Candidates Auckland Central | Tuariki Delamere Banks Peninsula | Ben Atkinson Bay of Plenty | Chris Jenkins Coromandel | Rob Hunter Dunedin | Ben Peters Epsom | Adriana Christie Hamilton East | Naomi Pocock Hamilton West | Hayden Cargo Hutt South | Ben Wylie-van Eerd Mount Albert | Cameron Lord Nelson | Mathew Pottinger New Plymouth | Dan Thurston-Crow North Shore | Shai Navot Northland | Helen Jeremiah Ōhāriu | Jessica Hammond Rongotai | Geoff Simmons Southland | Joel Rowlands Tauranga | Andrew Caie Te Atatū | Brendon Monk Wellington Central | Abe Gray Whangārei | Ciara Swords
- Comms & Events
I have suggested this before in a tongue in cheek manner but we should have some serious discussion on this subject Auckland has about one third of the total population of this country I believe that is too large a percentage and that having that large a percentage will badly distort the development of the rest of the country that way that London has damaged the UK This leads to What is the optimum size for a city? Large enough that it can afford all of the benefits of city life, the concentration of market and people that drives industry Not so large that the costs and inconvenience of moving inside it become too large a negative The way I see it the advantages of scale will follow a curve of diminishing improvement – increasing size may continue to offer advantages but they will become less as the city grows The disadvantages of scale will follow a different type of curve – getting steadily greater as the city grows The disadvantages of size will be made worse if the city is in an area with limited growth capacity due to the local topography– like Dunedin as opposed to Chrischurch Having decided on an optimum size we should use a taxation/subsidy regime to reduce the growth pressure on cities (Auckland) above that size and to transfer that growth to cities that are below the optimum size
Do you like this suggestion?