KEY POINTS:
It is difficult to know what is worse: the demolition of one of the city's grand old landmark houses or the decision of the Auckland City Council to wash its hands of it, in secret, leaving the building at the mercy of the diggers. On balance, it is
probably the inaction and obsessive secrecy of the councillors.
The council's decision not to intervene to buy, protect and then sell Coolangatta, a 90-year-old homestead at 464 Remuera Rd, is arguable. There were risks said to be as high as $2 million to the ratepayer in compensating the vendor for the reduction in value from council protections on the house and site. The house, while large, old and superficially grand, might not have been worth that cost, particularly as many other sites on the Remuera Rd ridge have been cleared to make way for apartment buildings. Private property is private and vendors ought to be able to sell their homes to whoever pays the highest price unencumbered with unnecessary regulations and convenants. The buyer in this case seems within his or her rights to remove the house and build apartments in accordance with the city's district plan.
What is unconscionable is the way city councillors kept their decision from the public. They knew there would be controversy. This is the council that rather melodramatically declared itself in favour of the city's heritage. Old homes in areas such as St Marys Bay and Parnell were to be accorded new protections, demolitions made harder and alterations challenged to more exacting standards of authenticity. There was much muttering about involving communities more actively in the planning process to counter feelings that certain projects won "non-notified" status in which decisions were made without reference to the neighbourhood.
Two-and-a-quarter years into the council's three-year term, its record has not matched its promises. The Coolangatta example is surely the nadir. After considering options to protect the building, the councillors voted 11-6 against placing an order on the house, then 9-8 against making their vote public. What possible reason could any elected body have for suppressing its decisions, hiding its voting lists? There is one. The local authority elections next year. Voters take a dim view of hypocrisy such as the "heritage" council casting aside a landmark without taking public submissions and then covering their own political hides.
It is not only a bad look but bad politics. Shrewd politicians with the courage of their convictions would have publicly raised the fate of the house, sought views from the public and heritage police and made their decision with that broader voice having been heard. If the right call was still for the city to leave Coolangatta's future to the market, then the councillors ought to have gone ahead and made it, openly.
Too often during this term it has been expedient for council politicians to deflect criticism on to the staff of the council, usually indirectly. There certainly are determined professionals within its ranks pushing projects hard and resisting the irritant of public pressure. But there can be nowhere for the elected councillors to hide when a vote is taken to suppress how they voted on a matter of obvious public interest.
The political connivances behind the destruction of Coolangatta speak volumes about the character of the temporary inhabitants of city hall. Unfortunately for them, they cannot keep next year's election secret. And a wrecking ball awaits those who treat voters with disdain.
