Brian Rudman: Facadism is just a new flamingo

There's nothing like the first anniversary of an election victory to get our mayors leaping about trying to prove what little bundles of action they are.

Three years ago we had Auckland Mayor John Banks' classic "Year One Progress" reports singling out the highlights of his first year in office. The importation of 18 flamingos from Britain was one that tickled my fancy, and the registration of 19,227 dogs.

An election and a year on, it's Mayor Dick Hubbard's turn to dust off the action-man songbook. In recent days he's been claiming credit for abolishing facadism from the town planning guidebook, he's launched a new events strategy which will make Auckland "a world-class events-filled city" and on Friday he signed a memorandum of understanding with neighbouring Waitakere City.

Viewed through a glass of celebratory bubbles, the claims seem as pretty as Mr Banks' flock of flamingos. But in the cold light of day, they're just a list of contestable words.

How could he declare the end of facadism when just last week his council gave the nod to this fate befalling a 1920s shopfront in inner city Pitt St?

As for the mayors of Auckland and Waitakere plighting their troth by signing a memorandum of understanding, I have no idea where that came from. You also have to worry about how grumpy the region's five other mayor's might be at being jilted.

And you can't blame them. All seven territorial councils should be working together, not two sneaking off to play footsie, leaving the rest outside, listening at the door.

As for the new events strategy, I found it a big disappointment. What we have is a rearrangement of the "vision" buzzwords plucked from a decade of past reports. It wants maritime events associated with the harbour, cultural events reflecting our diverse community, and outdoor and sporting events reflecting our lifestyle and environment.

Who could disagree? Rather than a blueprint for something new, it's more a grab-bag, where everything we already do is thrown in, along with a wish for even more of anything.

One goal, for instance, talks of being to "communicate and advocate the benefits and economic impact of being an eventful city".

If that is a goal, then where is the sign of an analysis of the costs and benefits, both economically and socially, of the chosen events?

Another thing that leaped out was the desire of adding Maori festivals to the existing mix of local festivals. That and the idea of linking Pasifika with a fashion parade. As far as the latter goes, I can't see the link. But more to the point, why this emphasis on myriad piddly little festivals and events? We're only going to achieve take-off momentum as a world-class festival destination if we focus on one festival, the Auckland Festival, and link the others in some sort of orbit around it. A Polynesian (Maori included) fringe seems like the unique point of difference that could sell Auckland's festival over a plethora of similar events.

I groaned, too, at talk of developing a 60,000-70,000-seat national stadium in Auckland. Auckland ratepayers are already propping up underused stadiums across the region. A new one will only drive them deeper into debt, and create another funding albatross round every Aucklander's neck.

Advocates should check out Sydney or Athens for the true cost of such folly.