In a recent Facebook post (copied below) Christchurch City Councillor Celeste Donovan criticised her colleagues that voted NO against adopting the government’s fast-tracked housing intensification legislation.

She described their NO vote as: “…empty symbolism, politics at its worst, and that it may lead to worse outcomes for those that are concerned about housing intensification.”

In my professional experience, the Councillors that voted ‘NO’: Anne Galloway, Melanie Coker, Yani Johanson, Catherine Chu, Jake McLellan, Phil Mauger, James Gough, Sam MacDonald, Aaron Keown, and Pauline Cotter, made a difficult decision. They did so because they had their communities at heart and displayed the moral courage to recognise that despite the risk of adverse consequences, they weren’t going to be easily intimidated by fear-mongering.

To go with the flow and vote ‘YES’ was in reality the easy decision and required absolutely no courage.

Those councillors that voted ‘NO’ came from across the political spectrum and displayed fortitude.

While they may have felt conflicted regarding political party affiliations, on this occasion, the evidence cannot be denied. 'NO' councillors have been vindicated in their stance with the announcement in today’s media that, ''the government was always open to considering sensible suggestions'' and the opposition's statement that they, too, ''were open to sensible suggestions.

Those councillors that voted YES clearly failed to grasp lesson 101 of basic politics which is that everything is negotiable!

The greater courage was displayed by those councillors who voted ‘NO’ and who put their communities and city ahead of party politics.

DISCLOSURE: Momentus PR has been representing former Christchurch City Councillors, Helen Broughton & Barbara Stewart in their opposition to the Housing Intensification Bill. We have also provided pro bono support to the Christchurch Civic Trust and to Greg Partridge with his facilitation of 17 Christchurch Residents Groups.

© Scoop Media