Yesterday, councillors voted by 8-7 to reverse the decision they made on proposed parking changes last month.
In August, Mayor Jules Radich’s casting vote carried the day because Cr Jim O’Malley did not participate in the vote following legal advice about his earlier outburst about businesses raising concerns about consultation and loss of car parks.
However, yesterday Cr O’Malley participated in the vote on a notice of motion brought by Cr Christine Garey to revoke August’s vote. Whether his involvement could lead to any sort of a legal challenge is unclear to us.
The saga of the proposed street redevelopment, or what has become known as the Albany St cycleway (to the chagrin of those who point out the project involves more than the cycleway) has gone on for more than a decade, according to some submitters.
The project is described as aiming to provide a safe walking and cycling connection between the harbour shared path and the city’s tertiary education area and central business district, as well as providing for better bus access.
But there has been ongoing contention about whether the cycleway is needed, concerns about loss of parking and criticism of the consultation process.
Initial consultation on the project started in 2021 as part of the council’s 10-year plan, with further consultation taking place in 2022 and 2023.
Concepts were developed following discussions with key stakeholders, including the University of Otago, Otago Polytechnic, Tūhura Otago Museum, student representatives, the disability community and user groups.
Concerns were raised by some property owners and businesses about the project consultation process, and the council considered it prudent to re-consult.
Another round of consultation over proposed parking changes ensued: some parks were reinstated and more were promised, but that did not allay critics.
The question of whether this shemozzle could have been avoided is something sceptical voters, regardless of their views, might well be asking.
Have the arguments about this project got out of control this year because of the forthcoming election, or would this flip-flopping and unnecessary unpleasantness leading up to it, have happened anyway? It is hard to know.
Dunedin is not alone in finding any proposal involving loss of car parking or the introduction of cycleways fires up the factions.
The council here is no stranger to such controversies. We only need to look back to the decision-making around the George St redevelopment to find an example of that.
But we wonder whether there was a way for councillors on either side of this argument to find more common ground rather than take a position and stick to it.
Yesterday much was made of the university’s economic value to the city and its support for the project, as well as advocates for greater disabled accessibility, this should not have surprised anyone.
Another issue which should not have been a surprise either, because staff had raised it at the previous meeting, was that of losing the New Zealand Transport Agency Waka Kotahi co-funding for the project.
Given the paucity of funding coming to local government from central government in the current climate, it was always hard to understand why that was not given more weight previously.
It is also not clear how much regard was taken of attempts by staff to find ways to accommodate more parks.
Time will tell whether anything has been learned from this, including about the best way to consult and communicate about that consultation.
Anyone who has been watching the machinations of this debacle will be shuddering at the possibility, however big or small, of it being revisited after the election.
