManus. Subscribe to the Windbag newsletter to receive columns early. It was July 2017, less than two months out from the general election, and Labour was heading to an almost certain defeat. The party's leader, Andrew Little, knew his personal popularity was dragging their chances down. He just wasn't connecting with voters. After a moment of reflection, he resigned as leader and asked his 37-year-old deputy, Jacinda Ardern, to take his place. It was a rare act of political selflessness – an older, more traditionally qualified Pākehā man standing aside for a young woman. Ardern immediately became the youngest-ever leader of the Labour Party and, within months, New Zealand's youngest prime minister since 1856. It was a pivotal moment for Ardern's career – and for Little's. If he'd held on and led the party to another blowout loss, he may have gone the way of Shearer and Cunliffe; tossed to the side and remembered as a political failure. Instead, he was embraced by the party and applauded for his decision. He flourished as a senior cabinet minister. He was able to focus on his strengths in governance, without the pressure of the popularity contest of leadership. There was a weight off his shoulders, he was more authentic and more confident. He grew out his beard, changed his personal fashion style, and embraced his elder statesman role. In this year's Wellington mayoral election, the roles are reversed. Tory Whanau, the 42-year-old wahine Māori from the Green Party, stepped out of the race, clearing a path to victory for Andrew Little, the 59-year-old former Labour cabinet minister. In 2017, Andrew Little was the flailing communicator who struggled to connect with voters. His 'angry Andy' schtick sounded hoarse and desperate. Jacinda Ardern, by comparison, was a world-class communicator who knew how to capture an audience. In 2025, Tory Whanau was the one with the communication struggles. She flubbed several live interviews, sounding defensive and unsure of herself. Her political inexperience showed. Andrew Little, by comparison, had an assured confidence forged in the fires of parliament. Jacinda Ardern and Tory Whanau are two progressive female leaders of a similar age, whose careers are both intricately linked to Andrew Little. But that's where the comparisons end. As prime minister, Ardern was a cautious and calculated operator. She intentionally avoided politically risky policies and didn't take on fights she couldn't win (capital gains tax, the cannabis referendum and the recommendations of the tax working group). She largely maintained discipline in her cabinet, especially within her own party. She was at her best when national disasters struck: compassionate but assured. As mayor, Whanau could have benefited from a greater sense of caution – or at least some more experienced advisers. She stumbled into issues without properly appreciating the risks, most notably the Reading Cinema deal and the airport sale. At times, she alienated councillors who should have been on her side or put too much trust in rivals who ended up stabbing her in the back. When you put high-profile issues on the table but can't get them done, it screams instability. And voters abhor instability. The main progressive criticism of Ardern's government is that she played it too safe. Labour had the first outright majority under MMP but had little to show for it in terms of nation-shaping reforms. Whanau, meanwhile, will walk away from her three years as mayor with a significant progressive legacy. On housing, she passed the new high-density District Plan. On transport, she oversaw the rapid rollout of a cycle lane network. On inner-city vibrancy, she signed the construction contracts to begin the Golden Mile upgrade on Courtenay Place. The Golden Mile is an issue Whanau cares so much about that she said she was willing to lose the mayoralty over it. She pulled out of the race one day after she attended the project's ceremonial sod-turning. Whanau can also claim to be the only mayor in decades who adequately funded the city's water infrastructure. What Ardern and Whanau have in common is their ability to generate such intense anger in some voters. The bitter comments of 'I can't stand that woman ', spat with an intensity that was often disproportionate to their actual policies and actions. But that probably has more to do with society at large than either of them as individuals. When Ardern stepped down as prime minister, she left the political arena. Tory Whanau wants to stay in it. She is running for Te-Whanganui-a-Tara, Wellington's Māori ward, an open seat after Green councillor Nikau Wī Neera decided not to seek re-election. Labour has put up a strong candidate in Matthew Reweti. The ward itself will face a referendum over its existence, but it's unlikely to be at risk. As a former mayor, Whanau would bring a level of mana to the ward that it hasn't had before. And there's a good chance that if Little wins, he will make her deputy mayor, either by choice or due to pressure from the Greens. Whatever the outcome, it seems Whanau's story isn't over just yet.
