Speaker: Grand Theft Auckland
100 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last
-
Well said Russell.
-
Yes. Well summed. It must be annoying to have to follow a democratic process if you are a money maker.
-
So Russell, are we stuck with this quango?
-
to steal *our* stuff
Says the guy who took up residence in Mt Albert for the purpose of contesting the by-election and raising his national profile? Oh dear.
Hope you're all hikoiying, folks. Wish I could be there.
-
Wish I could be there.
Wish You Were Here :) Pink Floyd
-
Jono,
Its not just here that they hate urban limits and smart growth. Andrew Sullivan's stand-ins at the Atlantic comment on the conservative dislike of urbanism and growth limits here and here
Its just another article of faith, with apparantly quite deep philospohical underpinings, promulgated here by the likes of the Centre for Resource Management Studies* and Demographia.
*Kaiwaka may be the Centre for Fine Dutch Cheese, Brethren Leathergoods, and Awesome Christmas Lights but given its fine location miles from the coast, in a cold valley, with a state highway dividing it in half, I can't say its represents awesome town planning.
-
I wish this kind of discussion wasn't so politicised, but I realise that's utopian. But if Russell Norman is going to be here, then why shouldn't other views on the same spectrum also be heard here? Its not that I disagree with 'some' of what he's saying, I just don't like where it goes. What, that because we need to change Auckland's management, that its all about greed by a few? (Or Mr Ian Mackay... by anyone who's a 'money maker'?)
Auckland's management is a mess and has been for some time. Even Robbie couldn't get things moving. Its time to make it easier to manage. Finally someone has come up with a plan.
Its okay to make money, and its okay for those with the skills and capital to make a fair amount of it. They pay salaries and taxes and are bound by the laws of the land, or should be. I get tired of hearing the language of envy, mistrust and class hatred. Its so small minded.
-
Sigh.
You're probably right, but framing this whole thing as "the privatising Gecko's of Epsom are taking over" does nothing for me at all.
Talk about the lack of democracy, talk about the removal of a local voice, and talk about a group of people stuck in the past in terms of both good-growth and planning. Please do, someone needs to. But if you're trying to talk to me, this "Illuminati elite are staging a coup" flavour just distracts from the issues. -
The test of time has shown that regulation does generally work for the greater good doesn't it? Some of Muldoon's 'think big' projects present as exceptions (ie the Waitaki valley's hydro capacity) though...
I can understand the frustration of the developers and go-getters, however the evidence to the contrary is pretty weak, for example Roger Kerr pointing the finger at the post-Enron Sarbanes-Oxley legislation which 'damaged the the New York market'.
I thought their troubles were mainly due to fraud, greed and shoddy derivative products.
-
You are probably right that some opposition to the RMA comes from people who are reluctant to face a conflict between their money making and the quality of an environment they wish to plunder. There is another side to the RMA argument, however, that involves inconsistency between local authorities about what is ok for the environment, about rational arguments squashed by local prejudices, and frustrated business people who honestly wish to look after our environment but can't find their way through the morass of legislation. In order to find a good solution we have to correctly frame the problem, and I'm afraid your polemic was too one-sided to be a real step forward.
-
"Says the guy who took up residence in Mt Albert for the purpose of contesting the by-election and raising his national profile? Oh dear./"
And the relevance of this is...? Good on him I say.
<quote>But if you're trying to talk to me, this "Illuminati elite are staging a coup" flavour just distracts from the issues./<quote>
Very good point, Gareth. This inflammatory way of framing the situation doesn't do anything to help things but he has some points.
I still haven't got this quote thing sussed yet...
-
I'm glad someone has finally posted something critical. I was afraid to put my head above the parapet.
I've read quite a few silly press releases from the Greens about the whole supercity thing. On a lot of issues I happen to agree with the Greens. I just wish the Greens would tone down the inflammatory language on this issue. The numerous references to "them" and what "they" are going to do sounds more like 1930s class-warfare rhetoric.
There are plenty of good reasons for a supercity, and plenty of potential problems with one. So rather than simply demonise each other we could, you know, talk to each other?
-
try cutting and posting <qu0te>text</qu0te> (to the left of the Post Reply box) Kim, and then overwriting the word text with what you want to quote (and I use cut n paste for that too). You'll find it much easier.
-
but he has some points.
He most certainly does, and wrapping it around a "small group of business elite are rigging it" might even be correct. But I did want to take the chance to explain to him (as a political party leader) that it's a style of message that doesn't really endear me to the cause.
-
The situation will continue as long as growth is the only accepted measure of economic success. The earths resources are limited and economics need to move towards a measure of economic well-being that takes account of the restrictions of the second law of thermodynamics. Most economists appear never to of heard of it.
-
but back to topic...
I'm bemused at by how quickly we've gone back to the old Left vs Right arguments of the 80s & 90s, given that National have only been in power for 6 months. It seems obvious to me that Labour dragged it's heels on the SH20 Waterview connection because they didn't want it made till after the election.
As to the wider topic of the Supercity -- I'm in the Something has to be done! camp. Such a pity we can't find a benign dictator. (They always seem benign at first, until becoming drunk with power).
-
I think Russel's on the money, and big ups to the other Russell for letting him contribute on PA.
The whole supercity process has been redesigned by Hide to produce an outcome - a gerrymandered ACT mayorality that will advance his agenda, ignoring the real opposition of Aucklanders to those ideas.
Russel isn't imagining an "Illuminati Conspiracy" - the people Rodney's appointed to run Auckland until the pseudo-election of the Lord High Mayor are already named: four dead white males and a lawyer.
-
Ok, I take it back, Wayne Walden's in fact Maori.
-
four dead white males and a lawyer
Which proves what exactly? Why mention the appointment of a laywer? Isn't it possible there might be a whole heap of, um, legal stuff to sort out?
-
And as I can't even spell the word "lawyer", I should immediately be struck off.
-
You'll find it much easier.
Thank you (I had my / & my < the wrong way around).
-
I'm hearing a lot of "yeah, he's quite right, but the language is so embarrassingly unfashionable" on this thread.
And what you're going to get is local govt which is quite wrong but couched in fashionable terms.
So then you'll be happy, yeah?
-
And what you're going to get is local govt which is quite wrong but couched in fashionable terms.
So then you'll be happy, yeah?
Then language being used is unfashionable and ineffective. Calls to burn the capitalist citadel might resonate with a small number of people, but if political leaders want to effect real change they have to engage with the political centre, where most people reside.
Ranting and raving might make people feel better, but it won't achieve squat.
-
Bad day with the keyboard (cold office and finger sooo... cold). First word should be "The", not "Then"
-
So then you'll be happy, yeah?
Huh? I can't hear you through all that straw...
At this rate what we're going to get is local govt which is quite wrong because the parties best setup to counter it don't connect with the majority of Aucklanders. Water down the "coup by a business elite" talk slightly (stop making it the heart of the discussion at least) and talk up the fact that Aucklanders are having their voice completely silenced and I think you'll get further.Highlight the overall outcome of a council far removed from the people that will decide issues like urban sprawl, transport planning and public ownership. And that the democratic right to have a say on those topics and shape the council is being removed from us (by a taster of what happens when democracy is ignored).
Then bring that down to the community level and weave the changes to the RMA into the completely lack of power in the local community boards to reinforce that local decisions will be equally removed from the people.
If you then want to discuss the nature of the people that could get into power under such a structure and the possible outcomes then fine. But it's about the heart of the message you choose.The people who will respond to the "business elite "them"" are staging a coup to silently rule Auckland like puppet masters are already against it and probably already in your camp.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.