I'm beginning to have second thoughts over the Auckland SuperCity.
Isn't one aim of local government to be local, so you are connected with your council and your councillors.
Won't a single body representing a city-state of over a million people just be a little too distant for ordinary folk?
Now, the review of local government was done with the best of intentions, with the added bonus of cash savings.
But it appears such savings might not happen.
Today, the Sunday Star-Times looks at the various issues surrounding the local government reorganisation.
It also notes how local government minister Rodney Hide is considering ratecapping to stop bills getting too high.
Hide will certainly have his hands full in dealing with the Auckland monster, and it seems we have created a monster , or rather 'a dog' with Auckland, one to apologise for.
But hidden at the bottom of the articles is evidence of where Auckland went wrong in recent years.
And this is where Liarbour can take blame for problems National has inherited.
Local government was given more work to do, as well as powers of competency to do other things.
It meant a fair bit of empire building and staff numbers and their salaries rocketed.
I am increasingly open minded as to what is best for the future of Auckland.
But I do believe that any reform of local government needs to consider what we actually need local government for. Should some services be privatised? Devolved to community level, or even be taken up by Wellington?
What do you think?
Crossposted over at The Fairfacts Media Show