Posts by Lilith __
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Christchurch: Is "quite good"…, in reply to Sacha,
the supposed green space does seem rather full of buildings.
Then WTF is all this stuff about voluntary compulsory acquisition?
<gives up trying to understand the plan>
-
Field Theory: And they're off!, in reply to Steve Barnes,
that may give creedence to your view
My view that the women gymnasts are women?
The fact is that the athletes look. bigger this year
You have a bigger TV? ;-)
-
Hard News: Christchurch: Is "quite good"…, in reply to merc,
I get the heeb when his scriptwriter comes across all folksy.
I’m fine with folksy if he’s not saying all these mutually-exclusive things are true:
1. Voluntary land acquisition will be compulsory.
2. Done by the start of next year, unless it isn’t.
3. We will offer a fair price for land as long as it’s cheap.
And filled out with the tautology:
4. Organic growth is not rigidly planned growth. And since we are rigidly planning the growth, it can't be organic.
-
Capture: Two Tales of a City, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
Dear Stalker
To quote Sherlock
Holmes: “Is it a cap? Why’s it got two fronts?”
Watson: “It’s a deerstalker.”
Holmes: “You stalk deer with the hat? What you gonna do, throw it? Some sort of death frisbee?"
-
Field Theory: And they're off!, in reply to Steve Barnes,
the Women are looking rather manly rather than childlike.
Erm. Not like any of the men I know.
-
How many contradictions can John Key juggle?
In regard to the acquisition of land for the plan, the Government’s aim was to ‘‘negotiate on a consensual basis with land owners but if we can’t then we will be forced, by virtue of the fact that we need all the land in The Frame, to involuntarily acquire that land. The general feeling is that we should be able to clear it up by the end of the first quarter of 2013, but let’s see,’’ Key said.
Land acquisition was a necessity, he said.
"It's really the only option if you want to get an integrated, co-ordinated 21st century city, otherwise you would require organic growth and it would be very hotchpotch, certainly not the result we want for Christchurch.
"We'll work very fairly with people. We're certainly not trying to rip anyone off. But on the other side of the coin we've got to get going . . . the land's not worth a lot in it's current state."
( Stuff )
-
Capture: The Night Time Is The Right Time, in reply to Nora Leggs,
hope everyone has their body parts and hearts intact this morning : )
Thanks Nora. Nice rose, too. :-)
-
Hard News: Christchurch: Is "quite good"…, in reply to Tim Croft,
But do not rule out Hop Yick. Still going strong.
Yeah, also the Indian Supermarket on Durham St by the back of South City.
-
Hard News: Christchurch: Is "quite good"…, in reply to Sacha,
Question for Chch locals: if I lived somewhere in the CBD or Frame areas, where would I most likely shop for food?
Pak N Save or Countdown on Moorhouse Ave, or South City.
[Edit: oh whoops, snap!]
-
Hard News: Christchurch: Is "quite good"…, in reply to Sacha,
Would busways be a more palatable interim option than trams/rail?
Oh, for sure. I never thought leaving space for future rail was a bad idea, just that Chch is so much more compact than Auckland. Auckland is vast, and the bus service is (in my experience) lousy. Here, our bus service is already great, it's speedy and offering plenty of choice. if Chch continues to expand onto the plains, then rail will come into its own. At present there seems no real advantage for the huge cost.