‘Corridor of crime’ to be sold

Posted on 05-07-2012 09:26 | By Phailed

Since you favour facts, how about some answers? How many actual crimes took place on properties neighbouring this public walkway? Of these, how many are proven to have entered via the walkway as opposed to the road? Barrett27 says there was no council survey asking other residents how they felt, so why not? What compensation will you pay to ratepayers who bought properties knowing there was a walkway and wanting to use it, now that you’ve taken it away? If Cr Guy fails to answer, please Sunlive follow those questions up in a new story?

Posted on 04-07-2012 07:38 | By Barrett27

I owned and lived next to the accessway, with my family, for five years, until August 2011. It was not a ’crime corridor’. In fact, it was used daily by young and old taking exercise, and I enjoyed seeing many residents pass my kitchen window. Any problems could be counted on one hand. What hasn’t been made clear is that the accessway has been closed as a result of campaigning by residents in the streets at the top of the accessway. They took it to council - and lost - twice, before eventually the accessway was closed. During that time I tried hard to keep it open, speaking to councillors and those who work for the council. Time and again I was assured it would remain open. The main reasons were that the council did not like to take access away from residents, and because there simply wasn’t the evidence to back up its reputation as a dangerous place to walk. Essentially, the accessway was closed because the council rolled over. There was no council feedback asking residents how they felt; my faily came home from a weekend away to find a fence built across the accessway outside our bedroom window! The closure shows clearly that the council are not committed to a green city. They aquiesced to the demands of the few, once they saw it would be paid for by someone else. .Shame on all those who told me it would remain open.

Posted on 03-07-2012 09:16 | By Phailed

Sorry, but your argument doesn’t wash with me. How many times do we see the innocent public’s rights curtailed by the actions of criminals. Instead of attacking the criminals you’ve taken the soft option. It’s like the walkway caused the crime. Now wait for a group of neighbours to decide that the fantastic walkway along Otumoetai and Matua foreshore is also a route for criminals into their houses. Based on fact, not emotion, you’d have to close it and sell it to the neighbours.

Posted on 03-07-2012 08:44 | By SpeakUp

This item might be sensible. However, the issue of privatization of parks and reserves IS a matter that evokes emotion and reaction of ratepayers. We will not allow that public property, gifted and bought and in public hands since decades will be subject of today’s spendthrift. You will not sell the family silver. –Citizens Monitoring Council-

Posted on 03-07-2012 05:58 | By Hector

Murray for once I may agree with you.

Posted on 02-07-2012 20:01 | By murray.guy

The walkway was specifically put in place to provide more direct access to a proposed education facility. It was designed with little thought, if any, to safety, and it’s design and purpose is far removed from the many access-ways Council encourages and maintains today. The education land is no longer going to be used as a student facility, the purpose has gone. After five years of exploring all options and trials, at the cost of the adjoining residents, the access is to be closed. Outcome, reduced costs to ratepayers and deeper sleeps for residents with one less escape route for the ’crook’. No residents are being disadvantaged as there are many options available for recreational walkers. Elected Members, by majority, have made a decision based on facts, not emotion - a long stretch suggesting our parks and reserves are all up for privatization!

Posted on 02-07-2012 18:53 | By SpeakUp

I agree with ’Phailed’s’ comment. In addition I think the usual suspects of bureaucratic rorting are at it again: pay your bribes to survey, preparation of plans and documents, LINZ fees and council costs – plus pay any repairs to the berms at either end of the walkway (betcha it’s to City Strategic Partners chums) and tattaaa...public property is converted without due process into private.

Posted on 02-07-2012 17:36 | By panda

Residents are blaming people using the walking for vandalism and graffiti? Now hold on a minute! I have used that walkway many times and have never done anything like this, so don’t go accusing me! And if they didn’t want to live next to a walkway, why buy a house right next to one? Did they not realise it was there?

Posted on 02-07-2012 15:45 | By Hector

Terry, take an I.Q test please, it is the Council that tries to manage the parks, through ratepayer funds, so why would a land owner/ratepayer, put up with crime from Council managed land. To hell with a precedent being set, at least the ratepayers may win, which is always a good thing.

Posted on 02-07-2012 15:22 | By Phailed

This is a retrograde step, just as Cr Molloy has rightly stated. The ordinary people of this city have to fight to retain land in public ownership. Anybody living next to a reserve, park or walkway can now simply claim crime and demand the council close it, thereby excluding the public. If crime is a real problem attack the criminals not the innocent public. Watch out, our harbour and beach walks could be next in line for privatisation.