Buying Awaroa beach

Written By: - Date published: 1:16 pm, February 10th, 2016 - 50 comments
Categories: activism, Conservation, Public Private Partnerships, quality of life - Tags: , , ,

Great to see this campaign going so well:

Pristine beach in the heart of the Abel Tasman

There is a pristine piece of beach and bush in the heart of the Abel Tasman up for private sale. Together we can buy it and gift it to NZ. …

At time of writing there is $1,606,801.50 pledged for a $2,000,000.00 target. Technology enabling mass participation for the public good!

See also:
#Buythisbeachnz campaign: Family who formerly owned Awaroa beach support campaign
Labour calling on Government to stump up for Abel Tasman beach bid
Abel Tasman beach campaigners reject Gareth Morgan’s money

awaroa-beach

50 comments on “Buying Awaroa beach ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Tautoko Mangō Mata 1
    10 February 2016 at 1:26 pm

    now $1,611,922.90

  2. alwyn 2
    10 February 2016 at 2:01 pm

    Has Andrew announced how much Labour MPs have contributed out of their own pockets?
    Or is he just good at giving away tax-payer’s money that is coughed up by compulsory levies on a lot of low income New Zealanders who will never be able to get near the place?
    How much have you pledged from your own very high income Andrew?
    The same question is applicable to Nick Smith. How much have you pledged Nick?

    • dv 2.1
      10 February 2016 at 2:15 pm

      How much have you pledged alwyn?

      • alwyn 2.1.1
        10 February 2016 at 6:33 pm

        Nothing. I really don’t care about whether a little piece of beach which is inaccessible to all except a very few residents of the country is, or is not, part of the conservation estate.
        On the other hand I am NOT, as Andrew and Nick are, proposing that the tax-payer should pay through the nose to give those few people their own little patch of beach. Let them personally contribute if they think it is a good idea.

        • dv 2.1.1.1
          10 February 2016 at 6:54 pm

          I really don’t care about

          SFC
          Rio Tinto

          • alwyn 2.1.1.1.1
            10 February 2016 at 10:05 pm

            That is your business.
            Am I really entitled to demand that you should care about SFC or Rio Tinto?
            I don’t think so. You can only do a certain amount and you must choose your own priorities. If that doesn’t include those two organisations why should I complain?

            • dv 2.1.1.1.1.1
              11 February 2016 at 7:59 am

              The tax payer bailed SFC and Rio out.
              I thought you would have been against that – are you?

            • dv 2.1.1.1.1.2
              11 February 2016 at 8:14 am

              I really don’t care about
              were YOUR words quoted from comment 2.1.1

              Did YOU support the tax payer bail out of SCF and Rio?

              • alwyn …
                11 February 2016 at 10:12 am

                “I really don’t care about
                were YOUR words quoted from comment 2.1.1”

                Well yes, I know that. I thought you had used the same words to tell me what YOU didn’t care about. Naturally enough they were different things.
                I still don’t think I can judge you though. You are quite entitled to not care about SCF of Rio.
                You don’t really think you need me to approve of your opinions before you are allowed to express them do you? That would show a massive inferiority complex on your part.

                • Expat …
                  11 February 2016 at 10:32 am

                  Just try answering the question, just a simple yes or no would suffice, but I suspect your real view is YES, but don’t want to be contradicted.

                  • alwyn …
                    11 February 2016 at 11:07 am

                    I’m afraid that dv is going to have to make up his (or her) own mind about SCF or Rio.
                    Anyone old enough to attempt to comment on this site has to be able to show at least a little independence. They cannot go on for ever relying on the opinions of their wiser brethren.

                    So dv, and Expat, you are going to have to make a decision without using my opinion as your lead. If, as you said, you don’t care about SCF or Rio don’t just fluff around worrying about what I might think. If you don’t care stick to your view. If you have changed your mind then say you do care. Don’t keep relying on me to tell you what to think.
                    GROW UP.

                    While I was typing this I see that you have come to a decision. Good on you. Now why don’t you stop worrying and stick to it. You don’t really need my approval of your actions do you?

                • dv …
                  11 February 2016 at 11:05 am

                  DUH.

                  Because you had problems in reading an understanding what I wrote
                  I don’t approve of the bailouts, and I certainly do not want or need your approval.

                  Now answer the question

                  Did YOU support the tax payer bail out of SCF and Rio?

                  • alwyn …
                    11 February 2016 at 11:24 am

                    Are you trying to get us all banned?
                    The subject of this post is Awaroa Beach. If you want to reminisce about SCF or Rio shouldn’t you do it on Open Mike?
                    I don’t see why I should be banned because you are going off topic.

                    • dv …
                      11 February 2016 at 11:47 am

                      Well SFC and RIO were using tax payer funds, as you were objecting to for Awaroa.
                      I was trying to see if you are consistent in your views.

                      LPENT if i am out of line let me know and I won’t embarrass Alwyn any more with the question about SFC and Rio.

                    • alwyn …
                      11 February 2016 at 12:23 pm

                      Is that what you were talking about?
                      Why don’t you answer some trick questions of your own?

                      Were you in favour of the state paying out the liabilities of SCF to the depositors?
                      Are you in favour of a taxpayer funded health service?
                      Are you consistent in your answers to these questions?

                      And as a final one. As Expat suggests “A simple yes or no” please.
                      Have you stopped beating your partner?

                    • dv …
                      11 February 2016 at 12:40 pm

                      s that what you were talking about?
                      Why don’t you answer some trick questions of your own?

                      “Were you in favour of the state paying out the liabilities of SCF to the depositors?
                      NO
                      Are you in favour of a taxpayer funded health service?
                      YES
                      Are you consistent in your answers to these questions?
                      YES

                      And as a final one. As Expat suggests “A simple yes or no” please.
                      Have you stopped beating your partner?
                      YES NO

                      Working really hard to avoid answering my quest Alwyn

                    • alwyn …
                      11 February 2016 at 12:56 pm

                      @dv.
                      I have read your answers, and your statement that they are consistent. I’ll, at this time, accept you believe you are being consistent with those responses.

                      I see that what you want to know, as you stated it.
                      “I was trying to see if you are consistent in your views”.
                      By your standards I can assure you that I am entirely consistent in my views. There, that was what you wanted to know.

                      As for the final one about beating your partner. Does the YES NO answer mean that you aren’t currently beating him or her but you reserve the right to do so again in the future?

                    • dv …
                      11 February 2016 at 1:02 pm

                      @Alwyn
                      Lotsa word BUT still
                      Did YOU support the tax payer bail out of SCF and Rio?
                      Yes or No

    • framu 2.2
      10 February 2016 at 3:47 pm

      WTF alwyn?

      even gossman makes more sense – and that his MO your using

    • Incognito 2.3
      10 February 2016 at 6:40 pm

      “Little had personally contributed $250 to the Givealittle campaign, and his deputy Annette King had put in $150.”

      http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/76613070/the-sale-of-an-abel-tasman-beach-and-other-gaps-in-the-queens-chain

      • alwyn 2.3.1
        10 February 2016 at 10:21 pm

        How sweet. At least they put a little bit of their own money where their mouths are.
        Andrew gets a salary of about $282,000 and Annette around $202,000 don’t they?
        Plus about $56,000 and $40,000 each into their super funds.
        Plus about $17,000 each in “expenses”
        Plus a self drive car for Andrew.
        Plus lots of travel for their family.
        Plus chauffeur driven limos.
        Plus, plus, plus.
        Gee aren’t they generous?.
        That would be about $25 for someone on the average wage I suppose.
        Or did it come out of the Labour Party Leader’s, also known as slush fund?

        • marty mars 2.3.1.1
          11 February 2016 at 7:43 am

          right the politics of envy

          • alwyn 2.3.1.1.1
            11 February 2016 at 12:42 pm

            Envious? Of a politician?
            Envious of Little or King?
            You really must be joking.
            There used to be a weekly paper in New Zealand called Truth. It published quite a lot of stories no other media outlet would handle.
            The journalists who worked there were paid more money than those at other papers. It was called an odium allowance. I suspect that is the reason politicians are paid more now than they used to be. Everyone despises them.

    • Chris 2.4
      10 February 2016 at 9:35 pm

      That’s not right. Look at Urupukapuka Island. Plenty of people from all over the place go there. It’s a DOC camp and very cheap. The government should do the same here and make this a DOC camp. Relying on private charity like this plays into Key’s hands. He’ll be lovin’ this. So will Labour. Just look at their monumental fuck up at Opoutama. Flippin’ criminal.

      • Chris 2.4.1
        10 February 2016 at 9:59 pm

        Key could make political capital from DOC buying Opoutama from the developers. Locals have poured cold water over it so Key’s sweet there. Could show Labour up as miserly wee charity workers pissing around with ‘givealittle’ to provide core services. He won’t, of course, but he’d come off looking good if he did.

      • Whispering Kate 2.4.2
        11 February 2016 at 1:54 pm

        Chris I remember Opoutama from when my family went camping there for many years when we were kids. We had a tent site right by the pathway to the beach, a darts board pinned up to a tree and a swing hanging from it as well. (OSH would have something to say about that now). Everybody would congregate at our site for a yarn and drinks of an evening. I had my first kiss there in 1960!! On New Year’s Eve we kids plus others went around pulling pegs out of tents and the usual mahem, the toilets were long drops and not so nice but the pine trees were fantastic for having the tents under. and on the beach we used to dig deep trenches and have sand ball fights at the other side in their deep trenches, plus we played soft ball as well. My Dad used to wander the beach at night with his lantern looking for us errant kids to come home and get to bed. Possibly got my first kiss on the beach on one of those nights. Wonderful memories.

        Then I went back on a nostalgic trip a few years back with my family and was horrified at the weed infested wreck of a partial subdivsion left to its own devices and reverting back to nature. Sad Sad day for me – a real blight on the landscape. Another wide-boy developer wrecking the lovely area, we seem to be strewn with them here.

        • Chris 2.4.2.1
          11 February 2016 at 11:19 pm

          It is a shame what the developers have done but I think it’s great what the locals did to stop it. I always make a point of driving around it as a salute to the direct action that’s potentially saved important part of NZ for future generations. Now government has to step up and put those greedy developers out of their misery.

  3. Ad 3
    10 February 2016 at 2:52 pm

    People can do what they like with their own money – good luck to them all – but this sandspit will hardly last another 50 years. Why not let nature just take its course on this one?

    • Anne 3.1
      10 February 2016 at 6:52 pm

      The thing is it’s there… and with the publicity it is getting then more people will want to visit the site – especially if it’s part of the DOC estate. Even if it only lasts another 50 years that’s better than seeing a part of our pristine estate (and with Climate Change there will be less and less of it available) end up in foreigners hands.

      • Ad 3.1.1
        10 February 2016 at 8:25 pm

        Current access is exclusively private, so foreign ownership immaterial.

        Abel Tasman is mostly foreigners already.

        One storm away from nothing left, but don’t let me stop you donating.

  4. Lanthanide 4
    10 February 2016 at 3:11 pm

    Now they just have to win the tender. Of course any other private bidder knows exactly what $ figure the public campaign is going to put in, making them a sitting duck.

    Would the vendors turn down an extra $200k over the crowd-funded figure, for example?

  5. Don't worry. Be happy 5
    10 February 2016 at 3:38 pm

    I just don’t get why it is a private beach. surely this is a contradiction in terms? Surely this “owner” is trying to sell so ething he does not own….the Queen’s .Chain?

  6. indiana 6
    10 February 2016 at 3:39 pm

    I’m happy to make a pledge so long as my entire family for life gets 10 summer’s day on the best part of the beach where no one can come within 200m of us…

  8. maui 8
    10 February 2016 at 6:34 pm

    Stinks really, the public shouldn’t be bailing out DoC who seem to be about bankrupt right now. I would have thought a fairly logical long-term plan for Abel Tasman would be for the Government to buy back the private land still remaining in the National Park. I did forget though that we don’t do planning or long term in NZ.

  9. Roy 9
    10 February 2016 at 6:55 pm

    What the hell are we doing buying a beach anyway? All beaches are public in NZ, aren’t they? If not, confiscate the lot of them back and the “owners” can go suck a lemon!

  10. Bearded Git 10
    10 February 2016 at 9:19 pm

    This whole thing smacks too much of the right-wing landowners argument “if you want it protected then buy it” which they trot out at District Plan hearings all the time. Good planning can prevent beaches like this being developed while not needing the public to front up and buy it.

  11. vto 11
    10 February 2016 at 9:34 pm

    Betcha nobody has thought about the sandflies lol

  12. marty mars 12
    10 February 2016 at 10:42 pm

    I went past this beach last week – it is pretty. I’d get rid of all of the private ownership around that National Park and Kahurangi too btw. I saw someone bringing in their ratdog to one of the privately owned baches completely enclosed by the National Park – just fucking wrong.

    • greywarshark 12.1
      11 February 2016 at 10:19 am

      I think it was Perrine Moncrieff who gave a lot of her land to the government to ensure it remained for NZs to enjoy, but not unreasonably wanted the right to use her own bach and have her holidays there as always enjoyed. And some arrangement was made, with her and some others that had baches there with conditions though.
      I have forgotten just which piece of land, somewhere in the Sounds I think.

      • marty mars 12.1.1
        11 February 2016 at 10:27 am

        It just felt wrong to me to be passing the bays – this one is private ownership, this one is in the park. Moncrieff did some outstanding protection work and that is not forgotten.

  13. greywarshark 13
    11 February 2016 at 10:35 am

    I agree. But sometimes people living there are good watchdogs, keen outdoors types plus environmentalists, and could be brought on side by DOC, it could be a demand that is backed by law, that they co-operate or their tenure is gone.