If they owned tall apartment buildings in Epsom, would they support legislation to ban them?
Probably. Keep the supply side as limited as possible, so their existing building can exhort monopoly rents.
People who psychologically prefer to back the winning team will have good reason to hedge and go for one of the little middle parties, NZF, UF, Maori. They might even go Labour.
This is something I've never understood, but I've met people who vote as though they're betting on which team will win. This was back before MMP, but if they have continued with this mind-set they can only vote National nowadays.
If anything, I have the opposite attitude. I was immensely proud of my special vote cast in London in the 1987 General Election, where it was the only overseas special vote in the Auckland Central Electorate for the McGillicuddy Serious Party. 1 out of 1 - you can't get more meaningful than that :- ).
... and compared her to a young Kate Bush.
Now that you mention it - that comparison ain't half bad.
The two holdups I can see are in the straight through to St Luke’s Rd, so why not make it both lanes, ...
I think the reason why the middle lane is straight and turning is so that traffic that has come from the West along Great North Road does not have to get over 2 lanes to be able to go straight ahead along St Lukes Rd. But you are right, in that they are likely to be held up by right-turning traffic trying to get onto the motorway, but that depends on the phasing of the lights.
... and turning left into Gt North Rd from St Luke’s Rd/the bridge, where right-turning Western Springs and Grey Lynn traffic holds up those us wanting to head to the Chev, which then holds up traffic further behind who can’t fit on the bridge.. Seems stupid to me.
They are adding an extra lane over the bridge, so there will be a devoted left-hand turn lane, so I'm not sure where you are seeing the stupidity.
HNZ does seem to be making moves to turn at least some of their 3-brm houses into 5-brm ones by adding 2 attachment bedrooms to the back door.
One pedestrian crossing (for which cars must stop) and two lights-controlled crossings, down from three pedestrian crossings and two lights-controlled. There’s quite a loss of pedestrian rights in it.
I'm not sure about that. Currently there are 3 single lane pedestrian crossings to get pedestrians from footpaths to traffic islands, and then 3 lights-controlled crossings between the islands, each one going at the same time as the traffic that doesn't cross it.
The new set up replaces the eastern one-lane pedestrian crossing with a lights-controlled crossing, apparently because it is going to be 2 lanes wide - no getting away from that. The lights-controlled crossing across St Lukes Rd, and the pedestrian crossing from the island to the western side are unchanged. So the big change is that the Motat-side island disappears so the lights controlled crossing across Great North Road goes only to the western island so that it can run when the lights allow the cars out of St Lukes Rd to turn east (towards the city), in the same way it does now. The big losers are cars proceeding along Great North Road, which have a permanent green at the moment, who will be stopped for 2/3rds of the new cycle. I don't think pedestrian crossing is unduly affected by this change. It is only when it is combined with the 2-lane light-crontrolled crossing that pedestrians are slowed getting from Motat to the east side of St Lukes Rd.
I think the new set-up will be safer for pedestrians as well, since I have seen several near misses on the pedestrian crossing on the Motat side, as pedestrians fail to check for traffic and walk straight on to the crossing. Of course the drivers are required to give way, but some motorists are not treating this small pedestrian crossing as they legally should.
Meola Road hill has been shocking for years. They are currently working on it, but I think it is just to raise the kerbs, and is likely to leave the metre near the kerb in a worse state than ever. I always switch onto the footpath just after the Scout Den because the road surface is so uneven.
Yeah, I can see that the P's shapes are quite similar, but the bottom of the J's are quite different. The dot in the signature and the added JP are similar (almost commas), as opposed to the dots in the original JP (though this may just be due to differing writing speed).
But really this is all of minor consequence, compared to the identification of the adopted child, and her biological parents. Good sleuthing all around.
I think you need to add another box around the Geo Coleman signature and JP at the bottom because it appears to differ from the handwriting of the reset of the letter (eg compare the "an" with "any" in the letter). The additional JP was definitely written by a different hand than the crossed out JP.
This also explains the crossing out of the JP. It was originally intended that Coleman would sign his name in front of this as a witness to Alington’s signature. But then Rev Holland added “me John Holland” which made the intended layout nonsensical.
Yes. That would seem to be the most plausible explanation.
Nah... I'm still going with Holland as the JP: would be standard for the local parson to be a JP for signing births, deaths and marriage certs. And the ink is different to GC's.
It looks to me like Geo Coleman in the process of signing put the JP on the left. John Holland thought that this was an inappropriate place for it, so has crossed it out, and written it again in the correct position under Geo Coleman's signature.
Also, if Geo Coleman was a JP, he may have had to sign lots of things, so maybe his standard quick signature was just Geo C with an underline. He then decided that this document needed a bit more, so added the "oleman".