phlawless (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
vostoklake) wrote2010-09-21 11:14 am
vostoklake) wrote2010-09-21 11:14 am
Entry tags:
Words I hate: "local"
My motivation for supporting the amalgamation of Auckland into a single political entity (although not for the undemocratic governance system that central government has forced upon it) is also the reason why 90% of the election advertising irritates the hell out of me. All these candidates yelling about "your local voice" or "dealing with local issues".
Screw local, is my chief remark. "Local", in objective fact, means "anywhere you can get to in half an hour". As most Aucklanders have cars, several thereof, and generally work on completely the other side of the region from where they live, "local" no longer means "as far as the local shops and back". If you live in Albany and work in Manukau, and spend your Friday nights getting drunk in Ponsonby, where is your "locality"?
In such a situation, the people of Avondale or Birkenhead trying to focus on their "patch" to the exclusion of the wider web of humanity in which they live, are going to be prone to the character fault of parochialism, leaning over into NIMBYism (the "not in my back yard" mentality) and an active contempt or hatred for other human beings who - like it or not - inhabit the same unified socio-economic web.
I am opposed to localism. I will be voting in this election on the sole issue of sustainable and useful public transport - so that my "locality" might be able to, in objective fact, expand past the limits of my bicycle and the existing web of badly-connected bus and train lines. I want to be able to feel as home in Oratia, Botany and Papakura as I do in Grey Lynn. Face facts, reactionaries, it already is "one city". The question is - whose city? Localism doesn't provide an answer to that one. A People's Republic of Auckland is feasible - an Independent State of Devonport (or an Otara Commune) aren't.
Screw local, is my chief remark. "Local", in objective fact, means "anywhere you can get to in half an hour". As most Aucklanders have cars, several thereof, and generally work on completely the other side of the region from where they live, "local" no longer means "as far as the local shops and back". If you live in Albany and work in Manukau, and spend your Friday nights getting drunk in Ponsonby, where is your "locality"?
In such a situation, the people of Avondale or Birkenhead trying to focus on their "patch" to the exclusion of the wider web of humanity in which they live, are going to be prone to the character fault of parochialism, leaning over into NIMBYism (the "not in my back yard" mentality) and an active contempt or hatred for other human beings who - like it or not - inhabit the same unified socio-economic web.
I am opposed to localism. I will be voting in this election on the sole issue of sustainable and useful public transport - so that my "locality" might be able to, in objective fact, expand past the limits of my bicycle and the existing web of badly-connected bus and train lines. I want to be able to feel as home in Oratia, Botany and Papakura as I do in Grey Lynn. Face facts, reactionaries, it already is "one city". The question is - whose city? Localism doesn't provide an answer to that one. A People's Republic of Auckland is feasible - an Independent State of Devonport (or an Otara Commune) aren't.