Summer service: open mike 11/01/2011

20 comments on “Summer service: open mike 11/01/2011 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. millsy 1

   11 January 2012 at 7:51 am

   Yet more beneficary bashing by a budget advisor who thinks the poor should be able to get money out of a stone.

   Vested interests methinks — I wonder how much money she gets for each referral.

   Apparently she thinks that those on benefits spend all their money on luxuries so and that’s why they don’t have enough money for food. And if they get more money, they will just spend more money on booze and smokes.

   What she doesn’t realise is that those on benefits are paying 80-90% of their income on rent (to subsidise their landlords retirements), and power and have very little left over for food.

   And she add insult to energy she says that they should give their cars up, apparently the poor should just walk, or take a taxi once a week to get their food, apparently taxis cost less than taking the car to get the groceries once a week.

   No mention as to what happens if their children need to get to school in the pouring rain, or if they need to get sick and need to see a doctor, or how to get work, and what to do when you find a job.
   • ak 1.1

     11 January 2012 at 10:29 am

     Good spotting Millsy. This is becoming eerily reminiscent of the steady trickle of lazy, cherry-picked propaganda that preceded the Orewa One Maori Bash, from memory the Daily News took the lead there too. Sadly, the callous and judgmental comment is all too easy to elicit and then highlight from bewildered and pressurised volunteers – note the zero effort at balance or factual research, front-page lead and “Deadbeat parents…” first words.

     Disgusting, lazy hatemongering journalism: exactly as ordered for the prelude to Welfare Reform.
     • tc 1.1.1

       11 January 2012 at 11:02 am

       It’s not journalism, that requires intellect and balance and done properly, ethics, it’s pure dog whistling.

       Spoke to someone that followed up a local rag piece that had factual errors only to be told sheepishly ‘we didn’t write it, it’s a PR release from company X’.

       Presented as if it was an article with no disclaimer as to source, there’s shedloads of this been going on for years as it fills up the space around the ads, journalists cost money and ask too many questions and heavens forbid want to report facts…..can’t have that now can we.

       Need a left wing media presence badly as a counter.
       • Colonial Viper 1.1.1.1

         11 January 2012 at 11:11 am

         Need a left wing media presence badly as a counter.

         Now you’re talking.
   • Treetop 1.2

     11 January 2012 at 11:41 am

     millsy the budget advisor needs to find something else to do as they are totally thick when it comes to the cost of housing.

     This morning the Families Commission have been vocal in stating how the cost of housing is impacting on being a more effective parent. A person does not function well or have the capacity to improve their parenting skills when they are constanly worrying about the cost of housing (the biggie) and the most basic essentials.

     My biggest concern prior to the 2011 election was housing and it is going to get worse before it gets better. Temporary housing is disguising the problem even more.
     • Herodotus 1.2.1

       11 January 2012 at 12:18 pm

       And the Auckland Draft Spatial Plan does nothing to assist in this. If anything the councils plan to manage and coerece us where to live (Their unsupportive arguements which is in direct opposition to the legislation which the proposal/basis have to be evidence based) which is not where the majority of us want to live and at best allows us to make second-best choices. Resulting in the desirable areas increasing in value, perpetuating the gap or division from rich and the unrich, reducing our social mobility and leaving people bound by there circumstances into which we are born to. Funny how those coercing us where to live and the town planners, live in areas that do not align with their plans for the rest of us e.g those who live in the likes of Remurea, Waiheke or Bethels Beach Their version of Palintine Hill to the squallars of where the Plebs lived.
       http://www.interest.co.nz/opinion/57226/all-productivity-commission-needed-say-its-housing-affordability-report-quit-whining-a
       or Murray Sherins comments as the Chair of the Productivity Commission “…Home ownership will continue to elude many New Zealanders unless bold changes are made to New Zealand’s housing market…” Another warning of those being exclude. !!!
       http://www.rmastudies.org.nz/library/34-centre-digest/553-and-end-of-year-launch-pad-for-the-new-year?start=4
       • Treetop 1.2.1.1

         11 January 2012 at 12:54 pm

         Sharp and onto it. Never mind training tradesmen (reducing youth unemployment) were there to be a robust state housing or lower income building programme. It’s not like land is lacking (unaffordable) but as you point out exclusivity is the privilege of the wealthy who I would like to think are part of every community.
       • Lindsey 1.2.1.2

         11 January 2012 at 12:59 pm

         I am a Planner and I live in Kingsland. I am pleased that when I want to retire, I can sell the villa and move into an apartment just around the road because my suburb has housing choices. I don’t want to be paying for the infrastructure and environmental costs of sprawl. I don’t want another motorway through the inner city suburbs to support the extra people from the far suburbs. I am pleased that the young couple up the road from me can afford a small apartment close to work rather than having to travel from the outer limits of the city.

         All growth has costs, but smart growth has the least cost and offers the better choices. Most of the people opposing it have a vested interest in “green fields” type development which are cheapest for property developers, but the most expensive for society and the environment.
         • Herodotus 1.2.1.2.1

           11 January 2012 at 1:42 pm

           Lindsay – question why should Auck be allowed to grow and have another 300k additional pop.? The growth of Auckland is questionable if the city can cope. Even at a high level of 3 people per dwelling where are we to find accommotaion for another 100k dwellings? Infill will not provide for the majority of the growth.
           Like any plan change most people affected are not aware of the issues until development is well underway. Many years after hearings and summissions have been heard. Just look at the rules that are in place- Like setbacks, road widths, density from net land, living areas, site coverage, green finger reserves, SWQP. This all works fine in theory. Yet is impracticable or expensive to remedy (increasing costs) when being applied to 3 dimensional land forms Every plan on paper looks fine. Pity those who come up with these ideas pay little attention to the actual landscape.
           And you are not paying for new infrastructure there are already Development Cont regimes and consent requirements for developers to provide free of cost new infrastructure. Such infrastructure that your property I imagine never contributed for when it was constructed.
           Why do plan changes and planners eliminate or allow minimial cul-de-sacs yet these roading forms are considered desirable by families, it is all this permability of raoding structures? Just one case where we are giving 2nd best options.
           • Lindsey 1.2.1.2.1.1

             11 January 2012 at 4:24 pm

             I did not mention infill. Smart growth is about planned intensification around traffic nodes where the infrastructure can be put in to cope. And will represent only 30% of housing stock. What is wrong with choice?
             Cul-de-sacs are burglar friendly, pedestrian unfriendly and bad for public transport.
             • Herodotus …

               11 January 2012 at 5:32 pm

               But Cul de Sacs friendly, use less land as they cater for reduced traffic flow, can be provided with single sided footpaths as roads have 2 footpaths, and can be interconnected with walkways. And I question re your basis that they are bad for public transport.
               Also for infilling in the likes of the CBD and areas adjourning the area e.g. Ellerslie- The stormwater and sewer systems are not up to current stds, the roading layouts are not designed for increased traffic flows, and increased densities increase stormwater flows as the impervious service % increase. As the overflow from SW infiltrates and mixes with SW and then discharged dirrectly into the sea.. Whilst new developments SW and sewer are seperate, with SW being treated before discharging with Stormwater ponds and sewage is taken diretly to treatment ponds. Love for infil to comply with ths stds that new developments have to achieve then see how cost effective they are !!! But then this is one persons oponion and experience 😉
   • Lanthanide 1.3

     11 January 2012 at 11:51 am

     “And she add insult to energy she says that they should give their cars up, apparently the poor should just walk, or take a taxi once a week to get their food, apparently taxis cost less than taking the car to get the groceries once a week.”

     Well it’s true, cars are actually very expensive to run once you take into account WoF and registration. And if you don’t have WoF and registration then you’re just gambling with getting a large fine (which you then can’t pay either). You also need 3rd party insurance. If it breaks down and you can’t afford to fix it, you’re screwed.

     When you take into all these costs, it may be cheaper to use a taxi once a week to buy your groceries, although I think you’d have to be going a fairly short distance. But think about it more – you only really need a taxi for the homebound journey.

     I’m not defending her logic, I’m just pointing out that actually cars are a lot more expensive to run than they first appear and also entail quite a large financial risk (need new tires to pass the WoF?) that someone on a benefit seriously needs to weigh up and not take for granted.
     • Colonial Viper 1.3.1

       11 January 2012 at 12:22 pm

       More and more people on lower incomes will find (what were once regarded as) the basics of society unavailable to them.

       I don’t expect anyone earning $13/hr or $14/hr to be able to keep a car running properly or frequently.
     • felix 1.3.2

       11 January 2012 at 12:38 pm

       “cars are a lot more expensive to run than they first appear and also entail quite a large financial risk (need new tires to pass the WoF?) that someone on a benefit seriously needs to weigh up and not take for granted.”

       Yeah, but that’s also a prescription for even further marginalisation from the rest of society, leaving people trapped in their homes and unable to get out and seek opportunities to advance their situation.

       If anyone’s taking anything for granted here it’s those who expect people on a benefit to stop participating in society at a meaningful level, to live as second-class citizens, and simultaneously to be ready to jump out of bed, bright-eyed and bushy-tailed with no psychological baggage the minute someone snaps their fingers and throws them a minimum-wage job.
     • Draco T Bastard 1.3.3

       11 January 2012 at 1:52 pm

       When you take into all these costs, it may be cheaper to use a taxi once a week to buy your groceries…

       If you were going to do that then it’d probably be cheaper just to pay the $15 that supermarkets presently charge to deliver. Of course, if we weren’t so caught up in the inefficient and irrational free-market delusion your groceries would be delivered anyway as doing so would be far cheaper overall than everyone getting in their cars and going shopping.

       I’m just pointing out that actually cars are a lot more expensive to run than they first appear and also entail quite a large financial risk (need new tires to pass the WoF?) that someone on a benefit seriously needs to weigh up and not take for granted.

       That I can agree with. Private transport is massively expensive and yet most people don’t seem to realise this. IMO, it’s one of those wilful blind spots that have become so endemic to society over the last few decades.
     • Ianupnorth 1.3.4

       11 January 2012 at 3:07 pm

       One of the biggest barriers to food security is travel costs; when you live in the central north island and the small rural towns come to do their shopping there are very few registered or warranted vehicles.
     • Vicky32 1.3.5

       12 January 2012 at 6:28 pm

       I’m just pointing out that actually cars are a lot more expensive to run than they first appear and also entail quite a large financial risk (need new tires to pass the WoF?) that someone on a benefit seriously needs to weigh up and not take for granted.

       I have never had a car, especially not when on a DPB, and further – no woman I knew on the DPB had one either!
       So, I assure you that people on benefits don’t take having cars for granted at all. Why you think they do, is beyond me. That being said, I would very much have liked to have one. As it was, I did daily shopping, because I couldn’t afford a taxi, for a weekly shop, but could manage to carry a daily one home while walking. I would also like my son to have got to school on rainy  days (in Auckland, that’s most of them) without getting soaking wet..
2. Draco T Bastard 2

   11 January 2012 at 1:45 pm

   Missed this one from NRT yesterday.

   Back when he was campaigning to be British Prime Minister, Tony Blair was harsh about tax cheats:

   It seems that Blair is now engaging in exactly the sort of dishonest cheating he once criticised…

   Can’t say that I’m surprised really. In government he was obviously an agent for the rich and corrupt and not the workers that (British) Labour were originally set up to represent.
3. Jum 3

   11 January 2012 at 7:41 pm

   http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU1201/S00162/auckland-december-property-sales-at-highest-in-five-years.htm

   And who is buying them – individuals? New Zealand families?
   • Colonial Viper 3.1

     12 January 2012 at 6:49 pm

     It would be very interesting to see the number of transactions going to owner occupiers, and the number going to investors.

     I think it is a distinct possibility that the 1% are currently on a property acquisition spree, facilitated by an easing of the availability of bank credit i.e. mortgage debt.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS