Displaying
161 - 170 of
438
Number | Name | Submission | Change type | View |
---|---|---|---|---|
N20-051 | Rawinia Snowden | Objection | Boundary | |
Rawinia SnowdenObjection
Manukau East
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change
Rawinia Snowden1. Decrease the value of the homes I own in Panmure purely because Panmure will be known to be a "South Auckland" suburb, this will impact the values of our home. Home values are more in some suburbs than others, and it's a fact that homes located in the "Auckland Central" region are more expensive than South Auckland region. Therefore I object this reboundary to be done here in Panmure.2. Panmure has no history or community of interest with the Manukau East electorate. 3. Bad for democracy. Voters in Panmure and Glen Innes will feel disconnected and alienated from the larger Manukau East electoral area and will probably see all future election campaigns centred on South Auckland issues debated by South Auckland-based politicians. This is likely to undermine and discourage participation in democracy in our areas. 4. The boundary change appears entirely arbitrary and follows no logical historic or administrative pattern. Historically, Panmure has always sat within the former Auckland City Council and Mount Wellington Borough Council adminstrative areas. From 1848, Panmure became central to the political administration of this area through such bodies as the Panmure/Mount Wellington Highway Districts, the Borough of Mount Wellington and even the short-lived Tamaki City Council. This proposed change ignores all of that history. 5. The change would separate Panmure politically not only from its own railway station but also a significant part of its community in the Mountain Road area, along with businesses to the west of the railway line and Jellicoe Road. 6. All surrounding electorates - Tamaki, Epsom, Maungakiekie, Mangere, Manurewa, Botany and Pakuranga - are allowed to maintain their identity and sense of cohesion under the changes, but Panmure, along with Glen Innes, Point England, and parts of Mount Wellington and Otahuhu, will be forced to lose theirs. 7. The Tamaki Regeneration process foresees a significant population increase in Panmure, Glen Innes and Point England coming decades. This is likely to force a reversal of this proposal by the Electoral Commission in years to come. Suggested solutionDon't fix what ain't broken. Leave boundary as it currently stands. |
||||
N20-052 | Mr Benjamin Hamblin | Objection | Boundary | |
Mr Benjamin HamblinObjection
Manukau East
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change
Mr Benjamin HamblinI object to placing Point England within the Manukau East electorate. This will create an electorate that is too tall (north-south) and too thin (east-west). It will lump together electors who do not live anywhere near one another. Residents from the northern end of the electorate rarely visit the southern end, and residents from the southern end of the electorate rarely visit the northern end. This will undermine communities of interest. Residents from different ends of the new electorate attend completely distant schools and sports clubs. Until recently, the northern and southern ends of the proposed electorate had different local governments. Another challenge to communities of interest is that in different parts of the new electorate there are different public service offices, e.g. the Tamaki Regeneration Company is only in the northern end of the electorate, while other public housing areas are covered by Kainga Ora Homes and Communities. Furthermore, with the new electorate boundaries, Point England will not be in the same electorate as its nearby transport hubs: Glen Innes (which is under Tamaki electorate) and Panmure Station (which is in Maungakiekie, currently the same electorate covering Point England). |
||||
N20-053 | Mrs Theresa Calman | Objection | Boundary | |
Mrs Theresa CalmanObjection
Manukau East
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change
Mrs Theresa CalmanPanmure moving to Manukau EastSuggested solutionShould remain as is. We are closer to the central suburbs than Manukau |
||||
N20-054 | Mr Grant Ewing | Objection | Boundary | |
Mr Grant EwingObjection
Manukau East
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change
Mr Grant Ewingwe have moved into this area to keep in auckland hospital zone and feel is not only devaluing our property if we get cut off into manakau it will prompt us to move which is not our plan. I cant really see how this change can go through as my family and many people have stayed on this side of the panmure bridge to make sure we stay away from middlemoreSuggested solutionleave us in the same electorate as we are now |
||||
N20-055 | Jenni Fernandez | Objection | Boundary | |
Jenni FernandezObjection
Manukau East
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change
Jenni Fernandez1. Panmure has no history or community of interest with the Manukau East electorate so cannot fathom why our suburbs or interests would be given any voice under that electorate.2) My address is in Mt Wellington although proposed change means my address for voting would comesunder Manukau East not Maungakiekie. That change would mean I will be separated from others in my geographic area which does not seem right. Mt Wellington and Panmure have a closely linked relationship sharing a Maunga and Mountain and it does not make sense to have the electoral boundary changed to fit in with an area so far removed from Panmure. 3. Bad democratic move. Voters in Panmure, Glen Innes and Mt Wellington ( addresses) will feel disconnected and alienated from the larger Manukau East electoral area and will probably see all future election campaigns centred on South Auckland issues debated by South Auckland-based politicians. This will be hugely disadvantageous to residents in Panmure and some in Mt Wellington addresses. This is likely to undermine and discourage participation in democracy in our areas. 4. The boundary change appears entirely arbitrary and follows no logical historic or administrative pattern. Historically, Panmure has always sat within the former Auckland City Council and Mount Wellington Borough Council adminstrative areas. From 1848, Panmure became central to the political administration of this area through such bodies as the Panmure/Mount Wellington Highway Districts, the Borough of Mount Wellington and even the short-lived Tamaki City Council. This proposed change ignores all of that history. It is not right. 5. The change would separate Panmure politically not only from its own railway station and Maunga but also a significant part of its community in the Mountain Road area, along with businesses to the west of the railway line and Jellicoe Road. 6. All surrounding electorates - Tamaki, Epsom, Maungakiekie, Mangere, Manurewa, Botany and Pakuranga - are allowed to maintain their identity and sense of cohesion under the changes, but Panmure, along with Glen Innes, Point England, and parts of Mount Wellington and Otahuhu, will be forced to lose theirs. That is unjust 7. The Tamaki Regeneration process foresees a significant population increase in Panmure, Glen Innes and Point England coming decades. This is likely to force a reversal of this proposal by the Electoral Commission in years to come. 8)With all the things that have been happening in Panmure with the Ameti project the people of Panmure are becoming more and more discouraged with being pushed around and this seems very unfair and unjust. 9)I object to the fact that there has been no advertising re this even objection process even taking place and submissions being due. It appears we have found out about it by chance and it does not seem just or right that it has been so hidden from the public. I do not feel that general public has been notified in any democratic way that this process is even up for submission. I also object to the fact that this is due 4 days before Christmas when as you will well be aware is the busiest time of the year. It is again unjust and unfair that this date has been determined for submissions to be due in Suggested solutionLeave Panmure and Mt Wellington areas out of Manukau East and Leave as is in Maungakeikei electorate.Give much more notification and advertisement that a process of this is even being considered. Do not have submissions due in anywhere within time frame near Christmas that is so unfair. The snapshot thing on page is ridiculous and hard to do |
||||
N20-056 | Patrick Downey | Objection | Boundary | |
Patrick DowneyObjection
Manukau East
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change
Patrick DowneyAs a resident of Panmure I value the association the community has with our Mt Wellington, Glen Innes and Point England neighbours. Forcing a geopolitical integration with the Manukau East electoral boundary where there has been no recent history of common interest could represent a challenge to the democratic process.Suggested solutionRetain the area from Point England to Waipuna Drive in the Maungakeikei boundary. |
||||
N20-057 | Mrs Pam Shoebridge | Objection | Boundary | |
Mrs Pam ShoebridgeObjection
Manukau East
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change
Mrs Pam ShoebridgeIt is really a bad idea to split our electorate (Panmure) into a community that we have nothing in common with. We do not want to be part of Otara and Papatoetoe which is so much more diverse than our current boundaries. IHistorically we have never been part of this south Auckland community.For some reason everyone seems to want to break up Panmure. Panmure is one of the earliest settlements in Auckland and has a great history and strong community. We are proud of our town and do not wish to broken down yet again to be lost in some big electorate in which we lose out identity. Suggested solutionI would like to see a new electorate which would encompass Glen Innes, Panmure, Mt Wellington and Ellerslie as far south as Westfield/Panama Rd-with the western boundary at the main trunk line/southern motorway/Great South Rd. This would equate in size to either Tamaki or Epsom and would follow natural boundaries. |
||||
N20-058 | Mrs Kellie Dawson | Objection | Boundary | |
Mrs Kellie DawsonObjection
Manukau East
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change
Mrs Kellie DawsonMy objection is to the removal of Panmure from the Maungakiekie electorate and moving it into a collection of other suburbs that are further south in Manukau zone. These other suburbs have no connection to Panmure geographically, and will result in the creation of an electorate that is drawn out over a large area with very little in common.Panmure has a much closer relationship with other suburbs in the Maungakiekie electorate and relies on services that are located within the Maungakiekie electorate. Splitting Panmure off from Maungakiekie will leave our community feeling isolated and removed from the area of which it has always been a part. In an administrative sense this is poor management and will mean that we have less say in what happens in the surrounding suburbs that have a real impact on our way of life. Even when you look at the map of the electorate boundaries (as shown below) it is clear that Panmure sits much more naturally with its northern neighbours than it does with those suburbs to the South of Panmure Basin and Pakuranga Bridge. Panmure has always been part of Central Auckland, and we wish for this to remain the case. One of the reasons we chose to live in Panmure over suburbs like Pakuranga is that we wanted to remain in Central Auckland, not South Auckland. There is potential for negative impacts on our property values and resale if people feel like we are no longer part of Central Auckland, particularly if this impacts our ability to access essential services (such as Auckland City Hospital) in the future. I also understand that the new boundary will place our train station in a different electorate to our community. We use the train services regularly, as do many other members of Panmure and it is important that our interests in the train are represented within our local electorate. We are strongly opposed to Panmure being removed from Central Auckland and grouped in with South Auckland as it is, has always been, and should remain part of Central Auckland and should remain in the Maungakiekie electorate. Suggested solutionThat Panmure remains as part of the Maungakiekie electorate, and remains part of central Auckland. |
||||
N20-059 | Mr Ryan Dawson | Objection | Boundary | |
Mr Ryan DawsonObjection
Manukau East
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection does not relate to a name change
Mr Ryan DawsonI am opposed to the removal of Panmure from the Maungakiekie electorate and grouping it together with a collection of suburbs further South which have little to no connection geographically or socially.Further: 1. Panmure has no history or community of interest with the Manukau East electorate. 2. Voters in Panmure and Glen Innes will feel disconnected and alienated from the larger Manukau East electoral area and will probably see all future election campaigns centred on South Auckland issues debated by South Auckland-based politicians. This is likely to undermine and discourage participation in democracy in our areas. 3. The boundary change appears entirely arbitrary and follows no logical historic or administrative pattern. Historically, Panmure has always sat within the former Auckland City Council and Mount Wellington Borough Council administrative areas. From 1848, Panmure became central to the political administration of this area through such bodies as the Panmure/Mount Wellington Highway Districts, the Borough of Mount Wellington and even the short-lived Tamaki City Council. This proposed change ignores all of that history. 4. The change would separate Panmure politically not only from its own railway station but also a significant part of its community in the Mountain Road area, along with businesses to the west of the railway line and Jellicoe Road. 5. All surrounding electorates - Tamaki, Epsom, Maungakiekie, Mangere, Manurewa, Botany and Pakuranga - are allowed to maintain their identity and sense of cohesion under the changes, but Panmure, along with Glen Innes, Point England, and parts of Mount Wellington and Otahuhu, will be forced to lose theirs. 6. The Tamaki Regeneration process foresees a significant population increase in Panmure, Glen Innes and Point England coming decades. This is likely to force a reversal of this proposal by the Electoral Commission in years to come. Suggested solutionPanmure should remain part of the Maungakiekie electorate. |
||||
N20-060 | Te Pou Whakawhirinaki o o'Tara - Citizens Advice Bureau Otara | Objection | Boundary, name | |
Te Pou Whakawhirinaki o o'Tara - Citizens Advice Bureau OtaraObjection
Manukau East
This objection relates to a boundary change
This objection relates to a name change
Te Pou Whakawhirinaki o o'Tara - Citizens Advice Bureau OtaraWhen our organisation was first established in March 1971, Otara was a much broader community with a much wider population and we met the needs of the people who require our help, both in our immediate community and outside of the area if they were referred to us for a specific service or additional support. If you view the maps of Otara from when we were first established in 1971, compare them to the current boundary maps and take into consideration, additional proposed changes (such as Flatbush), it is clear that the area once named "Otara" is constantly shrinking. Although we, Otara, have experienced changes in boundaries (geographical & other), population and the resulting changes, the community we serve remains constant, irrespective of what the specific area is now named.The clients and community we have served since we first opened to the public has not changed, they remain constant and are still domiciled in the areas they were when we first opened to the public. Clients that come to share their issues with you, irrespective of what those issues may be, develop a trust and confidence in the service that has helped them and continues to do so. This is not to take away from other organisations that provide assistance to the community, but when it comes to an established relationship of trust, clients will go where they feel comfortable and confident. The clients and community that come to us for our help, both with core services and specialist advocacy, reman the same as 1971 - with a much broader ethnic base and in greater numbers. Unfortunately for our people, the major proportion of our clients and community are of high deprivation and need a much greater level of support and sustained assistance. We are very concerned, about the constant changes to our very proud community; how they impact on Otara collectively in respect of a variety of issues, some of which are - voting power & influence - funding consideration for the services we provide Suggested solution- Voting power and influenceWhen matters of importance to local communities such as Otara are raised, the people must be supported and enabled to have influence and impact via the democratic process of voting. When communities are continously split, the people feel less valued and the confidence in them being able to have a say on what happens around them, is lowered. Our people and the community needs to feel constantly empowered so that they can confident that their input is considered when decisions are made about the area they consider their home. - Currently organisations such as Citizens Advice Bureaux are funded we understand, based on population, with a small consideration for deprivation. How that basis of funding is arrived at is still unclear as we have received assurances of full explanation but have not to date, received same. The population basis changes when boundaries shift and new areas are created. This again, changes the basis for funding. In this past round of funding we have been left feeling undervalued as our level of funding was allocated as required or expected and was quite a shock to see what we were allocated in comparison to other areas - all apparently based on "population" in a constantly changing environment. The area we continue to serve has increased in population, not decreased. |