Key’s earthquake ‘fun’

76 comments on “Key’s earthquake ‘fun’ ”

• Comments are now closed

1. BM 1

   29 August 2013 at 7:22 am

   What’s the difference in investing in a block of land and investing in a finance company?
   The way I see it, there’s no difference at all

   How many of these people brought sections as investments?
   • Pascal's bookie 1.1

     29 August 2013 at 7:36 am

     Ahem. SCF.
     • BM 1.1.1

       29 August 2013 at 7:41 am

       And?
       Its that some precedent, some politician did something unbelievably stupid and from that point on, the tax payer has to pick up the bill every time someones investment goes pear shaped?
       • Pascal's bookie 1.1.1.1

         29 August 2013 at 7:52 am

         You implied that investors in finance compnaies don’t get bailed out.
         But they do. For a lot more money, and when they should have been aware of the risks.
         It’s not my fault your distrcation turned out to be a bit foolish.
         • BM 1.1.1.1.1

           29 August 2013 at 8:01 am

           So you think these people should get bailed out because of SCF.?

           That’s the bench mark, does seem a bit fiscally irresponsible, but hey it’s only tax payers money,right?

           Plenty more where that came from.
           • Colonial Viper 1.1.1.1.1.1

             29 August 2013 at 8:31 am

             bailed out not “because of SCF”, but because the government should be willing to help ordinary people out, not just multi-millionaire mates.
           • ghostwhowalksnz 1.1.1.1.1.2

             29 August 2013 at 8:58 am

             Its cheaper than Funding another RWC or Americas Cup

             Then theres Meridian and Rio Tinto.

             Rio Tinto got a $30 mill ‘Golden hello’ fornsticking around after their previous contract they signed ‘went pear shaped’
       • geoff 1.1.1.2

         29 August 2013 at 7:58 am

         It is called a double standard, BM. National is happy to bailout corporates but will it help a handful of
         earthquake victims? Nope. National hates people. You support National. Why do you hate people, BM?
         • BM 1.1.1.2.1

           29 August 2013 at 8:06 am

           They’ve offered these people 50%, they’re lucky to be offered that.

           Maybe you could stump up with the balance Geoff, if you care so much about these poor investors.
           • geoff 1.1.1.2.1.1

             29 August 2013 at 8:15 am

             Yes, we’ve already established you hate people but we still dont why. Not enough hugs as a child?
           • vto 1.1.1.2.1.2

             29 August 2013 at 8:25 am

             Why did Brownlee offer others 100%?

             You will need to think carefully and comprehensively, taking into account all factors around the earthquakes, the red zones and their purpose, insurance, insurability, and the CERA legislation, in answering this. Oh and also the High Court case.

             Somehow I suspect that is all too much for Brain Minimum. You’re a waste of space on this issue bm.
           • Colonial Viper 1.1.1.2.1.3

             29 August 2013 at 8:33 am

             They’ve offered these people 50%, they’re lucky to be offered that.

             Why did SCF multi-milionaires and FOREIGNERS get offered 100% of their money back PLUS INTEREST?

             Why do you prefer rich foreigners to be helped, but say that ordinary NZers can’t be helped?

             Your sicko attitude is why Kiwis are going to kick National out in 13 months time. It’s embarrassing.
             • BM …

               29 August 2013 at 8:36 am

               Why did SCF multi-milionaires and FOREIGNERS get offered 100% of their money back PLUS INTEREST?

               Because Cullen let them, you’d have to be a mug not to take up that offer.
               • One Anonymous Knucklehead …

                 29 August 2013 at 8:43 am

                 “Cullen let them”? Are you sure, BM, because I’m sure I recall something rather different. You wouldn’t be telling lies, as a perfect expression of everything you represent, now, would you?

                 I note the High Court has ruled the government acted illegally. Why are you cuddling up to low-life crims, BM?
               • Colonial Viper …

                 29 August 2013 at 9:05 am

                 Cullen? Why are you lying? It was a National Government which resigned SCF then made those decisions, why doesn’t a National Government choose to help out NZers but choose to help out dirty rich foreigners instead?

                 Key has just lost National another 20,000 Christchurch votes with his cocked up comments. Another 45,000 or so lost, and National will win the next election. He just burnt up a third of the National electoral lead, with one quip.

                 You’re fucked mate, the Tory government deserves to go out on its ear.
                 • Tracey …

                   29 August 2013 at 9:08 am

                   National will win the next election CV?
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     29 August 2013 at 10:42 am

                     lol thinking skills outstripping my typing skills…thanks Tracey 🙂
               • Lanthanide …

                 29 August 2013 at 9:11 am

                 Actually the deposit gaurantee scheme covered the initial deposits only, not the investment returns.

                 National decided to pay the investment returns anyway. So you can’t blame that on Cullen.

                 Then there’s the whole fact that actually the 1st scheme Cullen had created expired, and it was Bill English that signed SCF up to the 2nd tranche of it, without doing due-diligence as to whether all companies invited into the 2nd tranche had been properly playing by the rules. Had due diligence been done, nobody in their right mind would have allowed SCF to sign up.

                 How much of the above is actually news to you, or did you just conveniently hope that none of us here know the details of what really went down?
               • Jackal …

                 29 August 2013 at 11:09 am

                 Even Fran O’Sullivan doesn’t think the SCF was bailed out because “Cullen let them” BM. But don’t let the facts of the matter hit you on the ass on the way out.
           • Tracey 1.1.1.2.1.4

             29 August 2013 at 8:47 am

             BM, let me interrupt you with some facts.

             Cullen did not enable the payout to foreign investors in SCF, John Key did.

             “the Government had extended the payout to cover people not in the scheme, such as foreign investors,…” John Key 31/08/2010 as reported on Stuff

             The government “offer” to the red zone residents was not a genuine offer

             “…red zone residents faced with a Crown purchase offer, had no or little option but to accept it. In the first place the offers were pitched at a level sufficient to make them attractive, given that the subject land was not only damaged, but within the red zone. Particularly as areas became depopulated, infrastructure fell into disrepair and essential services came under threat, the outlook for property owners was bleak. In reality, they had but Hobson’s choice.” [93] High Court decision
           • ghostwhowalksnz 1.1.1.2.1.5

             29 August 2013 at 10:02 am

             What about the CBD ‘frame’ . The government is compulsorily purchasing the land there.

             No red zone, its perfectly build able and well located, some still have occupied buildings

             But no , Nanny state has decided to prop up land values in the CBD by reducing the land zoned commercial. By government fiat they are given their land value wheter they like it or not

             Christchurch is riddled with inconsistencies like this. THis is the core of the Court decision
             • Tracey …

               29 August 2013 at 10:05 am

               +1

               The core of the decision is condemnation of inequity and acting without authority. This government doesn’t care about the first and believes the second is ok cos they “know what’s best”

               That smacks not of nanny state but authoritarian state.

               I have read many legal decisions in my life. This decision is squarely accusing the government of being bullies.
           • quinnjin 1.1.1.2.1.6

             30 August 2013 at 11:21 pm

             Land is not a risky investment, earth quakes are not relatively foreseeable market events. losses due to earthquakes are not down to mismanagement, unlike the SCF situation. Your comparing apples with oranges. therefore, your argument is invalid. Now quit your whining. National party fan boy.
             • quinnjin …

               30 August 2013 at 11:24 pm

               Also, the land owners are only asking for market value, also making your “investment risk” argument invalid.
   • Tracey 1.2

     29 August 2013 at 8:34 am

     In residential areas you can expect the land to have a home built on it.

     Bothered to read the decision yet BM?

     http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-28082013/#comment-687063

     “I see no difference at all”

     The difference is outlined below.

     The Government drafted the earthquake legislation. They actually drafted two pieces, one after the first earthquake and another later. So they had two chances to get it right.

     They also made lots of statements in public and private about the intention of their legislation.

     The High Court decision is that they then dealt with these people contrary to the very legislation (and its purpose) that they (Govt) had prescribed.

     vacant land owners could not get insurance. It is not a question of them not wanting it.

     The bottom-line however is that this government made statutory promises through the ACT and its purpose and then acted contrary to it.

     Put it this way, the majority of vacant and uninsured have already been fucked by the Govt acting outside its power (and this decision wont change that), so you can take some solace.

     The total cost of to the country to top up the first unlawful offer by the government is

     $12.54m

     BTW there is no proof, and none was offered by the Crown in its case that people will not insure if the govt pays the uninsured 100%

     Remember when the Govt paid out $20m to foreign investors in SCF? Wouldn’t a good kiwi bloke like the Pm think these Canterbury kiwis are more worthy of our support than the foreign folks taking a roll of the dice on investments? Investor beware and all that? AND this payout was done after English had a chance to cancel the govt guarantee scheme of Cullen… he knew the implications, he had advice it was going to fail, and he did it anyway.

     How about that for a precedent?
     • One Anonymous Knucklehead 1.2.1

       29 August 2013 at 8:49 am

       Nice one Tracey. Keep hounding the lying little twerp.
     • vto 1.2.2

       29 August 2013 at 8:56 am

       Yes well spelled out Tracey, although there is one other fact worth highlighting….

       The cost to the taxpayer of topping up the 50% offer is $12 million.

       The cost to the taxpayer of paying out South Canterbury Finance investors was $1,700 million.

       To picture that difference try this… Here is one $ representing the cost for these red zoners

       $

       Here are the $ representing the cost for SCF investors

       $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
     • bad12 1.2.3

       29 August 2013 at 9:06 am

       Yes the High Court ruling was based around the Governments own CERA Legislation, there cannot be then a precedent in Law from this decision which effects some future event or disaster,

       BM’s continual whine here is reflective of the little temper tantrum thrown by Slippery the Prime Minister and Brownlee as the CERA Minister over the High Court decision,

       Discriminating against property owners who had not taken out private insurance beforhand or had allowed their insurance to lapse is something we all ‘know’ might leave us without recourse should the house catch fire or some other ‘known’ disaster occur,

       Discriminating against people not insured because bare-land property cannot be insured in this country is another story entirely,

       The decision from the High Court was an excellent effort from the Bench relying simply on the clauses of the CERA Legislation to come to it’s conclusion and the cost to the Government is a mere raindrop in comparison to the total cost of the rebuild…
       • Tracey 1.2.3.1

         29 August 2013 at 9:09 am

         Mostly BM just doesn’t want to address the appalling machievellian response of Key to not “winning”.
         • bad12 1.2.3.1.1

           29 August 2013 at 11:20 am

           The only thing ever proved by the likes of BM and the other shills who wash up on these shores for an occasional burst of invective is that (a) the constant call for a better class of wing-nut is obviously based upon the fact that the current crop are basically useless, mere functional idiots,

           And (b), Did they really all go to private schools, if so they should all be demanding their money back and readying the bulldozers to demolish such shoddy institutions of learning…
       • vto 1.2.3.2

         29 August 2013 at 9:12 am

         “the cost to the Government is a mere raindrop in comparison to the total cost of the rebuild”

         I feel another representation coming on…

         Dollars to top up the 50% offer people

         $

         Dollars the government is spending in Christchurch

         $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$ $$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$ $$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
         • bad12 1.2.3.2.1

           29 August 2013 at 11:22 am

           Vto,Lolz, Ouch, that does things to my eyeballs what eyeballs were not meant to suffer,
   • One Anonymous Knucklehead 1.3

     29 August 2013 at 8:37 am

     In actual fact, BM, this is about Key’s clumsy, callous words, and more particularly his failure to apologise for them.

     I note that when your opinion differs from that of the High Court, it’s irrelevant, and when it agrees, it’s redundant.
     • Sable 1.3.1

       29 August 2013 at 8:43 am

       BM’s an ignoramus.Why waste words when the facts drown out his/her inane bleating.
       • Tracey 1.3.1.1

         29 August 2013 at 9:01 am

         Because, presented with facts, someone who believes BM’s drivel on this topic, might see through the bullshit.

         SCF

         “All assets have now been realised from the liquidated finance company, with $774.4m recovered, the latest report from receivers Kerryn Downey and William Black states…

         The receivers were appointed on August 31, 2010, and on June 7 last year, liquidators PricewaterhouseCoopers were appointed.

         The 2-year receivership has cost $936,852 in legal fees.

         The six-month liquidation cost $50,000 in fees ” 2013 stuff.co.nz

         “While it laid out $1.775 billion yesterday, the Government expects its eventual loss will be reduced to about $600 million once the company’s assets are realised over three or four years. That is included in $900 million it has set aside to cover its net losses under the guarantee…

         WHAT IT WILL COST

         * $1.7 billion

         What the Government spent yesterday bailing out South Canterbury’s investors

         * $1.17 billion

         What the Government expects to recover from South Canterbury’s receivership

         * $600 million

         Final bill for taxpayers”

         from stuff.co.nz in 2010 “
         • Sable 1.3.1.1.1

           29 August 2013 at 9:10 am

           So present your own argument Tracey rather than responding to BM’s. In that way you don’t validate their comments in any way…
           • Tracey 1.3.1.1.1.1

             29 August 2013 at 9:12 am

             um… okaaaaaaaaaaaaay.

             I feel like I just got caught running in the hallway.
             • Sable …

               29 August 2013 at 9:15 am

               Up to you Tracey but if you bite down on their comments it does tend to suggest they may have a point, even if its a bad one.
               • Tracey …

                 29 August 2013 at 9:23 am

                 how I felt when I got caught running in the hallway was

                 “Damn I know I shouldn’t do it but it’s hard to resist.” So, I took your comment onboard.
                 • Tautoko Viper …

                   29 August 2013 at 11:03 am

                   Great effort, Tracey. Keep running in the hallway. Sometimes you have to explain facts in several different ways before comprehension dawns. Teachers understand this.
               • Bastables …

                 29 August 2013 at 9:23 am

                 So we should just not pull up liers. One should never confront a lier at all . . .
                 Sod that if some one talks bullshit like BM he should be pulled up on it. Tracey bothered to and highlighted how much of a lier BM is, it is proper and right.
               • freedom …

                 29 August 2013 at 10:35 am

                 Sable, I think you are overlooking one of the many advantages of blogs in dealing with propaganda based lies, especially when those lies pertain to government spin junkies such as BM.

                 Although a casual visitor may agree with the view expressed by BM they may simply not be aware of the reality that contradicts it. By being exposed to the facts of a situation, such as those outlined above by Tracey, many people have their views challenged. I am convinced there are numerous posts all over The Standard that have been fundamental in building a platform of reconsideration for many National voters.

                 BM, srylands, and a few others are merely tools to be used in the constructive and practical presentation of fact based dialogue.
                 • bad12 …

                   29 August 2013 at 11:29 am

                   It does become tiresome tho, we could be forgiven for suspecting that we are being ‘gamed’ by the shills who simply bring up the same old bullshit time after time and once the effort is put in to provide the proof to these wing-nuts that their bulls**t is just that a BM is then replaced with another and the process of education must start all over again..
                   • freedom …

                     29 August 2013 at 12:25 pm

                     which is why some tools end up being thrown at the wall and you are left with the emptiness of wasted effort

                     so you pick up the next tool and try to learn from your mistakes 🙂
2. Sable 2

   29 August 2013 at 8:41 am

   I remember a few posts back how right wingers were commenting on how no one could manage the Christchurch crisis like National and they were right. No one could handle it as badly or callously.

   I did say that Keys and co would face a legal backlash over their mishandling of the disaster and surprise, surprise, here we are.
3. Appleboy 3

   29 August 2013 at 8:45 am

   BM has to take the prize for the right winger with the most vile and violent persona I have ever come across. I have never seen a thread of comments spewed forth so lacking in decency, caring or empathy. This much greed and self interest always gets them, one dayor obey won’t solve your issues.
   • Sable 3.1

     29 August 2013 at 8:51 am

     Take a look at the Whale Oil site if you want a real insight into how these people think. I don’t believe in concepts such as good or evil but these creeps are about as close as you will get to the latter in my humble opinion…
     • chris 3.1.1

       29 August 2013 at 10:23 am

       Sending people to read “Whaleoil” is inhumane punishment. Probably outlawed by the UN 🙂
     • Tracey 3.1.2

       29 August 2013 at 10:31 am

       don’t go there. You click and you are indirectly generating revenue and ratings for them.
       • Plan B 3.1.2.1

         29 August 2013 at 10:36 am

         agree re Whale Oil. yes someone has to make the sacrifice and go there so everyone else can know what they are on about but we should not all visit the site.
         1. It is pure poison
         2. It makes them money
       • chris 3.1.2.2

         29 August 2013 at 10:37 am

         I did not know that… thank you for the heads up.

         Rarely go anyway, but occasionally something has piqued my interest.
       • Pete 3.1.2.3

         29 August 2013 at 11:08 am

         And the vast majority of posts there are items reposted from Reddit
4. burt 4

   29 August 2013 at 9:21 am

   Their 50% offer for uninsured land (including vacant land that cannot be insured) was ruled to be inequitable

   I added that emphasis ….

   It’s simply not fair that the government isn’t using more of our tax payers money to make sure private property owners who didn’t have insurance….

   Oh yes, lets make sure socialism rewards the land owners by extracting money from renters all over the country…..
   • vto 4.1

     29 August 2013 at 9:33 am

     Here is a representation of the number and complexity of issues involved in the red zone buyout offers;

     issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue issue

     Here is a representation of the things Burt thinks are relevant in this matter;

     iss
     • Greywarbler 4.1.1

       29 August 2013 at 12:42 pm

       vto
       I think what Burt thinks is – sue if you don’t like it.
   • Tracey 4.2

     29 August 2013 at 9:35 am

     I can’t find this statement “Their 50% offer for uninsured land (including vacant land that cannot be insured) was ruled to be inequitable” in the actual decision of the court.

     I did find statements from the judge that the issue of inequity was applicable to “ALL APPLICANTS”

     “[95] The lack of even-handedness argument however, has I think considerable merit. Clearly, the main impetus for the June 2011 decision to make 100 percent offers to insured property owners was the need to provide certainty and create the confidence necessary to enable people to move on with their lives, given that “many people have their life savings tied up in their homes”, to borrow the Prime Minister’s phrase. Importantly, these considerations apply equally to many of the applicants, particularly those who are the owners of uninsured house properties.

     [96]
     Yet it is apparent that payments of 50 percent of the land rating value will not enable many property owners to make a fresh start. This is clear from the questionnaires completed by applicants in the Outcasts’ proceeding. Many owners are people of modest means, some are elderly and it is commonplace that their land and home is their one substantial asset. I am satisfied that the plight of this relatively small group has not been adequately considered in light of the purposes of the Act.”
     • Tracey 4.2.1

       29 August 2013 at 9:44 am

       sorry my attempt to bold the last part of [95] failed (so ignore emphasis added)

       “particularly those who are the owners of uninsured house properties.”

       [Bunji: I added the desired emphasis…]
     • vto 4.2.2

       29 August 2013 at 9:47 am

       Keep going Tracey, you’re all over it in highlighting the nastiness of John Key and Gerry Brownlee towards “people of modest means, some are elderly”
     • burt 4.2.3

       29 August 2013 at 11:40 am

       given that “many people have their life savings tied up in their homes”

       Yep, people who don’t earn enough to own a property should be having their tax used to insulate people who invested all their eggs in one basket – socialism at it’s finest … steal from the poor to give to the rich !!!!!!! Can’t have the rich loosing out on their poorly managed investment capital can we….
       • framu 4.2.3.1

         29 August 2013 at 1:42 pm

         isnt the issue the forced aquisition of land by the govt and the recompense from that – not the issue of who had insurance and who didnt?
         • burt 4.2.3.1.1

           29 August 2013 at 1:52 pm

           Perhaps the issue is people were compensated a lot more than the land is now worth but less than it use to be worth….

           Is it right for people to be compensated with tax payers money for private property investment that didn’t work out like they had hoped it would ?
           • Tracey 4.2.3.1.1.1

             29 August 2013 at 1:58 pm

             Is it right for elderly and low income people to lose their home when the Govt promised (on behalf of us all) to allow them to get on with their lives.

             yes, one party is a developer, but it is a mixed group.

             The people I suspect you are really angry about have already got their 100% payouts.
             • burt …

               29 August 2013 at 2:05 pm

               I’ve not known many genuine low income people who own central city real estate – but hey – the expedient definition of low income is possibly something I’m not understanding?
               • Tracey …

                 29 August 2013 at 2:09 pm

                 I was referring to your earlier comments as well, about the court decision or are you only talking about the CBD? Sorry, my confusion
           • framu 4.2.3.1.1.2

             29 August 2013 at 2:25 pm

             burt – pull your head in and stop being a dick

             1) the council and govt through direct aquisition of land or by denial of services are forcing people of the land

             2) the red zone is more than the inner city

             sure theres going to be some uninsured, and some developers mixed in there but they arent the main issue here – its about the people who wrote law, not abiding by the law they wrote and not being consistant with the application of the law

             Would you change your tune if the govt made a retrospective change?
5. Craig GlenEden 5

   29 August 2013 at 10:35 am

   Great Stuff Tracey thanks for all the work. BM totally owned what a twat.
6. Adrian 6

   29 August 2013 at 10:38 am

   I think the point is that the Government is ” compulsarily acquiring” the land, with a view to development and sale or use in the distant future.
   Correct me if I’m wrong but the last time we did this, acquiring land for a fraction of value, a few muskets etc, it didn’t turn out all that well.
   A reverse corollary is the conversion of high country leases to freehold for huge capital gain for, oh bugger me, lifetime Tories. Fancy that.
   • Tracey 6.1

     29 August 2013 at 10:53 am

     Interesting points Adrian.

     definition of red zone in the HC decision

     “The red zone was reserved for areas where rebuilding was not likely to occur in the short to medium term due to significant land and infrastructure damage, and a high risk of further damage from aftershocks, flooding or spring tides.”

     “rebuilding not likely to occur in short to medium term.”

     and then

     “What will happen to my property if I decide that I do not want to accept the Crown’s offer?
     If you decide that you do not want to accept the Crown’s offer you should be aware that:
     The Council will not be installing new services in the residential red zone.

     If only a few people remain in a street and/or area, the Council and other utility providers may reach the view that it is no longer feasible or practical to continue to maintain services to the remaining properties.

     Insurers may cancel or refuse to renew insurance policies for properties in the residential red zones.

     While no decisions have been made on the ultimate future of the land in the residential red zones, CERA does have powers under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 to require you to sell your property to CERA for its market value at that time. If a decision is made in the future to use these powers to acquire your property, the market value could be substantially lower than the amount that you would receive under the Crown’s offer.

     Mr Brownlee and Mr Sutton made similar remarks to these in media interviews”
     • jaymam 6.1.1

       30 August 2013 at 12:24 pm

       I can’t see if this is mentioned anywhere in the thread, but when land is originally subdivided into sections, the developer has to pay a rather large “reserve contribution” to the Council. I believe that means that the Council is therefore guaranteeing that the land is suitable for building on. So if the land becomes unsuitable, the owners should be compensated, out of the “reserve contribution”.
       In the case of Christchurch it is clear that the Council did not require the developer to have engineers test the land like other councils do, e.g. in Auckland. The known history of earthquakes in Christchurch from 1970, and allowing subdivisions near rivers makes the Council even more culpable. They should pay up!
7. tricledrown 7

   29 August 2013 at 12:28 pm

   Lanthanide don’t forget rio tinto’s $546 million bail out the appointment of trougher shipley at $400,000+.
   Rio Tinto get $476 million subsidized electricity $30 million cash .Nact govt covering up the real cost of meridian by selling $160 million wind farm in Australia.
   The Eastern suburbs of ChCh are labour strong holds that’s why MurKey and Brownoselee are laughing and don’t care.
   Remember Key and Brownlee promising no one will miss out every one will be looked after straight after the quakes.
   As per usual the only ones not missing out are Nationals mates.
8. tricledrown 8

   29 August 2013 at 1:07 pm

   Ed Hillary showed the world the selflesness sharing and caring that NZ is famous for!
   Now SmurKey is showing how selfish NZ is becoming under his narcisistic flipant bullying leadership!
   • burt 8.1

     29 August 2013 at 1:41 pm

     Yes indeed. Developers and speculators owning bare central city land which they plan to develop for a large profit deserve to dip into the pockets of struggling renters when things don’t go their way !!!!!!!!
     • framu 8.1.1

       29 August 2013 at 2:30 pm

       did you even read any of either the court decision or the articles linked to?

       your engaging in derailment and distraction – stop generating your usual one man, one trick side show
9. BrucetheMoose 9

   29 August 2013 at 6:32 pm

   In a nut shell, the government has abused it’s authority and used the earthquakes and it’s invented legislation to corner a minority and try and force them to give up their properties on the cheap. Now Key and His Corruptness don’t like being challenged on it and are throwing their toys out of their cots like spoilt brats that they truly are.
   If they thought it was “very very fair” and justified as they always claimed, then why did they deliberately wait to announce the decision so far down the track so as to make sure they were a smaller group to deal with?
   Why did they announce the decision on the same day as the school closure debacle to purposely create a smoke screen for the public and media diversion.?
   Why did they tell those who initially challenged the decision, specifically not to go to the media, and once the media did get traction on this subject, why did Brownlee and Sutton immediately embark on a concerted campaign of trying to portray most land owners as “Well off Developers” and irresponsible for not insuring their properties, when in fact most were honest hard working kiwi families and couldn’t insure their land even if they tried?
10. RedBaronCV 10

    29 August 2013 at 6:43 pm

    Pity John Key doesn’t reserve some of his odium for the insurance companies who are making out like bandits to the tune of about $1 billion a year from all us home owners.
    Link below is to an earlier post on this. I saw on a business page a comment that supported house premiums as being in the $750 to $1250 range.
    After all EQC had about $12 billion from our tiny $50 per house per annum.

    Visible text

Links to post

1. Wrap of the Week - The Standard: posted on 6 September 2013 at 2:22 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS