An Auckland Transport spokesperson said public engagement was conducted during the earlier business case phase for the airport to Botany Rapid Transit Project in 2018 and 2019. But how many miss reading the public notices in the newspaper or overlook a notifying pamphlet in the mailbox?
The compulsory nature of the Act also renders the consultation process somewhat moot.
This is not a new process of course. The Public Works Act 1981 permits the forced acquisition of land for public works such as roads, schools, police stations, and railways.
The Act is a, sometimes cruel, necessity to allow works to be done for the betterment of a community and its people. Even before the 1981 amendment, laws enabled public works to be pushed through, with or without property owners' consent.
But has it become too blunt and unthinking in its use?
At a time of widely acknowledged pressure for more housing, it seems incongruous to be tearing down perfectly good homes for bus lanes.
It's not only demolition, however. Properties set aside for public works are sometimes subsequently found to be surplus to requirements; the route having changed or the works deferred indefinitely.
Judith Dexter this week outlined how her father's cherished farm and family home is now a reserve in Pakuranga after being levelled for a bridge that was never built.
Northcote Pt couple Carol and Rod Brown have lived in their 1880s villa with a rich history at Princes St for 35 years and have been in limbo for two years after their home was identified as being in the way of the new SkyPath bridge project.
Of course, we cannot build roads without clear land and more obstructions to infrastructure are hardly desirable but we are dealing with the very sanctuary people have worked hard to give themselves.
Surely, it's time for a reappraisal of the confiscation and demolition of housing under the Public Works Act.
One safeguard could be project leaders compelled to provide more evidence that affected properties are absolutely necessary for the works. And demonstrate that alternatives have been thoroughly explored. Confiscation should be the course of last resort.
A person should be afforded some respect to defend their home, be-it castle or humble cottage, from the whims of transport projects that may or may not transpire.
At what point do we push back on the engines of "progress"?
Or are we to continue repeating the past where vibrant and nurturing suburbs were obliterated for motorways, only this time as sacrificial lambs on the altar for public transport?
At what point do we draw the line and let people live in peace?
