Posts by Tom Beard
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Up Front: Respectably-Dressed Sensible…, in reply to Emma Hart,
One thing I've noticed this time is a decided sideways shift from victim-blaming on the basis of clothes to victim-blaming on the basis of having had some drinks. I dunno if you'd call that progress or not.
Possibly. Victim-blaming is never justified, but there's a difference. Blaming clothes implies that clothes are an invitation or provocation that men's APB's can't resist. Blaming drunkenness sometimes includes accusations of "invitation", but it also be based on the idea that even it doesn't "attract" rapists (and I hate using that word, but it's the best I can come up with right now) it would make it more difficult for someone to fight off or avoid someone who is already intent on assault.
When someone singles out young women as having "a problem with drunkenness" in this regard, it certainly has implications of provocation/invitation, overlaid with cultural and classist notions of slut-shaming and "unladylike behaviour". But there's some justification in saying that in our culture, both men and women have problems with drinking to the point where they are vulnerable not just to sexual assault, but to other forms of assault, walking in front of a bus or just falling over and breaking your leg (as my brother did once).
No-one would ever call me an advocate of sobriety, but there are times when I've had to say to friends (both male and female) "Hey, take care". I would have to admit that I'd tend to say that more to female friends, and that may have something to do with residual patronising cultural attitudes that treats women as inherently more vulnerable. But I'd like to think that it's just simple human concern for a friend who may be putting themselves at all sorts of risk, and that it had nothing to do with blaming them for anything that might happen.
-
I'll probably go with a sign saying "You know, I'm dressed as a slut, too" and wear what I always wear.
-
Field Theory: Gruts, in reply to Scott A,
Survey two has to be boxers vs briefs
Or boxer briefs.
-
Hooray for Nudel! They're not cheap, but if you want to buy locally made underclothes, they're an alternative to the rather 90s-hippieish Thunderpants.
-
Muse: DIGITAL LINKY LOVE, in reply to Greg Dawson,
of course! we should just have a graphic sex act happen simultaneously for no explicable reason
I thought that graphic sex acts were their own reason?
-
Muse: Hooray for Wellywood (Really!), in reply to Kumara Republic,
It was located next to the main road beside the runway so you were in no doubt that it was directed at tourists and was on airport-owned land
I can't be 100% sure, but if it was located where the current tame replacement is, then it looks like it was on either road reserve (i.e. Council land) or, since it's next to SH1, NZTA (formerly Transit NZ land).
-
Muse: Hooray for Wellywood (Really!), in reply to Rich of Observationz,
Why is a hillside some distance past the end of the runway considered part of the “airport precinct”?
It has been for decades, I think. Part of that land houses the building that used to house air traffic control functions, and there was always potential for other equipment to have been sited furter north along the ridge.
Not to mention how, if the site was acquired under the Public Works Act (how does one check) a vanity erection qualifies as an ‘airport use’.
The Designation has always allowed for airport-related activity, with very little control under the RMA. IIRC, the council got nervous a few years ago about WIAL's plans for retail parks, and their potential effect on the viability of established town centres, so Plan Change 57 was passed to try to gain some control and certainty. Other changes would have happened during that, but if you read the submissions you'll get some sense of how the commissioners treated the various submissions for and against certain aspects, and there's always a certain amount of negotiation at that point. Then there's the ability (at the time) for anyone to appeal a Plan Change, and given the cost of going to court, councils usually try to mediate a compromise. One might say that such a process allows powerful property owners to avoid any Plan Changes that might restrict their development potential, but I couldn't possibly comment.
-
Muse: Hooray for Wellywood (Really!), in reply to Craig Ranapia,
One thing that doesn't sit well with me, on principle, is that the resource consent for this was non-notifiable.
Question with two follow ups -
1) How difficult would it be to change the law so every resource consent application has to be notifiable?
2) Is there any party out there whose policy supports such a change?
3) Are there any good arguments against?I'll only answer 3 by saying: yes, lots. The "notification" process doesn't just involve letting people know about it and asking for their submissions: it requires a hearing, a panel of commissioners and the possibility of appeals, mediation and Environment Court action. It's expensive, time consuming, legalistic and involves huge uncertainty, all of which is hugely over the top for most consents.
One of the worst effects of this is that even when Councils have the discretion to look at a proposal qualitatively and holistically, it gives an incentive for applicants to dumb down proposals to meet quantitative and simple-minded notification triggers. For instance, they'll get the designer to arbitrarily lop off bits of the roof to meet recession planes, resulting in designs that are ugly, ridiculous and less in keeping with the neighbourhood than if the planners & urban designers had been able to advocate for a nuanced reading of the District Plan.
Another aspect is that it brings out the worst and most prejudiced aspects of NIMBYism: people who would not be materially affected by a proposal but just don't want any more people in their suburb or who mutter darkly about "the wrong sort of people". Unless they're familiar with the arcana of the RMA, they'll get confused by the terminology and get false expectations of the submission process. One example is the technical use of the word "permitted", which often leads to submitters getting outraged when decisions go against them ("OMG how can you give consent when the Plan bans it?!?"). Some also think that submissions are some sort of vote, but even if the submissions are 99-1 against, if the anti-submissions don't make reasonable arguments that granting the consent would be against the objectives of the plan then there is no reason to decline it. And when notification thresholds are much lower than the level of development anticipated by the plan, and the commissioners quickly approve a development despite what the submitters say, those submitters can rightly assume that the hearing process was a waste of their and everyone else's time. In short, would-be submitters have unrealistic expectations of the influence that the notification process would grant to them, without realising the perverse incentives towards mediocre developments that comply with the letter of the plan but don't achieve the overall objective of making a better city.
Finally, and this might be controversial, I believe there's a fundamental difference between urban design and planning, at least as the latter is seen under the RMA. Urban design aims for the long-term outcome of a beautiful, sustainable and liveable city, for all who live there, visit there or may live there in the future. RMA planning is about letting landowners build what they want on their land unless they piss off the neighbours. Sure, there are good reasons for preserving reasonable levels of amenity for existing residents, but the process as it is encourages petty, short-term, prejudiced and parochial thinking.
Having said that, I think there is a role for more public involvement in the consent process, but not through the current notification provisions. Currently, almost all resource consents are public information (so "non-notified" doesn't mean "sneaky and secret"), but there is no mechanism to allow for public input without involving the hugely cumbersome hearing process. I would like to see a process whereby the public are invited to make written submissions, which the planners have to take into account in their decision. Again, this would not be a vote, but would allow people to point out information and effects that officers might have missed, or to make cogent arguments for or against the proposal. Large consents, or those that breach District Plan standards to the extent that they are non-complying, would still be able to trigger a full hearing, but there needs to be a lightweight intermediate step.
-
Muse: Hooray for Wellywood (Really!), in reply to Sacha,
I guess there would be nothing to stop owners putting a big sign on their cbd office block saying "Absolutely Poxily Wellington" then.
Nope, or at least nothing in the RMA. We assess billboard applications based upon the assumption that we can't control the content, so we would assume the worst, at least regarding the visual impact of the content. We have no discretion over the semantic content of a billboard (one-off, unique signs may be differenr), but there are (I think) advertising standards that would cover notions of offensiveness.
-
Muse: Hooray for Wellywood (Really!), in reply to Craig Ranapia,
(Though part of me would love to see someone try to get resource consent for a 325m tall lattice tower in the middle of Wellington. Just for the sheer entertainment value.)
Well, the District Plan specifically allows the Council to consider "a building of exceptional height in comparison to every other building". But the plan also says that, on top of all the usual considerations of wind, shading and urban form:
Developing an exceptionally tall building would bring with it certain responsibilities. Such a building would become a landmark feature in the Wellington skyline, and a prominent feature in all future images of the city. As such the building should be truly iconic and display a quality of design that befits its status as being one of, if not the most visible building in Central Wellington.
Personally, I would very much doubt that a replica or parody of a famous building would meet this requirement. But it would be interesting to have to make that decision. So far, I haven't had to do that.