Particularrly rural entrepreneuers who beleve that they always know best because its in the blood and they love the land so therefore they should be able to drain, burn, dig with no supervision.

Notice, though, they’re quick to use it when someone wants to, say, build a power pylon on their land.

Re finance company shareholders and investors – imo they have some responsibility for the current mess too. They knew what they were getting into. And if they didn’t then they too were incompetent. But whatever, it is sad when people get hurt in times like these. All people.

Which probably has a lot to do with why Dave Henderson ran into problems. I don’t know the details, but I do have extremely strong anecdotal evidence that he wouldn’t hesitate to crap on his neighbors lawn for so much as heartbeat if he thought there were good odds there was a buck in it.

Once more: hahahaha haha. It’s his investors I feel sorry for (at least those that weren’t bastards… such as all the pretty upset hanover shareholders for example). Moral – try to avoid lending your money to unscrupulous bastards.

The process is designed to make sure that you don’t crap on your neighbors lawn in the pursuit of whatever you want.

People who complain about the system are simply working it in the wrong manner (you know, abuse the Council staff, complain constantly, strike up bad relations with neighbours, rely too heavily on consultants, etc). So blah blah, I find the system good.

What is not good is this proposal to limit the ability of affected parties to have their say. There are of course times when non-affected parties overstep their position (eg, Foodstuffs objecting to a new supermarket in ‘their patch’, venomous nosybodies, etc), but it just requires some minor tweaking in this area.

What this is tryig to achieve is, by way of example, allowing Meridian to construct Project Aqua. They can just f… off. That application was a very good example of the Act in action. To short-cut a long story – National’s plan to change this is enough to start rocking my intended voting foundation blocks.

It will result in dams on stacks and stacks of rivers which is just the most brainless thing ever when NZ will still need, at some point, to find alterntives to hydro. dumbos. 2c.

So now YOUR presence is imposing not inconsiderable costs on the person who wants to operate a waste dump or fish processing plant upwind of you. Now HE wants to protest YOUR demands on him. All of a sudden the two of you are arguing the definitions of what constitutes a “nuisance” and haw bad it has to be before it makes life “unlivable” for you. In order to contain a dust and noise nuisance he might propose a 10m high wall along your northern boundary; at which point you realise that you actually value the sunlight that crosses it. And so on. Resolving this kind of thing is what the RMA is for.

Reality is a lot more complex than in your black and white, fantasy libertarian world.

For something of national infrastructural importance (like a power station) I would think it better for the govt to find appropriate sites (hydro, wind, geothermal, ?), bear the cost of RMA approval, and then put the pre-approved sites up for lease on commercial terms.

Good on you for thinking for yourself rather than buying into mob mentality.

One detail I neglected to mention was that the applicant visited me at home. Along with his partner he walked me through the plans and explained the technicality upon which consent was required. This all checked out with other information I had.

After weighing up all the facts I became very suspicious of the objectors motives. The applicant(s) were a gay couple, quite openly so, and their plans were nothing extraordinary. I might have been wrong but I began to think the objectors were driven by personal feelings against the applicant rather than the law.

So I guess I’m saying the RMA as it stands can be abused. Some of the Nats plans might be grounded in reality.

Clearly you agree with all this, so why exactly you’re protesting the existence of the RMA is beyond me.

As for DH, I can’t tell any specific stories without revealing their origin, so I won’t. Which, I realise, is no evidence at all – so don’t feel any compulsion to change your views of the guy based on my opinion, if you still want to make a “best friends forever” eternity bracelet for him or something then just go crazy.

T: “Are you trying to tell me you wouldn’t complain if a refuse station was proposed to be put in next to your nice new house out in the country G? Afterall, it’s not your property.”

This just goes to prove what little understanding you socialists have of proper property rights. In a civilised country one property owner may not infringe the rights of another property owner. This includes trespass, waste, noise, and yes, particles carrying bad smells. Anything that crosses your boundary line that makes your property unlivable is an infringement. Your neighbour is entitled to build whatever he likes, including a waste dump, provided he can find a way to contain his activity within his own boundaries.

T: “I really only have one thing to say to Dave Henderson, and that is “HAHAHAHAHA, HAHAH, HAHAHAHAHAHHAHA’… I do not imagine you will have to look far within the industry to find someone who thinks he had it coming… from what I’ve heard the guy himself is a total prick.”

What exactly has he done that deserves such an uncharitable response?

I was once sucked into the objectors’ camp largely due to the persistence of the neighbourhood busybody (the type of person who objects to anything new or different as a matter of principle). I withdrew my objection once I had the correct information at hand – as did most of the others. Some of them hung on to the bitter end though – forcing hearings and whatever else the process entails.

I later learned that this cost the applicant (an individual) a few thousand dollars to deal with. No change of plans, just the cost of going through the process. This is money that would not have been spent if the objectors were not so stupid or easily led.

Imagine if you personally had to spend 3 grand just to temporarily silence an ignoranus. I imagine the costs and risks are far greater for large developments.

It would be interesting to hear what the Nats plans are for limiting ‘vexatious’ complaints. How you can tell a genuine grievance from something else is very hard to codify.