Choices, Choices

25 comments on “Choices, Choices ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Irascible 1

   7 April 2011 at 2:00 pm

   One could also ask about the choice of paying 4.5 Million dollars to repair the turf in the AMI Stadium in the quest to keep the RWC circus in ChCh over funding temporary housing in the city.
    
   • Lanthanide 1.1

     7 April 2011 at 2:16 pm

     Fixing the turf at AMI stadium (hah) has nothing to do with the RWC, because the games are already out of CHCH.

     It’s being fixed to ensure that the stadium can be used next year for regular home games. You can be sure that the first game that is played on it will be celebrated as CHCH “returning to normal”; possibly some sort of exhibition match with All Blacks vs another foreign team – a replay of the RWC Quarter-Finals that were supposed to be hosted in CHCH for example?
     • Tigger 1.1.1

       7 April 2011 at 2:40 pm

       But again, fixing a sportsfield vs basic living conditions. It’s a no brainer, need before nice to have…
   • Bunnykinz 1.2

     7 April 2011 at 11:25 pm

     I hadn’t heard about the Govt paying for the repair of turf at AMI Stadium, but it puts this story into a new conext:
     http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/4856873/Quake-hit-AMI-insurance-bailout-could-cost-1-billion
     I could just imagine the AMI Board meeting about approaching the Govt for this kind of money.

     “Do you think they will give us the dough to save our necks?”
     “Come on, they gave us $4.5 million for our grass, there is no way they would say no to this!”
     • Lanthanide 1.2.1

       8 April 2011 at 10:53 am

       AMI have naming rights, nothing more.
       • Bunnykinz 1.2.1.1

         8 April 2011 at 11:11 pm

         yeah, I did kinda of realise that and was just having a bit of a jab at the ridiculous situation where a corporation puts their name on something that is maintained by others 😉

          I still think it would be justified to change the name to the “New Zealand Taxpayer’s Stadium” as a result of this.
2. freedom 2

   7 April 2011 at 2:34 pm

   lest we forget the motivational basis for his choices ?
    
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxRCjwYcc1I&NR=1
   • rosy 2.1

     7 April 2011 at 6:17 pm

     In any other democractic country he would have been forced to resign over the transrail shares. Beating that rap has allowed for the demolition of our democracy.
   • George.com 2.2

     8 April 2011 at 8:22 pm

     He has no idea exactly how many rail shares he has, until he is put on the spot and his statements are challenged. Suddenly, in danger of being showen to be lying, he remembers.
3. Nick K 3

   7 April 2011 at 6:33 pm

   In any other democratic country Cullen would have been forced to resign over his purchase of Tranzrail.
   • Marty G 3.1

     7 April 2011 at 7:55 pm

     yeah, right. Now tell us the one about the Randian superhero
     • Armchair Critic 3.1.1

       7 April 2011 at 9:22 pm

       The Randian superhero celebrated when the tunnel collapsed on the train and killed hundreds of people.  Which says it all about Randian superheros.
     • Policy Parrot 3.1.2

       8 April 2011 at 11:41 am

       “The Randian superhero is the individual. The self-made individual who struggles against the influence of the behemoth socialist bureaucracy in a society where creativity goes unrewarded.”
       That is pretty much the essence of her tome “Atlas Shrugged”, the bible of the teapartiers and other uber-libertarianists who should really all move to Somalia and embrace the freedom.
4. Bazar 4

   7 April 2011 at 7:28 pm

   Making the campervans free is obviously the correct choice, its a good then that there are only 350 famlies/people displaced.
   Because if there WERE more then 350 famlies displaced, there would be a long queue to get into the camper vans.
   Such a queue would require a system for balanced tenancy, a monetary system could work…
    
    
    
   • Marty G 4.1

     7 April 2011 at 7:56 pm

     there are much more than 350 families needing emergency housing.
     the idea that we should ration emergency housing on ability to pay disgusts me.
     • Bazar 4.1.1

       8 April 2011 at 12:47 am

       And the alterntive is what?
        
       Give it away freely? Theres far more demand then there is supply.
       Give it to the most needly, whos going to be the judge?
       How often will you rejudge their needs, given that a lot/most won’t give up free rent unless stripped of it, even if they have afordable alternitives.
        
       And keep in mind, people are receiving benifits from the goverment for accommodation. I think its only fair for the goverment to reduce that benifit when its providing the accomidation itself.
        
       But hey, lets throw out our benifit system and start mesuring need based on how much of a bleeding heart they are, or how well they can pull favours?
       Or we could just do a a raffle, thats fair isn’t it. Or we could talk about how everyone is entiled to a “basic human right – safe, warm shelter”, when talking changes nothing about the fact that there are only 350 of them, and far more needed.
       • Colonial Viper 4.1.1.1

         8 April 2011 at 1:08 am

         What a cruel joke you have outlined.
          
         A cruel joke that the Government is playing on the people of Christchurch. Winter is coming and the Crown can’t even pull together more than a few campervans.
          
         Here is a clue: if there are only 10 campervans for families in need they should be free. If there were 100 they should be free. If there were 1000 and they were all needed they should be free.
          

         How often will you rejudge their needs, given that a lot/most won’t give up free rent unless stripped of it, even if they have afordable alternitives.
          

         Yeah because living in a tiny cold campervan in the middle of Winter is everybody’s idea of a “lifestyle choice” right? Fucking idiot.
   • Lanthanide 4.2

     7 April 2011 at 11:12 pm

     I’m sure there are probably 350 families who can’t pay much more than $5/week to live in these caravans. So by rationing through the monetary system, you are denying these families what should be a basic human right – safe, warm shelter.
5. Dan 5

   8 April 2011 at 10:14 am

   Isn’t this blog also in favour of the Government paying $2bn for a rail loop? I see what you mean, but you could question literally any discretionary spend at all on this basis. You’d grind the country to a halt

   [lprent: The ‘blog’ is some dumb software. People who think that software thinks should read the policy – specifically the section on self-martyrdom offenses. They should also contemplate the level of their own stupidity – especially if they repeat the offense.

   You were warned for exactly the same offense in 2008. However your comments are generally adequate. One month ban. If I see you repeat it again, then I’ll boot you off permanently. ]
6. Bazar 6

   8 April 2011 at 3:49 pm

   Well your post was very insightful Viper.
   The way you explained a better tenancy arrangement was most excellent. A+

   But most of all I really love how you didn’t write up a post that fits exatly into what i didn’t want to see, the:
   “Or we could talk about how everyone is entiled to a “basic human right –  safe, warm shelter”, when talking changes nothing about the fact that  there are only 350 of them, and far more needed.”

   Coward. Rather then working with what exists, you talk about sweet thigns that don’t.
   I’ll be here if you decide you’d like to talk about issues based in reality.
   • Bazar 6.1

     8 April 2011 at 5:55 pm

     err, this was a reply to 4.1.1.1
     Looks like the forum lost its place when i hit the back button.
     • Colonial Viper 6.1.1

       8 April 2011 at 7:06 pm

       A government who can’t put together temporary housing for more than 350 people. And when it does so wants to charge them for it. Sad. Or incompetent. Both I think.
     • lprent 6.1.2

       9 April 2011 at 4:38 am

       Does that and I have seen it. From memory, it happens when you go ‘back’ to before hitting the reply button – ie when the comment editor was at the end of the post, just like it was at the start of the previous page.

       The reply link is javascript run, so doesn’t wind up in the history.

       It cannot be fixed easily because the only viable coding techniques would involve either sending the hidden HTML for every possible reply or reloading the page each time you press reply.

       Neither are particularly good alternatives on pages with hundreds of comments.
7. Machiavelli 7

   12 April 2011 at 1:02 pm

   Brilliant, I never really figured he rated the Maoris either so as a resident of the Eastern Suburbs of Chch I feel totally validated. As Frank Zappa sang \” Sorry John, sorry, better try that again..”

Links to post

1. Armstrong on “Austerity” « The Standard: posted on 7 April 2011 at 5:24 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS