The pipsqueak attacks the Waitakeres

21 comments on “The pipsqueak attacks the Waitakeres ”

• Comments are now closed

1. tc 1

   12 February 2010 at 10:03 am

   A flat earth policy to match their flat tax policy……..easy solution, Lab go all out and warn the pillagers they’ll re-protect it and there will be no compensation for the greedy sods who jump in.

   Flags to everyone what Wodney and Johnny clown are up to……interesting to see if the Nats rollover Epsom to Hideous again in 2011.
2. tc 2

   12 February 2010 at 10:03 am

   PS there was no anti spam word webmasters
3. Anne 3

   12 February 2010 at 10:04 am

   About fifteen years ago I remember having an argument with Rodney Hide over the preservation of buildings of historical significance. He was scathing of them. He reckoned “the whole lot should be pulled down”. At first I thought it was his idea of a joke, but I soon realised he meant it. Hide has no comprehension of, or feelings for, the importance of heritage sites and historical places. Like most of his National mates – and that includes the super-ignorant Paula Bennett – their minds are closed to all considerations except the almighty dollar.
4. Phil Twyford 4

   12 February 2010 at 10:48 am

   Thanks for the post lprent – let me make a correction of the info I sent out last night: In relation to (1) in the post, the change is in section 45 of the Bill which proposes insertion of section 66 into the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009.

   I urge people to get in a submission today: http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/SC/MakeSub/6/3/a/49SCAGL_SCF_00DBHOH_BILL9729_1-Local-Government-Auckland-Law-Reform.htm#captcha
   • wtl 4.1

     12 February 2010 at 11:42 am

     Yes, checking the bill, number (1) relates to Clause 45 inserting new Part 6/Section 66 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 – there need to be provisions to make the spatial plan subject to the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act 2004; Number (2) refers repeal of Section 77 of the Local Government Amendment Act 1992 (1992 No 42) in Schedule 3 – these should not be repealed but instead ownership transferred to the new Auckland Council.

     It just shows how easy it is to hide all sorts of nasty provisions in such a complex bill. I wonder what else we’ll find after more scrutiny of this bill?
     • jarbury 4.1.1

       14 February 2010 at 11:15 pm

       I wonder what else we’ll find after more scrutiny of this bill?

       Oh you would not believe that amount of hidden crap that’s in this bill. The ARC’s submission on it makes for compelling reading:

       http://www.arc.govt.nz/albany/fms/main/Documents/Council/Agendas%20and%20minutes/Council/Web%20version%20-%209%20Feb%2010%20-%20Attachment%20-%20Auckland%20Law%20Reform%20Bill%20draft%20ARC%20submission.pdf
5. pmofnz 5

   12 February 2010 at 10:50 am

   Best news I’ve heard in years. Now ratepayers might be able to unravel the eco-terrorism that emanates from City Hall out west.

   Well done, Rodney.
   • Sam 5.1

     12 February 2010 at 11:25 am

     Because all people who care about their environment are ecoterrorists and no ecoterrorist is a ratepayer, right?

     But anyway, this could prove difficult for Bennett keeping her seat, couldn’t it?
     • mickysavage 5.1.1

       12 February 2010 at 3:51 pm

       It is the signature on her death warrant.

       The local activists are already incensed by this.
6. mickysavage 6

   12 February 2010 at 3:51 pm

   This is appalling.

   Out west we spent 6 years meeting and consulting and discussing to try and get a way to effect meaningful protection of the ranges. We finally ended up with a regime that let people exercise current development rights but at the same time stopped the gradual continuous loosening of the rules holding back development.

   The Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act was the result. It had the support of the Waitakere City Council, the Rodney District Council and the Auckland Regional Authority as well as 80% of Aucklanders.

   Morgan Williams said without this sort of protection the Waitakere Ranges would suffer death by a thousand cuts.

   The B*&turds have always hated the legislation and promised to repeal it. The least they could have done is be up front about it so that they could have received the public opprobrium that they deserve.

   Instead of that they cut tree protection for part of the area and have tried to sneak through further changes that will undermine the protection provided by the Act. And they did not even talk to the Local Authorities about it.

   Talk about death by a thousand cuts …
   • pmofnz 6.1

     12 February 2010 at 4:32 pm

     “6 years meeting and discussing”

     Call it what you will, I saw it (and still do) as the rabid ideology of ecoterrorism removing hard won private property rights.

     I for one will be glad to see such legislation disappear.

     Unlikely that Rodders will rightly take any notice, at least the Super City will kill the wasteful eco ideologies and get rates back to a sound ‘service’ oriented business case.
     • micky savage 6.1.1

       12 February 2010 at 4:41 pm

       Call it what you want but surely the Government ought to have said that it was doing this rather than trying to bury it and sneak it past in the detail.

       Don’t you think our pollies ought to be up front and honest? I thought that Key promised this?
     • The Voice of Reason 6.1.2

       12 February 2010 at 5:12 pm

       Do you have a link for these ecoterrorists? I wanna make a donation. And what do you mean by hard won property rights? I thought property rights in NZ were a reflection of prevailing British law and the real battle involved was conning some Maori chiefs into unwittingly signing away their land.
       • pmofnz 6.1.2.1

         12 February 2010 at 6:18 pm

         Link? Lookup http://www.waitakere.govt.co.nz

         Donations? Not possible – property owners only. Paid 4 times a year as exorbitant taxes to the above organisation.

         Property rights? Hard won by the owner of properties investing their time and money into their personal assets only to have those rights usurped by the RMA and local councils intent on enforcing ideological terrrorism upon the residents.

         No con involved, but off topic I’d say.
         • mickysavage 6.1.2.1.1

           12 February 2010 at 7:03 pm

           The number of times these arguments have been raised before.

           You know what?

           Living in a pristine subtropical forest where you can wake up and look at trees and listen to indigenous birds does wonders for your land value. You then pay more rates but WTF, it is a sign of success. You should smile as you sign the cheque.

           Property rights? Like it or not everything that we do affects our neighbours and in civilised societies this is recognised. If you live in Titirangi and want to fell all of the 100 year old Kauris on your section then you are a dick and you also threaten the stability of your neighbour’s section.

           If you want to be completely selfish then turn off your water supply, your link to the local sewer and while you are at it your power supply. And stop driving on the roads. Construct your own road. Just think, once you have done this you will never have to worry about congestion.
       • mickysavage 6.1.2.2

         14 February 2010 at 3:25 pm

         TVOR you could try the Waitakere Ranges Protection Society. As fine a group of ecoterrorists you could ever hope to meet!
7. jaymam 7

   13 February 2010 at 3:14 pm

   lprent:”Personally I blame the voters of Epsom”

   We would have got rid of Hide and ACT a couple of elections ago if the Labour and Green voters in Epsom had all voted for Richard Worth instead of voting for their own candidate (who of course had no chance of winning the seat).
   But no, many Labour/Green voters that I spoke to could not understand the logic of tactical voting. They are to blame for ACT still being in power. Sad isn’t it.
   • Gosman 7.1

     15 February 2010 at 9:09 am

     So you are not keen on Parliament reflecting as widely diverse set of views as possible then?
     • felix 7.1.1

       15 February 2010 at 9:53 am

       Don’t be dense, Gosman.

       I want parliament to reflect my views, you want it to reflect yours. That’s where the wide range comes in.

       We’re not all voting for a wide range individually FFS.

       And jaymam is entirely correct. Labour and Green voters need to get their shit together in Epsom (and Ohariu). Party leaders too. Russel Norman, that means you. Don’t fuck it up this time.
       • jaymam 7.1.1.1

         15 February 2010 at 12:08 pm

         I do understand that Labour and the Greens have a problem if they advise their Epsom voters to vote for a National candidate. It’s not a good look. But the Green candidate will always get in on the list and the Labour candidate is always a new person getting experience so as to win a seat elsewhere.

         Clearly National somehow got most of their supporters to vote for Hide, even though ACT got few votes in Epsom. How did they do that – secret letters? I didn’t get one. I didn’t see National billboards saying to vote for Hide. I did see scores of illegal billboards for Hide that were not removed by the right wing council.

         If National supporters voted for Hide hoping that he would do something useful, well perhaps they will realise their mistake by the next election.

Links to post

1. Gabriella Turek: posted on 12 February 2010 at 9:53 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS