Opinion: Austerity is Whatever I Want It To Be

By Dan Moskovitz (he/him)

The debacle over Wellington’s City to Sea bridge, which links civic square to the waterfront,  has been going on for a year now. 

In lieu of paying for costly earthquake strengthening, Wellington City Council (WCC) announced demolition plans for the bridge at the end of the last year. Work began, only to immediately pause due to central government reviewing the earthquake building standards. 

The pause was widely welcomed, as there’s huge public support for the bridge. It’s easy to see why. In a city which has lost its library, the town hall, reading cinemas, and so much more, losing another publicly accessible piece of infrastructure is just another blow.

The cost of this restrengthening, and our inability to pay it, lies with previous councils prioritising low rates over investment in infrastructure. As more recent councils have played catch-up investing in the city’s pipes, roads, libraries, and bridges, and more, the result has been massive rates rises. These are tough to swallow in a cost-of-living crisis, and most mayoral candidates are running on keeping rates low. 

So you’d think demolishing the bridge for a wide pedestrian crossing, which has been estimated as the cheapest option at $36 million, would be favoured by the ‘keep rates low’ candidates. 

Not so. Diane Calvert, Ray Chung and Karl Tiefenbacher are the three leading center-right anti-rate mayoral candidates, and all support saving the bridge. Council officers have conservatively estimated that would cost up to $86 million. 

(Mayoral front runner Andrew Little also supports keeping the bridge. However, he is not running a solely ‘keep rates low’ campaign).

Considering how the aforementioned trio have all (fairly) blasted cost blowouts at other council projects, you’d think they’d have some apprehension towards funding bridge strengthening.  

All three were asked why they did support keeping the bridge while running on a keep rate low campaign. All three said they lacked confidence in WCC’s numbers. This does appear to be a widely held view—even in left-wing circles—but no one is providing any other costings. These are the numbers we have. 

It’s easy to see why these three and more are rallying behind the bridge. It’s a popular, beautiful, and convenient spot, and important in a pedestrian-oriented city. Demolishing the bridge will lead to short term grief and pain. 

But no one is talking about how WCC officers favour building a new bridge in the long-term. Its costs have been estimated at $13 million, on top of the existing $36 million. Which is still cheaper than $86 million. 

The irony of putting a pro-austerity argument in a left-wing news outlet is not lost on me. But at a certain point we have to cut costs, and our losses. Wellington is already hamstrung by huge infrastructure upgrades, like our leaky pipes. Central government support isn’t coming, and rate rises are already at record levels. 

Doing nothing is not an option. If an earthquake strikes, the bridge falls, and people die, then those deaths will be the fault of the council. 

So, smash the damn bridge.