Just squeaked in:
It's concerning, reading chapter 5 of the draft plan, that the emphasis
is on attracting investment and development as a good in its own right,
but the aspirations of citizens for their city are ignored.
The current focus on preserving land values, concentrating ownership
into large blocks for anchor projects and implementing a
centrally-determined plan must be changed: it is this desire to execute
a central plan come what may that has stalled progress.
The "step change" that is required is a more flexible and responsive
attitude to planning that takes into account what residents and property
owners want, as well as what central government thinks they ought to have.
This is why handover to the Council, the only democratic body in the
city, is so critical.
A more democratic, responsive approach is critical in meeting the goal
of psycho-social recovery. International research shows that regaining a
sense of agency through genuine citizen participation is crucial to this.
This needs to be coupled with an emphasis on recovery of the whole city,
including the suburbs and particularly the hardest hit eastern suburbs.
As an aside, it is intriguing to see the challenge of commercial
discipline noted in the context of the convention centre and covered
stadium projects. Leaving aside their impact on urban form,
international experience shows such projects rarely if ever make
commercial sense for cities but instead constitute an effective subsidy
for professional sport and the hospitality sector. Citizens need the
ability to choose whether the benefits to them justify this subsidy.
This is why of the options in s5.2 of the plan I support an extended
option 3 that puts the city council in charge and includes the city as a
whole in its scope.
I read your story about your daughter Rob, and I teared up at work. I hope things are easier for you now.
No worries. On the one hand I'll cop to nebulousness, on the other, no, that's not what I mean. I can't take the time today to compose what will have to be a page long comment (or condense a lot of background into a shorter one). A rigorous explanation has to wait. Good luck with whatever it is.
"Yes. Let’s see more parties than the Greens promoting that."
The latter at least is also Labour policy. Not sure about security of tenure. But it's not just the Greens.
So my understanding is if the landlord won't fix shit, you can get relief from the Tenancy Tribunal. Landlords are obliged to keep a place in a reasonable state of repair. The flipside of an overseas landlord not being around to do shit to help you is they can't hurt you as easily either. You may get relief in the form of deducting repair costs from rent.
Having said that, NZ is awash in advice for the landlord class, not so much for the poor old tenant, and we socialise tenants to accept what they're given, and a vindictive landlord will find a reason to kick you out. Landlords almost always have better resources to draw on than tenants.
One of the things that shits me about housing debate in NZ is its laser focus on owning when we could improve people's lives so much with better security of tenure and minimum standards for housing. Bleargh.
I think that’s a pretty easy thing to understand if you’re inclined to make the effort, and I’m wary of the way in which unsubstantiated allegations of racism
This makes sense if you view racism as a matter of intent. The pure in heart can't be racist.
Many people though see it as about what you do and say, not your intent. If you single out a particular group with bad consequences for them, it doesn't matter whether you don't mean them harm. Phil's undoubted commitment to fairness doesn't mean he can't do or say unfair things. You can do a racist thing without malicious intent.
I think this difference in understanding what it means to be racist -- whether it's about intent, or about consequences in our inherently racist society -- is at the heart of the dispute about whether we can label what's happened as racist as opposed to an unfortunate alignment of data that we really need to use. To put it another way, it's more useful to talk about whether actions and words are racist in effect, than whether people are racist (and implicitly damned) in their hearts.
Step 1 would be for Labour to replace Williams with someone who can frame arguments in a Labour-positive way.
Accepting your general point about Labour and message, I don't think Labour can control who National Radio chooses. Doubt National have been too happy with Hooton bagging Key and senior ministers lately either.
Handwringer and proud.
In lieu of "like" button -- what Danielle said.
A sudden 50% drop in the value of their entire asset base would just be laughed off
But a 50% drop in house prices is not a 50% drop in banks' asset bases; their asset base is the total outstanding loans secured against those houses. And NZ doesn't let you just walk away if you're underwater, unlike some US states, so those loans won't be impaired that badly.