Thursday 25 February 2021
Local Board Office
Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board
OPEN MINUTE ITEM ATTACHMENTS
11 Declaration by Local Board Member
8.1 Deputation - Mangere East Community Centre
8.2 Deputation - Otahuhu Historical Society
9.1 Public Forum - South Auckland Assist Basketball
25 February 2021
Deputation - Otahuhu Historical Society
25 February2021 Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board Item 8.2 - Deputation Otahuhu Historical Society Submission
GOOD EVENING BOARD MEMBERS
MY NAME IS ROBERT FINDLAY.
The proposed second speaker
Bella Tamutu the Town Hall Manager
Has been admitted to Middle more hospital
Tony Carson President of Otahuhu Historic Society was to her replacement
He has not turned up on time so Pastor Eroni Rabo of the South Auckland Fijian Assembly of God will be second speaker.
My family has lived in Otahuhu for 32 years.
I was Manukau City Council Park Operations and Recreation Manager for 23 years.
During that time I attended Mangere and other Manukau community board meetings.
So, I know many previous Mangere Community board members who served their time and have gone before us.
I appreciate and acknowledge the good work that you put into the job on behalf of your communities.
The extent and wide-ranging responsibilities you have are not fully understood by the public at large.
Nor how important it is to engage with their local board.
I understand how difficult it is for many to make submissions using modern technology. “On line”
I wish to speak to the Service Property Optimisation Resolution number 159, passed Sept 2019, which is about the possible divestment of either or the community facilities at 12-16 High Street Otahuhu.
1. TO BE CLEAR we oppose the policy of Auckland Council to deprive Otahuhu residents of one of their community facilities. Under the guise of Service Property Optimisation.
It is unbelievable that another local board has agreed sell some local parks -recreation reserves-we prided ourselves in Manukau City on the ratio of people to open space.-fortunately that decision will depend upon the Department of conservation who have the final say.
There is a parallel here if this board agrees to the divestment of our inside community spaces.
Except this board YOU have the final say.
One cannot help get the feeling the super city does not have the local community at heart, just look at the huge sums being spent in the CBD and elsewhere to make it a place for tourists we say locals should come first.
We being the petitioners c300 and users of the facilities, leasees and all others unaware of the proposal.
We believe once sold our space will never be replaced.
With population growth it will be in even more demand
Otahuhu is growing not shrinking.
A lack of any specifics regarding the proposal helps inform this stance.
What will the land developer do for us?
How well will a smaller space repurposed single facility meet the present and future demand
INSTEAD, Auckland Council should do their job properly by carrying out a renewal program which includes repurposing the Council chamber building to accommodate present and future use in fit for purpose facilities.
The lack of maintenance of the old borough chambers and land since the library was removed reflects very poorly on Auckland Council the Super city
If you have doubts about this just look at the state of the carpark.
Two nights ago after a meeting of the Historic Society Mrs Wilma Madgewick QSM expressed fear of walking across the carpark for fear of tripping over.
The question needs to be asked, where is the renewal budget?
Would be tolerated in other wards of the Super City. No but this is only Otahuhu…
2. It is important to note that these proposals precede COVID-19 19 and we would argue this should not be an excuse to once again disadvantage Otahuhu.
When has any other community had to sell a community facility to retain one?
3. LACK OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL AMONGST THE COMMUNITY.:
Despite this resolution being passed in Sept 2019 most people we have approached were not aware of it.
This raises questions about what proportion of the population were “consulted” during the community needs assessment? Does this proposal reflect the wishes of the Otahuhu community?
4. We believe that it would be impossible to accommodate the existing user groups community needs for a hall and community centre as well accommodate future growth in population in a repurposed chambers building alone.
5. SO We ask you the Mangere Otahuhu local board recognise the wishes of the petitioners, present and future lease holders and future users….
Recognise the lack of knowledge of this proposal among the Otahuhu community at large….
AND REVERSE your endorsement of the Auckland Council Proposal to sell either or of the Otahuhu Community facilities at 12-16 High Street.
Instead tell Auckland Council to make the Old chambers fit for purpose.
Pastor Eroni Rabo SAAOG
On behalf of
The petitioners, the leasees including those listed below and all those other users who are unaware of the proposal.
Bella was going to talk about the arts and cultural needs assessment the lack of time to interview groups input only from a few people did’nt reflect the community, and was a closed door assessment no actual community open feedback platform made available.
Tony was going to speak abt. the insufficient space for valuable OHS museum material that has to be stored offsite.
Auckland Tongan Group
Blind and Low Vision formerly Blind foundation
LIA Social Services Trust
Otahuhu Maori Wardens
Penrose Assembly of God
South Auckland Individual Employment Placement Support
South Auckland Seniors
South Auckland Fijian Assembly of God