Background
Developed and launched in 2023, the www.CityWatchNZ.org website focuses on issues with local government in New Zealand, especially those unpopular and concerning changes occurring in urban and suburban areas.
CityWatch NZ’s main purpose is to raise awareness and provide useful information for addressing the issues impacting New Zealand’s cities.
In January 2024, Hamilton City Councillor Anna Casey-Cox made a series of accusations about the CityWatch NZ website and its content. Some of these accusations were made on social media, though these were generally non-specific and not supported by evidence.
On the 30th of January 2024, a long email was sent from the Anna.Casey-Cox@council.hcc.govt.nz email address to a concerned Hamilton resident. That email featured some specific accusations against the CityWatch NZ website, and was forwarded to editors at CityWatch NZ.
This response from the CityWatch NZ Editorial Team will focus on the four detailed accusations directed specifically at the CityWatch NZ website in that 30th of January 2024 email.
Accusation 1
“There are a number of instances of misinformation on the City Watch website.
An example is the discussion on traffic calming. The authors list a number of claims about potential negative impacts of traffic calming. They cite two reports (a WRI Safer Cities report and a Western States Consortium report on traffic modelling) to back up these claims. I have read both reports. I trust that you have as well. Both reports are overwhelmingly supportive of traffic calming measures in Cities.
There is no mention, that I can see, of many of the negative impact claims in either report. More importantly, to imply that the reports are anything but supportive of traffic calming measures is intentionally misleading and an example of spreading misinformation. Again, these are reports that your own website has promoted, and both are fully supportive of traffic calming measures of the type that are being implemented in Kirikiriroa. I encourage you to read both reports.”
Sent from the Anna.Casey-Cox@council.hcc.govt.nz email address, 30 January 2024.
Firstly, we reject the claim that the CityWatch NZ website contains “…a number of instances of misinformation”. If anything CityWatch NZ, provides high-quality “malinformation” for the benefit of people in New Zealand. Such truthful information is apparently inconvenient for certain agendas which some in Hamilton City Council enthusiastically support. Here is a definition of “malinformation”…
“Unlike “disinformation,” which is intentionally misleading, or “misinformation,” which is erroneous, “malinformation” is true but inconvenient…
… Disinformation and misinformation have always been contested categories, defined by the fallible and frequently subjective judgments of public officials and other government-endorsed experts. But malinformation is even more clearly in the eye of the beholder since it is defined not by its alleged inaccuracy but by its perceived threat to public health, democracy or national security.
That often amounts to nothing more than questioning the wisdom, honesty or authority of those experts.”
Jacob Sullum, Malinformation: Censors’ excuse to suppress ‘inconvenient truths’, New York Post, 24 March 2023
We have cited those two reports because they both acknowledge that some “traffic calming” measures have known negative impacts. We have now posted a follow-up article on CityWatch NZ, titled What are the disadvantages and negative impacts of “traffic calming”?. This is a larger article that was largely written over December 2023 and January 2024. We delayed publication of that article while we added in further details emerging from Auckland about the cost of “raised safety platforms” and how such platforms are starting to be removed due to negative impacts on the local community. This follow-up article contains many direct quotes and specific page numbers where references to negative impacts and disadvantages can be found in various reports. We strongly recommend that Hamilton City Council becomes familiar with that information and also becomes more transparent with the public regarding negative impacts.
Yes, the World Resource Institutes “Cities Safer by Design” report is extremely supportive of installing “traffic calming” measures. It is so supportive, its section comparing different “traffic calming” options only contain the following sub-headings “Design Principles”, “Benefits”, “Application”, and “Evidence”. The lack of any sub-heading labelled “Disadvantages”, “Negative Impacts”, or “Drawbacks”, indicates that it is a biased, promotional document which is systematically downplaying, ignoring, or hiding negative impacts, and trade-offs. On a few pages, such as page 33, a negative impact is mentioned, though only in the context of one “traffic calming” measure being better than another “traffic calming” measure. The example would be them using the sentence “Avoids excessive discomfort or damage to emergency vehicles and buses by making separations in the hump.” to explain that “speed cushions” are often a better option than “speed humps”.
The University of Utah report is more balanced, acknowledging a wide range of negative impacts and sometimes urging caution against certain ways of implementing “traffic calming” measures. Pages 34 and 35 contain a section specifically on negative impacts and page 58 contains a summary table on “Traffic Calming Measures” which include a whole column for “Disadvantages”.
In general, the University of Utah report is supportive of installing “traffic calming” with claims such as…
“These minor impacts are confined to the immediate vicinity of the devices. However, they are far outweighed by the benefits in terms of accident savings as a consequence of the speed reductions.” (Page 36)
and…
“Some studies also explored negative impacts of traffic calming, but in general they are outweighed by positive implications.” (Page 43)
However, the “Some studies…” part is concerning as negative impacts are rarely studied and often downplayed or completely ignored in official documents. This tendency in official documents, means we must be very cautious towards the claims of “…overwhelmingly positive” or “…far outweighed by the benefits”. If we have not seen a fair, balanced, and thorough assessment of the disadvantages or negative impacts, how do we know the benefits actually outweigh the negative effects? Complete denial that negative impacts even exist from officials does not inspire trust that a fair and objective assessment has taken place in a transparent manner.
Accusation 2
“A second example of misinformation on the City Watch website is the claim that climate change is a “concept”. A changing climate is neither a concept nor a theory. It is firmly established as fact by the global scientific community. We know it is happening, we know why it is happening, and we know how to mitigate it. The only debate these days is not whether, or how, it is happening, but rather what we should (or shouldn’t) do about it. To call climate change a “concept” is erroneous and, presumably, purposely misleading. There is a wealth of information available from the scientific community to educate yourself on the subject. I encourage you to do so and to focus your attention on peer reviewed publications from climate scientists and reputable institutions of research and higher learning.”
Sent from the Anna.Casey-Cox@council.hcc.govt.nz email address, 30 January 2024.
We at CityWatch NZ consider the term “concept” to be appropriate for describing “climate change” in the context of explaining the policies of governments and the agendas of other institutions. CityWatch NZ editors, contributors, and readers will have a range of views about the realities of climate change and about the merits of various policies which refer to climate change as their justification. A major focus of CityWatch NZ is on how various concepts, such as “core services”, “traffic calming”, “smart city”, and “well-being” are used in local government to reshape the physical realities in our cities.
The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines “concept” as a noun with…
“1: something conceived in the mind : THOUGHT, NOTION
2 : an abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances”
That online dictionary then uses “the concept of gravity” as an example. We hope that Hamilton City Councillor Anna Casey-Cox is not also accusing the people at www.merriam-webster.com of spreading ‘gravity denialist’ misinformation.
The Britannica online dictionary defines “concept” as a noun with…
“…an idea of what something is or how it works”
… which appears neutral as to judging the accuracy or merit of the idea.
Both the Merriam-Webster and Britannica online dictionaries also define “concept” as an adjective which is used before a noun to indicate that the noun is “organized around a main idea or theme”. That definition is highly-relevant to the primary function of CityWatch NZ, which is to inform people about local government issues. Phrases such as “climate change mitigation”, “climate change strategy”, “climate change policy” are all examples where the concept of climate change is central to organising those plans, agendas, and documents within government institutions.
Using the term “concept” to describe “climate change” is not erroneous, misleading, or misinformation. It is appropriate in the context and is an example of inclusive language.
Merriam-Webster online dictionary also lists some potential synonyms for “concept” that includes: “theory”, “hypothesis”, “truism”, “generalisation”, “cliché”, “oversimplification”, “commonplace”, “proposition”, and “platitude”. Across the diversity of CityWatch NZ readers and contributors, we expect most would think that many of those synonyms could be applied to how “climate change” is used by politicians, bureaucrats, corporations, and the media. We expect there will be some debate and disagreement about which synonyms are most appropriate to describe “climate change”. CityWatch NZ accepts debate and disagreement, and our website will continue to encourage and inform those discussions.
Accusation 3
“A third example of misinformation on the City Watch website is the claim that, “a strategy of incrementalism is being used in an effort to reduce public resistance to the longer-term plans of restricting and reducing private automobile travel”. This is also an example of a conspiracy theory, as well as an example of the promotion of false information. I can assure you that there is no effort to restrict private automobile travel. Rather, the goal of Access Hamilton is to enable a range of transport choices, including walking, biking, public transport, and automobiles. There are no plans to restrict automobile use.”
Sent from the Anna.Casey-Cox@council.hcc.govt.nz email address, 30 January 2024.
In an information sheet available on the CityWatch NZ website, the WSP document “20-min City in Aotearoa” is referenced. Specific phrases from that WSP document (in bold for added emphasis) are quoted in this section of that information sheet which reads …
“In the New Zealand context, an engineering/consultancy firm named WSP produced a document called “20-min city in Aotearoa”2. This document mostly focused on promoting the potential positive aspects of the urban planning concepts and how the concept could be implemented in local cities. However, this document also contained a section on “Opposition to change” which focused on “identifying mitigation strategies” to manage potential opposition from residents and travellers. This section proposes that the issue of “Measures to reduce private vehicle travel are seen as a threat, a loss” could be mitigated by “A staged, gradual model that makes it increasingly difficult to drive or get around by car, with strong alternatives in place”. Similarly, the document proposes a mitigation strategy of “Removal of on street car parking and replaced with public realm installations – playgrounds, cultural events” as a response to the issue of a “Ban on cars seen as too dramatic”. Behind the pleasant, promotional language used to market the 15- and 20-minute concepts to people and officials, a strategy of incrementalism is being used in an effort to reduce public resistance to the longer-term plans of restricting and reducing private automobile travel.”
We suggest people read that WSP document, especially pages 14 and 15. People can then decide for themselves if “…a strategy of incrementalism is being used in an effort to reduce public resistance to the longer-term plans of restricting and reducing private automobile travel” is an accurate assessment of what is being outlined by WSP as “insights” from overseas projects. We at CityWatch NZ strongly reject accusations of that assessment being false information or misinformation. Questions around whether this is a “conspiracy”, or if CityWatch NZ promotes “conspiracy theories”, requires more nuanced answers. If your definition of “conspiracy” requires the plan to be secret, then CityWatch NZ is reporting and commenting specifically on what WSP has published in a publically available document. Granted we suspect that staff at city councils, rather than the general public, are the main target audience for that WSP document. WSP is providing strategic “insights” around how to manage the public in order to mitigate the expected opposition from automobile owners and travellers. The aim of reducing and restricting private automobile travel is also clear in the WSP document. This is obviously not a secret plot, since we can debate this issue while citing publicly available documents as clear evidence of certain agendas at work.
As Hamilton City Councillors are no doubt aware, CityWatch NZ has printed and is distributing a pamphlet titled “What is changing your city?”, which features numerous quotes directly from Hamilton City Council’s “Access Hamilton Strategy” and the “Hamilton-Waikato Metro Area Mode Shift Plan 2020”. This pamphlet highlights the aims and agendas from Hamilton City Council (and NZTA) to reduce and disincentivise both private vehicle travel and car ownership. The “What is changing your city?” pamphlet also uses quotes from the “Access Hamilton Strategy” to highlight that Hamilton City Council is now using, or is considering using in the future, various measures which will make life harder for private automobile travellers and owners.
Accusation 4
“On the topic of conspiracy theories, Webster defines a conspiracy theory as, “a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators”. There are examples of conspiracy theories throughout the City Watch website…
The notion promoted on the City Watch website that City safety cameras are being used to monitor and manage the human population in the City is another example of a conspiracy theory. A third example, is the heading “Global Agendas” on the City Watch website. It is unclear who exactly City Watch believes is behind all of these sinister plots, or to what aim, but these are indeed conspiracy theories.”
Sent from the Anna.Casey-Cox@council.hcc.govt.nz email address, 30 January 2024.
There is considerable information which is publically available to support the claim that cameras and sensors are being, or will be, used to monitor and/or manage the human population in Hamilton City. The “Access Hamilton Strategy” contains the following lines…
“Improve personal safety using the transport network via better lighting and surveillance” (page 25)
“Invest in suitable technology for parking, red light and speed enforcement” (page 25)
“Trial technology to enable innovative solutions to understand and better manage transport usage” (page 62)
Hamilton City Council is also planning to “Investigate zero emissions zones or congestion charge zone in central Hamilton” (page 30 of the “Access Hamilton Strategy”). Based on overseas examples (Oxford, Manchester, London, Singapore), automated number plate recognition cameras, or other surveillance technologies, are used to enforce these types of zones. Implementing these types of zones has an aim of restricting and/or penalising vehicle travel in order to manage behavioural change. We are aware that Hamilton City Council is denying that they have discussed using Hamilton’s new “crime prevention automated number plate recognition cameras” for managing future charging zones or restriction zones. If those denials are factually correct, we can assume another set of cameras would be installed if Hamilton City Council implements such zones in the future.
Hamilton City Council is also budgeting approximately $2.3 million over 10 years for “Increased data collection” so “Additional traffic counting…” can be used to inform and monitor the results of “the VKT (Vehicle Kilometres Travelled) reduction plan”. See Attachment 10 for Item 6 on page 158 of Hamilton City Council’s 28th of November 2023 Council Agenda.
The use of surveillance technology (cameras and/or sensors) to monitor and manage the travel behaviour of people in Hamilton is a publicly available line-item on a proposed City Council budget. This means it is not a secret plot. However, it is an issue of great concern given the lack of meaningful consultation. Councillors being dismissive and denying that this type of monitoring and management is occurring are also major concerns for CityWatch NZ and many of our readers.
Further evidence of Hamilton City Council using surveillance technology in efforts monitor and manage peoples travel behavior can be found in this staff feedback to Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency on the topic of the E–Scooters (Declaration Not to be Motor Vehicles) Notice 2018 …
“Enforcement is irregular and inconsistent. Hamilton Central has a liquor ban in place. Hamilton Council Council’s City Safe Camera Operator reports directly to the New Zealand Police if a rider is seen drinking alcohol or appears intoxicated and/or driving recklessly in the central city.”
So it appears ‘Big Brother’ is watching… drunks doing stupid things on e-scooters.
Some CityWatch NZ readers may view this as a sensible and appropriate use of that surveillance technology. Other readers may think there are better ways of addressing these issues without using surveillance technology. Many CityWatch NZ readers will have valid concerns about privacy violations, the lack of informed consent to this monitoring, or the risks that such surveillance technology will be abused in the future. CityWatch NZ exists to promote well-informed discussions about the changes happening in New Zealand cities. We view denials by city councillors and city council staff as a serious issue.
The existence of various “Global Agendas” is also an easily verifiable reality. The UN’s “Agenda 2030” is an obvious example. Though there are many organisations that promote their agendas globally such as the C40 cities network and the World Resources Institute. CityWatch NZ plans to publish a series of profiles and explainers on the diverse range of organisations and agendas which originate overseas, yet have significant influence over the plans and activities of city councils in New Zealand.
We at CityWatch NZ think that informing the public about various national and international agendas is essential for having reasonable discussions about many of the issues impacting our cities. It is often difficult to make sense of the changes to our cities without reference to those ‘non-local’ agendas. Changes are happening in Hamilton City that many people did not vote for in elections or approve of in a consultation process. It is reasonable to consider, investigate, and discuss the possibility that a city council is influenced more by various national and international organisations, than by the views and priorities of that city’s local population.
Written on behalf of the CityWatch NZ Editorial Team, 10 February 2024.
