Posts by Sacha
-
Hard News: Christchurch: Square Two, in reply to Hebe,
developers wanted to do Pacific Park, council said no, developers appealed and got their way
Do you have any links then about how the council said no or developers appealed through non-court avenues? Didn't make many waves outside Chch media but is interesting.
-
Southerly: Tower Insurance Have Some Bad…, in reply to kevyn,
sit tight until CERA is compelled to comulsorily take your property at fair market value
While I otherwise agree with your logic, did you catch the earlier discussion that 'market value' in red zones when assessed will be close to zero?
-
Legal Beagle: Referendum Fact Check #1, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
get off your fraking arse and get involved in the party's candidate selection and list ranking process
Reliance on that in an age of declining civic particpation is perhaps MMP's major weakness. Allowing easier public input into list ranking might appeal to some voters.
-
Legal Beagle: Referendum Fact Check #1, in reply to izogi,
If our larger parties would allow themselves to divide into more representative sections, as has already happened in part with the Labour party, there would be less dog for a tail to wag and it certainly couldn't have so much perceived influence so easily.
Would also help if journalists stoped reporting as if we were still under First Past the Post - especially misleading interpretation of poll results.
-
Southerly: Tower Insurance Have Some Bad…, in reply to andin,
if they can just be written off as malcontents
We can be confident that the political calculus was done by the government's 'brainstrust' well before the announcement. Polling probably underway ever since. Let's see how the public dances..
-
Southerly: Tower Insurance Have Some Bad…, in reply to David Haywood,
‘repairable’ houses in the red zone
Love to hear where Council stands on consenting too.
-
Legal Beagle: Referendum Fact Check #1, in reply to Rob Stowell,
the supposedly grassroots “Vote for Change”
Two posts looking at their constitution registered with the Societies Office:
Mike Smith at Te Standard.
But re the Committee Rules 6.1 and 6.2 say:
The Society shall be managed by a Committee comprising not less than two or more than five members of the Society.
The initial Committee shall be made up of Peter Shirtcliffe and Jordan Williams.
The FAQ section of the website indicates that Peter Shirtcliffe will not take part in the day-to-day activities of the Society but will be a member of the Committee only. The Committee has very wide powers, including the appointment of its members, of officers and the ability to decide on different classes of members of the Society (Rule 8.1).
Rob Salmond at Pundit.
Vote for Change has a Committee that is in charge of absolutely everything between Annual Meetings (more on those shortly). The people on the committee are: (1) Peter Shirtcliffe; (2) Jordan Williams; and (3) nobody else. This committee needs a majority to do anything, which means that Peter Shirtcliffe has personal veto over everything Vote for Change does, including over which electoral system the group will campaign for.
...
Vote for Change is misrepresenting itself. Its initial press release says it is a membership-driven, grassroots campaign. But its’ own rules say different. Not a good start.
-
Hard News: NetHui is here, in reply to Robyn Gallagher,
niger.st
That would have gone down well in the US
-
AMI's boss fronted on Campbell Live tonight and verified the position of the insurance companies as we've been discussing - 6 min clip.
He said that after extensive negotiation with the industry and his company, the government's Option 1 package is the answer to this problem where replacement does not actually mean replacement. Oh, and that raises no moral issues.
Comments on the story seem refereshingly sane so far.
-
Southerly: Tower Insurance Have Some Bad…, in reply to BenWilson,
And it's still not out of the question now.
If someone bangs some precious heads together, perhaps.