John Roughan: Voices in small places

Reading the Royal Commission's report on Auckland, I keep thinking of the trees around the houses where I live.

They are nothing special; they certainly wouldn't qualify for the designation that would be their only protection if National proceeds with its rewriting of the Resource Management Act.

But they are tall and elegant and make the end of the street look rather lovely. There used to be more of them.

Why anyone would buy into our little neighbourhood if they didn't want the trees is a mystery to me.

Yet it happens. A fine young rimu was felled one morning near the top of our drive. All I saw of the operation was the regret on the faces of the crew as they stood among the logs.

That scene kept coming to mind as I read the Royal Commission's prescription for Auckland's governance: "One city, one plan, one rating system, one bill, one voice." Really?

It seems to me we live on lots of levels. The good government of my neighbourhood is as important to me as the government of North Shore, Auckland and New Zealand.

And if good government can be defined as that which fairly reflects the collective wish of its community then it follows, I think, that power should be located at the lowest possible level.

I see no reason that my neighbours and I should not have more power to maintain the environment we want. Building design standards, heritage preservation and tree protection are shared interests that could be decided at a much more intimate level.

If Auckland needs stronger city-wide organisation, and I think it does, there must be ways to do it without weakening government lower down.

Rating power is the key. The Royal Commission would give it all to a supreme Auckland council, turn present councils into its supplicants and abolish altogether the community boards that in my experience have been good, accessible champions of local interests.

Government at ground level needs to be strengthened every bit as much as the city's. Right now public policy is driving the other way. National's revision of the Resource Management Act, for example, would all but destroy the authority of councils to prevent the loss of big trees on private land.

No longer could they try to insist land-owners get a permit before removing any tree above a specified size. Trees would need an individual designation to be safe, which is impractical across a city.

The existing regime has been weak enough. When the enforcement officer arrives the tree is usually down and the best he or she might do is measure the girth of the stump. A cautionary letter is the most likely consequence.

Suppose adjoining property owners were given power to make legally enforceable covenants to preserve whatever qualities of their neighbourhood they all valued. When a house changed hands the buyer would be entering a contract with neighbours who would fiercely pursue any breach.

The community under covenant could be as wide as consenting property owners desired and the benefits for the urban landscape could be immense.

It is hard to find another city in the world with the natural blessings of Auckland, and hard to find one that makes as little effort to live up to its setting in housing and architecture, that so readily destroys the better buildings in its heritage.

New world societies marvel at the charm of villages and towns that retain their character in places such as Europe and Japan, but we don't want to know the impositions they make on private property rights.

All government should grow from principles of individual freedom. The landowner agrees to restrictions on his rights because he benefits from the same restrictions on his neighbour. Their enjoyment of their property is in fact enhanced by the restriction, so long as they freely agree to it.

The smaller the unit of government, the more likely they are to set rules of mutual benefit and make them effective.

Interestingly, the Royal Commission would make one exception to its monolithic model for Auckland. The central business district would be given a dedicated body because the commissioners noticed it is "shabby" and sorely in need of easier public access to its waterfront.

There is, incidentally, a quicker solution for the latter: merge the port company with Tauranga which could take the Tank Farm tomorrow, along with the cars and bananas behind the red fence. But the Royal Commission was conceived in an era averse to asset sales or any sort of critical review of government from the ground up.

Local government begins much closer to home than the single city would allow. Auckland needs better government, but so does my street. It is healthy to have more than one rate, one plan, one bill.

One size seldom fits all.