Artist impression of the new Oruku development from across the Hātea River.
Artist impression of the new Oruku development from across the Hātea River.
LIFE AND POLITICS
The Whangārei District Council is being asked to contribute $57 million to Oruku Landing. Chiefly to construct the conference and events centre at the heart of Riverside Drive development.
The centre would require $5 million to run annually.
The WDC has been put in a difficult position by the Governmentalready agreeing to $60 million of funding. The Northland Regional Council will contribute $6 million.
After initially not including Oruku Landing in its 2021-31 long-term plan, the council is seeking submissions on whether to now support the project.
Doing so, the council tells us, will require a 6 per cent rates increase. Enough of a reason, some would say, to oppose a council contribution.
I've got additional objections.
Objection 1: Public money, private gain
My first objection is an ethical one. The developers of Oruku Landing want to make a lot of money. More than most of us will see in our lifetimes. Public money will make their business venture less risky. A publicly funded events centre and amenities will increase the value of the privately owned hotel and apartments. Personal gain on this scale should not be bolstered so blatantly with public money.
The Oruku Landing Conference and Events Centre promotional board on the Hātea Loop near Riverside Drive. Photo / Tania Whyte
Objection 2: No desperate need
The proposed events theatre will be a flat space that can accommodate 1000 people standing, 750 in terraced seating, or 650 for banquet seating.
The Forum North Theatre can seat 340 people. So there wouldn't be a massive gain in seating capacity.
And is it wise for two publicly funded theatre spaces to be competing against each other? Is there enough demand for both to flourish?
There's also the rugby stadium, which is an existing venue for concerts and other large-scale entertainment.
Plus, there's scope for inclusive outdoor events and concerts in the park next to the Hundertwasser.
A 1000-person capacity event space might be nice to have, but it's hardly essential. And do we need another footbridge across the Hatea River? Or a taxi ferry terminal?
These costly additions are included because there's no space for parking on the Riverside Drive side of the Town Basin.
Demand for extra hotel capacity, even if it's "4-star", is hardly pressing. Existing hotels and motels are underutilised.
As far as the wide public walkway goes and promised piazza, the Loop Walk is already delivering these kinds of spaces. And Whangārei certainly doesn't need more space for retail.
An eastern section of the site on Riverside Drive, Whangārei. Photo / Tania Whyte
Objection 3: High cost relative to claimed benefits
The developers behind the Oruku Landing would argue public investment is justified because of the wider economic benefits of the development.
It will, they claim, bring people and money from outside the region to Whangārei to attend conferences and stay at the proposed 135-bed hotel.
The return on public investment is always hard to qualify and is usually overstated by those who have an interest in doing so.
What we do know is that the cost of large-scale building projects is ballooning. There are Covid factors at work, but it's also true that the energy and material resources of the world are getting constrained.
The current costings of $250 million for the entire project are already out of date. As reported in this paper, some cost components could have increased 50 per cent.
The WDC's contribution to Oruku Landing would see the average ratepayer paying at least another $150 extra a year (on top of increases already announced).
That's money that won't be spent somewhere else in the community. Or on projects that might deliver greater public benefits.
Objection 4: Climate change
The site of the development will come under threat this century from rising sea levels due to global warming. Major flooding events in the Whangārei Town Basin area are inevitable.
Will a future council and government be liable for allowing development to go ahead on an at-risk site? What will the cost of insurance be in a decade or two?
Will the council be left, literally, with a stranded asset?
This is the kind of long-term thinking that councils must engage in.
Objection 5: Better alternatives
I'm not against our rates rising as a matter of course, as long as the money goes to projects that benefit the public or safeguard the environment.
The nature of the times should dictate that public spending be evaluated on criteria that address some of society's urgent problems.
There are four that loom large: inequality, rising living costs, a coming energy crisis, and the need to reduce carbon emissions.
Oruku Landing addresses none of these issues.
To put into perspective the amount of public money that would be involved, budgeted spending on public transport across Northland until 2027 is $32.5 million.
For less than what public investment in Oruku Landing will cost, we could make bus travel in the region free for decades.
Spending public money on free and more-frequent public transport would encourage more people out of their cars, reducing congestion in Whangārei.
It would benefit people on low incomes and reduce fuel costs for everyone willing to switch to public transport. New jobs would be created.
And it would be climate change policy that delivered real emissions reductions. All round, that would be money, I think, better spent.
• Northern Advocate columnist Vaughan Gunson writes about life and politics.
