Daily Review 02/11/2017

Written By: - Date published: 5:30 pm, November 2nd, 2017 - 35 comments
Categories: Daily review - Tags:

 

Daily review is also your post.

This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Don’t forget to be kind to each other …

35 comments on “Daily Review 02/11/2017 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. eco maori 1
    2 November 2017 at 5:45 pm

    Iv had a good day in paradise the contest continues. I got a new device to post my blogs with the old one was stuffed so I’m testing the new one Ka pai

  2. joe90 2
    2 November 2017 at 6:28 pm

    Canada gets a scientist/astronaut, we get a chisler/vulture capitalist.

    One month into her new job as Canada’s Governor General, Julie Payette is taking on fake news and bogus science.

    Payette was the keynote speaker at the ninth annual Canadian Science Policy Convention in Ottawa Wednesday night where she urged her friends and former colleagues to take responsibility to shut down the misinformation about everything from health and medicine to climate change and even horoscopes that has flourished with the explosion of digital media.

    “Can you believe that still today in learned society, in houses of government, unfortunately, we’re still debating and still questioning whether humans have a role in the earth warming up or whether even the earth is warming up, period,” she asked, her voice incredulous.

    “And we are still debating and still questioning whether life was a divine intervention or whether it was coming out of a natural process let alone, oh my goodness, a random process.”

    https://www.thespec.com/news-story/7767752-governor-general-payette-takes-on-climate-change-deniers-and-horoscopes/

  3. Incognito 3
    2 November 2017 at 8:23 pm

    Who said that science is boring?

    Very nice article on the bacterial diversity of the entire planet (Earth, of course) with an important link to climate change: https://sciblogs.co.nz/news/2017/11/02/bacterial-bonanza/

  4. weka 4
    2 November 2017 at 8:33 pm

    JP’s a genius.

    Kalespiracy.

    “Do you have like a tofu-flavoured chicken you can substitute in for me?”

  5. ianmac 5
    2 November 2017 at 8:34 pm

    Or Atheism? Ha!

  6. The Chairman 6
    2 November 2017 at 8:43 pm

    Heather Simpson (H2) has returned to advise the new Labour Government.
    http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2017/10/h2-helen-clark-s-top-advisor-returns-to-labour-party.html

  7. The Chairman 7
    2 November 2017 at 8:54 pm

    “Goff has also said he wants to look at targeted rates to help meet the cost of the ambitious light rail plans to Auckland Airport and West Auckland – charging landowners more if the value of their property lifts because of proximity to the new tram routes and stops.”

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11939675

    Interesting reasoning from Goff. However, wouldn’t targeted rates decrease a property’s value due to buyers being deterred by the higher rates?

    • Incognito 7.1
      2 November 2017 at 8:59 pm

      Not necessarily; being close to amenities is usually a plus.

      • The Chairman 7.1.1
        2 November 2017 at 9:07 pm

        Yes, but the higher rates (as a result of targeted rates) would largely offset that gain.

        Moreover, to realize any extra possible gain, the owner would have to sell, leaving someone else to face the burden of higher rates.

        Additionally, targeted rates would take us out of the realm of “usually”.

        • Incognito 7.1.1.1
          2 November 2017 at 9:27 pm

          Or the owners could catch the train and save on petrol & parking in the CBD and also be gentler on the environment. Their kids could also commute by PB to their private schools in town. Higher rates are a small price to pay for such luxury and being spoilt for choice IMHO.

          How much higher are those targeted rates going to be anyway?

          • The Chairman 7.1.1.1.1
            2 November 2017 at 9:42 pm

            Owners and their kids may catch a bus, thus already have that benefit.

            The rate has yet to be set, the concept is still to be explored.

            • Incognito 7.1.1.1.1.1
              2 November 2017 at 9:48 pm

              They may, if they live near a bus stop. I think the catch is in the stuff you quoted:

              charging landowners more if the value of their property lifts because of proximity to the new tram routes and stops. [my bolds]

              We’ll wait & see.

              • The Chairman …
                2 November 2017 at 10:04 pm

                With higher rates being a deterrent, the properties the next block over (where the targeted rates line is drawn) will more likely become of interest to buyers. Thus, their value will probably surpass those being hit with the higher rates.

                And higher rates is another cost to add to home ownership/rents.

                • Incognito …
                  2 November 2017 at 10:18 pm

                  I think people will look at it more holistically and not so easily scared off by slightly (?) higher rates and the likes. Not everybody thinks (and reacts) the same way and what seems logical or predictable to one may not make any sense to another.

                  This is entirely speculative anyway because as you yourself said

                  The rate has yet to be set, the concept is still to be explored.

                  Once the plan is open for public discussion you can submit your concerns and provide feedback as any Auckland ratepayer can.

                  • The Chairman …
                    2 November 2017 at 10:36 pm

                    With the way rates and the top pay rates (at the council) have been increasing, I don’t know too many that would welcome another rate increase.

                    But you’re right, it is subjective.

                    Yes, we can submit, but we can also toss it around here and see what people think of the concept. Goff seems rather keen on it.

        • Draco T Bastard 7.1.1.2
          2 November 2017 at 9:56 pm

          Yes, but the higher rates (as a result of targeted rates) would largely offset that gain.

          The benefits of being close to amenities would far outweigh the minor rates increase. In fact, it would probably encourage more gentrification while the poor get shoved out to the expensive areas to live on the edge of cities.

          • The Chairman 7.1.1.2.1
            2 November 2017 at 10:12 pm

            “The benefits of being close to amenities would far outweigh the minor rates increase.”

            It depends on how “minor” that increase is. A number struggle to pay their current rates. And the more people pay in rates, the less they tend to spend elsewhere.

            • McFlock 7.1.1.2.1.1
              2 November 2017 at 10:27 pm

              Oh no, a rate increase that offsets the benefits of living close to new amenities might restrict economic activity and slow economic growth. This is very concerning. Worrying. I will never vote Labour again! /sarc

              • Incognito …
                2 November 2017 at 10:30 pm

                Sorry, you can’t blame Labour for this; it’s that ghastly little Mayor Goff who’s the mastermind behind this.

              • The Chairman …
                2 November 2017 at 10:45 pm

                @ McFlock (7.1.1.2.1.1)

                A rate increase that will deter buyers, thus offset (perhaps totally) the perceived capital gain Goff believes is fair to capture.

                • McFlock …
                  2 November 2017 at 11:43 pm

                  So at worst the residents have no financial disadvantage from the tramline, and everyone gets cleaner air.

                  • The Chairman …
                    4 November 2017 at 11:36 am

                    At worst the residents directly affected achieve little capital gain and get hit hard on their rates while those the next block over achieve all the benefits. Closer public transport, capital gains and no rate increase. Albeit, they will have to walk, ride or drive one block more.

                    • McFlock …
                      5 November 2017 at 9:30 pm

                      Your WCS can exist only if the benefit to the community is less than the cost of making the new transport route, and the rates increase covers the total cost.

                      So… sounds like bullshit to me, especially from a non-NACT administration.

  8. Muttonbird 8
    3 November 2017 at 5:12 am

    The National Party grief cycle. Stage three: bargaining.

    The National Party and its media boot-lickers seem to be exhibiting classic signs of the grief cycle, after losing power on election night.

    It’s important to name these people in particular. Trevett, Watkins, Soper, Young, Kirk, Jones, van Beynen, and Hehir. Some of them will be desperately unhappy to have lost privileged access to the government.

    http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/opinion/2017/11/mitch-harris-national-party-opposition-in-full-grief-cycle.html