Dear readers: the more I think about these ideas on this site and your feedback over the last few months, the more I believe I need to run for mayor in order to deliver them.
   What’s quite sad as I examine the candidates for the mayoral elections on October 9, 2010 is that these issues, which I consider no-brainers, aren’t apparent on their agenda.
   Don’t take this the wrong way. I have met many of these councillors and they are fine men and women. Some, I know first-hand, are honest, decent people. And yes, they listen, as I am prepared to listen.
   But there’s listening, and then there’s leading.
   If the issues that you and I have discussed on this site mattered to them, they would have come up long ago during their terms.
   As for some of the rumoured candidates who are seeking the mayoralty for the first time, let me say to at least one of you that Wellington is not prepared to be divided by the sort of time-wasting party politics that are in the national sphere.
   What we need is a fresh vision from someone who has consistently been ahead of the curve. Wellington is not a city for reactionaries, but visionaries. In fact, many of us who choose to live here have a vision of a multicultural, modern, vibrant city—not one muddied by same-again, reverse-looking, twentieth-century politics.
   I ask those who share the vision of a modern Wellington to put their hands up, either as potential councillors, or as willing voters, on October 9, 2010.
   We have a lot of work to do to make these ideas realities for Wellington. Please let me know your thoughts, whether here, on Twitter, or on my Facebook page. I love this city, and I want to unite us. And I want to build the Wellington you want.

2010 · 2010s · culture · election · Facebook · future · Jack Yan · local body elections · mayoralty · multicultural · Politics · Twitter · vision · Wellington · Wellington City Council · Whanganui-a-Tara · wifi

It has totally surprised me, when chatting to former mayor James Belich, that Wellington is not sister cities with San Francisco. In fact, we lost this connection in the 1980s. The benefits are obvious: not only are the two cities similar in terms of culture, politics and topography (let’s count the fault lines going through the city!), but the technological and special effects’ sectors are strong in both San Francisco and Wellington.
   This means we can each benefit from the other: Wellingtonians from access to the market, San Franciscans from access to the independent, innovative thinking than goes on down here. I accept there is a population difference, but I cannot see down sides with connecting the two cities with more exchanges, and letting companies reap the rewards. San Franciscans and Wellingtonians think alike in many ways, too, which says to me that there is room for alliances, JVs and remote working. We grow the sectors in both cities, and we cement Wellington’s reputation as the leading creative city in the nation.
   To this end, late last month I wrote to Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco to see if he would put this matter before his council. Some of you who have followed my writings and work over the years know that I have known the Mayoress, Jennifer Siebel Newsom, for some time, and I think it is worth using our connection to reach her husband. It is worth re-establishing this connection with a city that most Kiwis regard as the “most Wellington” in North America; equally, more than a few Americans regard Wellington as “the San Francisco of the south”. At the very, very least, we should establish a dialogue with the City.
   I am also surprised this very logical step has not been taken over the years by our Council. I realize there have been other priorities in line with the thinking of an older generation, and there have been other sister-city relationships that Wellington has, rightly, pursued. However, San Francisco is such a no-brainer, and the potential connections and benefits so obvious, that it should be done.

alliances · Aotearoa · Business · business exchanges · California · Gavin Newsom · high-tech · Jack Yan · Jennifer Siebel · joint ventures · New Zealand · Politics · San Francisco · sister cities · special effects · tech sector · technology · USA · Wellington · Wellington City Council · Whanganui-a-Tara

I have lived in Wellington for more of my years than any other place. I first arrived in 1976, and have been proud to call it my home. I did virtually all my schooling here, from primary to uni.
   When I started my business in 1987, I have watched companies here go through good and bad times. But in business you can only do so much. More recently, I became interested in seeing what we could do to make and sustain positive change for our city.
   Wellington is already a great city. We have a great cultural core, and a population that cares as much about the meaning in their lives as the quality. But there are a few problems, such as our population growth lagging behind Auckland and Christchurch. And what can we do to encourage and grow business here, without losing our essence?
   Can we grow while being sustainable? What safety issues are there for families living here, and can we make it more accommodating for them? How about our roading and traffic? What about our sporting and recreational venues?
   I set up this blog to find ways we can all explore that. I firmly believe if others around us benefit, we each will, too. I want to hear from you, either through my personal site’s feedback form, or here in the comments, on topics we need to address. We’ve kicked off with a few, and we’ll announce this site with a bit more hoop-la toward the end of 2009.

Aotearoa · arts · Business · commerce · culture · ethics · Family · growth · immigration · Jack Yan · New Zealand · opinion · Politics · prosperity · safety · Security · sports · Wellington · Whanganui-a-Tara

[Cross-posted] The first I ever heard of the Auckland “super-city” proposal was in The New Zealand Herald, after a business trip. It was the main headline of the day. As I boarded the plane, I grabbed the newspaper.
   The headline read something along the lines of, ‘We’re going to be a super-city’.
   When I read the actual article, there was no such move mentioned. In fact, a commission had reported its findings, and the article did not conclude whether Auckland would or would not become a “super-city”, i.e. one where many of its individual councils would be amalgamated into one.
   I wanted to blog this at the time but didn’t think it that vital. After all, it wasn’t as though I was running for mayor of Auckland. As a proud Wellingtonian, the item wasn’t top of my list.
   As legislation has passed making way for the “super-city”, and with Māori groups deeply concerned about representation (given the Treaty of Waitangi’s provisions I can fully see why), it does seem there are a few things that need to be ironed out.
   I remain sceptical. Some feel the amalgamation would make the city less accountable to ratepayers. Some feel that it’s an excuse to sell of Auckland’s assets to foreigners, continuing policies that have not enhanced New Zealand’s industry or society.
   Nearly a year since the Herald article, I am only slightly better informed, but what concerned me was that first piece I read.
   It is nearly never good news if a foreign-owned newspaper reports something as a fait accompli in its headline when the article below it offers nothing to support those words.
   Which made me wonder: what agenda does an Irish–Australian newspaper have in this whole thing?
   If you begin looking at it from that point of view, it gives a little bit more, albeit not much, suspicion to those people who have their doubts about the technocrats.
   Apart from the hikoi and the dull, everyday minutiæ of passing legislation (the latter being something few of us would care about), the negatives have not really been reflected in the media. Māori were painted as undemocratic by the mainstream media, somehow offending PM John Key’s idea of “one person, one vote”, when the real fact is that the Treaty of Waitangi makes certain guarantees over joint sovereignty.
   That issue, I know, opens up another can of worms, which was not the point of this post. But frankly, I don’t think the Māori view, one that concerns all of us, has been fairly represented in the reports I have encountered.
   So we know from the media alone that foreign interests want this “super-city” to go ahead. We know that some local interests do not. And we know the rest of us have a big question mark over what the heck the PM and the ACT Party’s Rodney Hide are on about, because we don’t live in Auckland.
   Now we have the Hon Peter Dunne MP, one of Parliament’s more intelligent members, suggesting Wellington should consider doing something similar.
   I might agree if the motives are to create a city that would be a rival to Auckland and attract investment and jobs.
   Mr Dunne’s stated belief is that having amalgamated councils which had been competing, rather than cooperating, would make sense. In that sense, I agree with him.
   As long as Wellington is not put on the block and the resulting council provides the same, if not better, representation for its citizens.
   Nevertheless, Auckland still gives me some cause for concern. Granted, I am grasping at the tiniest straw here in creating my suspicion. But that straw was in a very large Miller typeface as the Herald’s lead story that day, and on this occasion, I do not think it was sloppy editing that saw such a gulf between headline and copy. Not for the biggest story of the day. There was something more to it. And we should be vigilant, certainly more than I have been, about our biggest city’s affairs.

accountability · Auckland · council · Jack Yan · mainstream media · media · MSM · New Zealand · Peter Dunne · Politics · ratepayers · super-city · Wellington · Whanganui-a-Tara