Jump to content

Marinas going under housing?


Recommended Posts

I may be in the minority but I'm ok with housing development around the marinas, and improved public transport services to those areas.

 

What I'm not ok with is:

  1. Reduction of utility as a marina,
  2. Hiking of berthage fees (currently at about 800% more than what you'd pay in a similar European marina)
  3. Alienation of the public estate for private gain

Any development should retain public ownership of the marina and marina waters, and ensure adequate parking and public access for marina users. If there's so much money to be made by developing the area, then the development should be undertaken by the council and the public reap the full benefits of that. Selling off the land cheap to find a few dollars is eating the goose that lays the golden egg.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I may be in the minority but I'm ok with housing development around the marinas, and improved public transport services to those areas.

 

What I'm not ok with is:

  1. Reduction of utility as a marina,
  2. Hiking of berthage fees (currently at about 800% more than what you'd pay in a similar European marina)
  3. Alienation of the public estate for private gain

Any development should retain public ownership of the marina and marina waters, and ensure adequate parking and public access for marina users. If there's so much money to be made by developing the area, then the development should be undertaken by the council and the public reap the full benefits of that. Selling off the land cheap to find a few dollars is eating the goose that lays the golden egg.

 

Im fine with it really, too, I just dont want one guying buying up all the marinas and having a monopoly.  I for the life of me do not understand how he is allowed to own three marinas.  It is simply a effing rort that one guy can have such a monopoly.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Merger investigations (s 47)

The Commerce Act prohibits a business from acquiring a firm’s assets or shares if that merger is likely to substantially lessen competition in a market.

 

http://www.comcom.govt.nz/business-competition/mergers-and-acquisitions/merger-investigations-s-47/

 

--------------------

 

I'd say, if you own 50% of the marinas in Auckland, you are in breach of this act.

 

LOCK HIM UP!

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Slightly off topic, rumors going around that the old fertilizer works on Port Road that got bulldozed will be converted into a new marina in Whangarei? Its almost next door Charlie's yard at Docklands 5.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The marina users associations have got together this week to form a Super associtaion...

  Auckland Council's sales of public land spark a marina protest over the 'City of Sales'


 

Hobsonville and PineHarbour already sold out to new development...

  Fighting to save Westhaven Marina from private developers

Link to post
Share on other sites

We should all make representations to the Commerce Commission.  At the moment I suspect that he is okay. I do wonder about the marina operator's meetings that we hear about.  I work in an industry where we have an industry association and I am on its Board.  We have an independent Chair and prior to each meeting reaffirm our understanding of and compliance with the Commerce Act.  If necessary we have a partner from a law firm sit in.  It is amazing how many people I come across who have no understanding of their legal obligations with respect to competition laws in NZ. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve been through this kind of thing with the commerce commission in another industry and took advice from a friend that was very high up there.

 

The problem you face is defining the market. You may say marinas in Auckland but the CC would probably not make it as narrow as that. The CC would probably define the market as places to keep boats in NZ and lump in moorings, dry stacks, at home on your front lawn......

 

One dairy on your street buying the other dairy on your street is anticompetitive but not going to raise an eyebrow at CC when there’s 2 gas stations and a new world 5 miles down the road

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are exactly right it is about market definition.  The argument I  would make is that it is not just one market, "mooring boats", but multiple markets that are subject to quite restrictive geographical and commercial barriers.  For example, we have trailer boats, boats that can fit on a drystack, boats that cant fit on a drystack etc.  Then we have swing moorings, pole moorings and marinas.  Added to this is that a marina in Tauranga is not a substitute for a marina in Auckland if you are Auckland based.  So the geographic area of the market could be defined as say travel in a car within 30 mins of a a marina in off-peak traffic.

 

Added to this we have how easy (or not) it is for someone to setup in competition.  I think it would be quite easy to demonstrate that is just slightly easier than impossible.  Added to that I would include that substitutes like swing moorings are controlled by the council who also own marinas.  This means that one party basically can restrict the supply of a substitute.

 

So I would argue that the market is the Auckland Council area, that there are sub-markets such as trailers, drystacks, swing and pole moorings and marinas, that there is limited ability to substitute and consequently the key market we are talking about is Auckland marinas.  I am not sure how many berths he has scooped up so far but I think you can start to paint a picture that a dominant position is being built.

 

Ultimately the objective may not be to restrict competition, but all that has to happen is that there is an effect (adverse) on competition.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are exactly right it is about market definition.  The argument I  would make is that it is not just one market, "mooring boats", but multiple markets that are subject to quite restrictive geographical and commercial barriers.  For example, we have trailer boats, boats that can fit on a drystack, boats that cant fit on a drystack etc.  Then we have swing moorings, pole moorings and marinas.  Added to this is that a marina in Tauranga is not a substitute for a marina in Auckland if you are Auckland based.  So the geographic area of the market could be defined as say travel in a car within 30 mins of a a marina in off-peak traffic.

 

Added to this we have how easy (or not) it is for someone to setup in competition.  I think it would be quite easy to demonstrate that is just slightly easier than impossible.  Added to that I would include that substitutes like swing moorings are controlled by the council who also own marinas.  This means that one party basically can restrict the supply of a substitute.

 

So I would argue that the market is the Auckland Council area, that there are sub-markets such as trailers, drystacks, swing and pole moorings and marinas, that there is limited ability to substitute and consequently the key market we are talking about is Auckland marinas.  I am not sure how many berths he has scooped up so far but I think you can start to paint a picture that a dominant position is being built.

 

Ultimately the objective may not be to restrict competition, but all that has to happen is that there is an effect (adverse) on competition.

 

Brilliant.

 

Now, the newly formed Marina Association needs to take this and run with it.  This is the best chance.  Hammer this home, make this Simon Herbert guy's life a living hell with the thought of endless years of litigation with him having to explain how what he is doing is not anti-competitive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd suggest editorials like this are going to do little to help keep boating within reach of the average Joe or Joanne:

 

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12081779

 

Who paid for that?

I read an interesting piece on Radio NZ about the use of "Editorials" as essentially political tools. The radioNZ piece indicated that editorials used to be written by academics and people with actual competence in the area. Over a few months the NZ Herald published over 100 Editorials, just four of which were written by academics - a large number of the others were written by people with skin in the game. 

https://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/mediawatch/audio/2018651325/the-battle-for-hearts-and-minds-on-our-op-ed-pages

 

 

Another way to see it is "Native Advertising"  basically advertising made to look like news. In this case, these are private opinions usually seeking to change public opinion for the benefit of a few people (to make them rich...)

 

The argument in that piece, that prime waterfront land has better uses than for boats, could be equally applied to prime Auckland land not being used for Rugby, or sports, or parks, motorways, or even for schools....

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's nothing sinister about op-eds written by non-academics, as long as the author's identity and affiliation are disclosed. The RNZ piece makes no suggestion that people are paying for the privilege of writing them, in fact the exact opposite.

 

If you disagree with the Herald's editorial, go ahead and write a cogent rebuttal and send it to the them. But my advise for what it's worth... you'll need more than "berth rentals are gonna rise and we don't like it."

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the PR strategy of the developer appears to  be to promote the benefits for the everyman and inoculate against opposition by positioning boaties as wealthy freeloaders. 

 

He's begun to smear boat owners and I'd suspect we'll see more things emerging that highlight how boaties have been getting subsidised for years etc. (facts don't matter only the emotional reaction of the public remember , just like Trump, Trudeau, John Key, Jacinda etc) - I've been around politics enough to see the game and it's already well past kick off.

 

So boat owners need to combat this by starting a counter narrative. Just complaining about the developer won't be enough. Things like promoting the hard working tradie who takes his family boating on a budget soon to be denied, sailing for the disabled, disadvantaged, promotion of PCC and RYC and the accessibility they provide to sailing all needs to happen too to counteract the idea that Westhaven is full of gin palaces owned by greedy bankers and the like.

 

Not that this directly affects me, I pay $1100 a year for my berth in Whangarei, but it could be the start of a worrying trend.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd suggest editorials like this are going to do little to help keep boating within reach of the average Joe or Joanne:

 

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12081779

 

Two things strike me immediately:  Whoever wrote that has read this thread, and the other one on crew.org.

 

Second thing: Boating is expensive and not within reach of all citizens

Oh no, here we go again. Thinking that anyone who owns a boat must be a "rich prick". No doubt there are some rich pricks that own boats, just like there are some rich golfers.  However, I literally sacrifice everything financially just so I can have a boat.  I don't eat out, I don't buy a house or houses, I drive an affordable 10 year old car, and I earn only a little above the average wage.  But I don't write nameless editorials arguing against, say, our "rich prick golfers" that golf courses - of which there many - have much better uses than to be for the exclusive set of country club type hacks that like to tee off two or three times a week.

 

Interestingly that article / lobby piece, appeared to indicate the monopoly that Simon Herbert now has (illegally in my opinion) is now at the forefront of peoples minds. Good! Its now out there, and however small, the fight has begun.....thousand miles, single step, Lao Tzu and all that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thought....car parking as part of the berth lease.  Is it a non formal adjunct that lease holders of marina berths get a carpark, or is it actually, legally, written into the lease agreement that the marina provides the leaseholder with a free carpark for the duration of the lease?  If its written in legally, then the marina I would have thought, must legally provide a free car park to the berth lease owner - which therefore could and should put the kaibosh on any devolopment for the carpark areas for anything other than parking your car. 

Would that / should that not put a snake in the picnic hamper of Mr Herbert?

 

Just a thought.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...