The water has already been tested by the council selling off the public space of QEII Square to private enterprise. That didn't raise the uproar that might have been expected, so decision-makers have presumably been encouraged in their desire to sell much more open space.
But there has been no information made available to the public, so no chance for them to make submissions.
It seems likely that few councillors know of the proposal, and, if they do, some may be very happy to promote the sales programme and pour the income down the bottomless pit of Mayor Len Brown's underground railway.
Cash-strapped local boards might assume some crumbs would fall on to their tables. More likely they will be pressured to agree to the sales.
In terms of quid pro quo for land lost, the recent suggestion that two sections of glorified pavement on Quay St be used as compensation for the loss of QEII Square offers a guide to how the balance might be struck in the future.
Worse, the public seems unlikely to be advised or consulted and neither they nor councillors have any knowledge of the specifics of the assets likely to be fingered.
Members of one local board suggested the sales are probably just "road ends". Well, $650 million over 10 years would be an incredible number of road ends.
Even if such a fairytale came true, it is still our open space and with the huge intensification proposed, we should be keeping every scrap. More than that, there should be specific plans to increase open space and community facilities.
The open space/population ratio was already mediocre 10 years ago. With the projected major increase in population and intensification, there needs to be a plan for a commensurate increase in our parks and open space.
Unfortunately, during the long-term plan discussions last year it was signalled that established urban areas would be unlikely to see any more parks or open space in their suburbs, even if development intensified.
And what else besides our open space is on the chopping block? Community facilities? Libraries? Sports facilities?
Because of the dominating secrecy and disconnection between the uncontrolled CCOs and the council, it's fair to surmise it could be anything.
Does any of this sound like a good plan to provide a more liveable city, as the council says it wants, or is it a formula for a more crowded, less happy, less healthy environment?
The whole secretive assets sales project highlights the anti-people, anti-democratic nature of the local government structure foisted upon the people of the Auckland region.
Never mind - the infrastructure industry, developers and mayor will be happy, and surely that's a winning recipe for a most liveable city.
Tony Holman has had 27 years of experience in local and regional government, as an officer and elected representative. He has held senior positions on government statutory boards.
