I,m all for investigative journalism- interrogating official positions and the like. But the privilege of newspaper space brings with it a responsibility to not mislead. The Jan 15 HERALD ON SUNDAY article Slums to replace decent housing was an abuse of that privilege.
The subject is worth debating – but not sensationalizing! The Damien Grant article was journalism at its worst – presenting propositions as if they were indisputable facts.
To imply that the housing in The Strand, Parnell is an ‘upmarket version of what is proposed’ is at best disingenuous.
Claims like “high-storey housing is inhabited by sex workers, and urban poor” is speculative – and no doubt news to those who live in the upmarket high rise apartments in Auckland. What evidence is there that “Most people do not want to live in high-density housing”? Do they all want to live on life style blocks? Has such a statement been peer reviewed for accuracy?
The economic analysis, such as it is, of Greenfield costs and relativities is deficient, cursory, inaccurate and mis- leading.
This is a topic worth debating – referencing Auckland conditions with unbiased accurate data. This article reads like an argument supporting one point of view – Auckland deserves better.
