Auckland Supercity

**Gubb** · 7th April 2009, 21:35

Originally Posted by P38

No matter how you look at it still be full of JAFFA's!

At least some of us have a level of intelligence to spell an acronym correctly.

**P38** · 7th April 2009, 21:37

Originally Posted by Okey Dokey

"Super-city" sounds so self-conscious and so naff; like a comic book. Can anyone think of a better term?

Uber-city, as in an earlier post

Simpli-city.

Stupour-city.

Supercalifragilisticgespealidocious-city.

Suggestions?

Gotham city...

**P38** · 7th April 2009, 21:38

Originally Posted by Gubb

At least some of us have a level of intelligence to spell an acronym correctly.

Didn't say you was stupid.

But thanks for the heads up.

**Usarka** · 7th April 2009, 21:41

Originally Posted by Hitcher

Most Aucklanders currently care not a jot about the governance of their city. Indeed many are hard-pressed to reliably report on the local authority or even the suburb in which they live. This reality will not change as a result of the establishment of a "super city".

Most aucklanders have given up caring.

Over half a century of agreeing "something needs to be done soon" on so many topics........

At least there will be a council where the buck doth stopeth. Of course they will still slip sideways like a KY lubed eels wanger after a fresh poke but it's a step in the right direction.

**Jantar** · 7th April 2009, 21:44

Originally Posted by Mully

Agreed. I have a lot of time for Pita Sharples normally.

Maybe we should let him has his Maori seats and have "white only" seats too. See if his head will explode.

I don't see any need for the "White Only" seats, but I can see a good reason for some "Maori Only" ones.

I would add the proviso that Maori seats should be reserved for full blooded maori only.

**SARGE** · 7th April 2009, 21:53

sorry .. i mis-read the title .. i thought it said AUCKLAND STUPIDSHITTY

i was gonna agree

**Swoop** · 8th April 2009, 08:16

Originally Posted by Mully

I do enjoy that Pita Sharples thinks not having Maori seats is "institutionalised racism"

Yeah. No "Maori only" seats? I call that democracy in action. If someone wants a seat, stand and be elected into one.

Originally Posted by Okey Dokey

Uber-city, as in an earlier post

Simpli-city.

Stupour-city.

Supercalifragilisticgespealidocious-city.

Suggestions?

"Reich"?
It will last for a thousand years!!!! Or until the goal posts get moved yet again...

**Mom** · 8th April 2009, 08:32

Originally Posted by Hitcher

Most Aucklanders currently care not a jot about the governance of their city. Indeed many are hard-pressed to reliably report on the local authority or even the suburb in which they live. This reality will not change as a result of the establishment of a "super city".

I heard someone on the radio yesterday saying if any celebrity face stepped up for the job of Mayor the sheep in Auckland would vote for them just because they recognised the face. There was talk of Paul Holmes being a candidate.

I am a Rodney ratepayer, in a little town, I wonder just how loud my voice will be in the mix. Time will tell I guess.

Worse than that, I have just applied for a job in Infrastructure at the RDC, great stuff, even if sucessful, I would probably be made redundant in the merger.

**Delerium** · 8th April 2009, 09:01

What I think:
I think that seats based on race; for ANY race, is seperatism based on race, which is pretty much the definition of racism. I get pissed off the racist card being played everytime an ethnic group doesnt get what it wants and gets some time with the press. You know what, me the white man (who is supposedly opressing your beleifs, way of life and is generally the cause of all evil) is over being labelled racist all the time, and finds it ironic that im being labelled racist for preventing racist policy.

I also wonder of one giant council is too big a step... Iv always thought we had too much beaurachracy, and figured 3 regons north, centeral and south was the best compromise.

**Clockwork** · 8th April 2009, 09:21

Originally Posted by Delerium

I also wonder of one giant council is too big a step... Iv always thought we had too much beaurachracy, and figured 3 regons north, centeral and south was the best compromise.

I'd agree, in my experience, the bigger something gets the more bureaucratic it becomes. I doubt becoming this "super-city" will save much at all in the end.

**Winston001** · 8th April 2009, 09:32

Originally Posted by Dave Lobster

I
One big city sounds like a great idea. Heaps of money saved by getting rid of 3/4 of the chaff whose jobs will be duplicated.....

You'd think that would be the logical result. Hmmm.....

This was last done under the 1989 Local Government Commission when lots of councils all over NZ disappeared into larger new councils. At the time, we all expected rates to remain stable and the council running costs to drop. If that happened, it completely passed me by.

It didn't. Ilogical as it seems, the new councils became as expensive to operate as the combined councils which were replaced. No saving at all.

On top of that, we've had 20 years of central government putting new work on local government, especially environmental and building controls, so our rates just climb and climb.

Originally Posted by Delerium

What I think:
I think that seats based on race; for ANY race, is separatism based on race, which is pretty much the definition of racism.......

Racism occurs when one group acts prejudicially and oppressively against another group because of their skin colour, ethnicity, and/or culture.

The group in power can be in a minority, such as white South Africa.

So the separate granting of democratic power to an ethnic group is the opposite of racism.

**ManDownUnder** · 8th April 2009, 09:35

Originally Posted by P38

No matter how you look at it still be full of JAFFA's!

Nu uh dude - we're Super JAFAs now... so best you watch it...!

**Slyer** · 8th April 2009, 09:55

I love Auckland.
Also agree that there should be no seats for specific races.

**MSTRS:Me** · 8th April 2009, 10:12

Originally Posted by Winston001

Racism occurs when one group acts prejudicially and oppressively against another group because of their skin colour, ethnicity, and/or culture.

The group in power can be in a minority, such as white South Africa.

So the separate granting of democratic power to an ethnic group is the opposite of racism.

Don't agree. Racism surely describes treating differently because of colour/ethnicity. Generally used to describe poor treatment, but equally relevant when used in the context of special treatment. Like Maori-only seats etc. Racism is 'any' different treatment or request for different treatment because of race. And it is alive and well in NZ courtesy of all, Sharples et al.