I agree (what a turncoat), what Auckland has always lacked is a definite centre,obviously the CBD has always been a centre of sorts, but for long periods of time it wasn't, for example, the first place that came to mind when people felt like a night out. But that's different now, and I think few would disagree that downtown Auckland is ever so slowly becoming quite awesome. If the same happened to New Lynn, Glen Innes etc. (I have my doubts), then that'd be brilliant.
I'm a supporter of the Unitary Plan. We couldn't afford to live much closer than Green Bay (hence where we are), as while I work on the Shore, my wife works on Stanley street and we juggle little kids at the same time (so the Shore itself was not an option). Having spent some time in Germany and experienced some of the advantages of apartment living (warmth especially), it would have been magnificent if a reasonably priced family-size apartment closer in was a viable alternative to a whole house. However, between an historical aversion to apartments in NZ, coupled with the leaky building stigma associated with newer buildings there was really nothing on offer.
So, here we are, super content in the weekends and raging/sleepwalking through the week. It's not that life is bad, it's just knowing things could be so much better with a little mutual forethought.
20 minutes from the CBD a generation ago was a long way out though. Don't get me wrong, I struggle to understand how there are enough folk earning enough money that we have 17 suburbs worth more than $1 mill, but Auckland has always been relatively unaffordable from the perspective of everyone else (i.e. anyone without a house close to the city).
Not to post-jack, but really?
1) As a general rule, med school loans only get massive (i.e., 6 figures) when the students get suckered into other loans (e.g., MAS loans). I lived with med students during my time accruing $50k worth of loan myself (over 10 years, and includes 2 degrees, an MSc and a PhD), and it's really hard to have any sympathy for them at all (regarding loans).
2) Doctors, even junior doctors, earn heaps relative to most folk, even with the 12c per dollar thing.
3) The loans do get paid off, so they're not permanent. Furthermore, historically I think you'll find that doctors don't tend to buy houses until a little later in life anyway (i.e. 30s), because there's a lot else to do.
I'm someone who is still paying off their annoying large loan, and I've got little sympathy for folk like myself earning way about average and still bleating about the inconveniences along the way. Some sympathy for those in the 90s who initially had the loans forced on them, but for younger folk? It's not like the need for a loan (and the requirement to pay it back) was hidden in the fine print. It's the product of us heading to Uni straight from school, when the sensible thing would be to go work first, but that's getting waaaaay off topic.
Sorry, rant over....
To get back on point, I'm with Jim on this. The big issue is rich v poor, and young doctors, like other relatively young working professionals (such as myself) are unlikely to be the truly big losers if the status quo is maintained.
Ta. Viva National Radio huh?
I'm disappointed that no-one (that I know of) has challenged Prosser's assertion that "most terrorists are Muslim". It's a very myopic, quasi-US-centric, view and ignores goings on in all sorts of places, including Spain, Northern Ireland, the drug-war related terrorism in Mexico etc...etc...etc...
I meant that discussion of population levels appears to be a taboo subject. It is the very obvious elephant in the room isn’t it?
If it's an elephant, it's a rather monstrous one. Population control is only ever mentioned by people who intend it to apply to everyone but themselves (and perhaps their friends and family).
Which is pretty much the conclusion of the post.
...and it's an obvious enough point I'm puzzled why the response from the Government hasn't been a little clearer. But, and I in no way mean to post-jack, at least they're consistent with their response to other issues (i.e. intentionally befuddling). It's also disappointing there's been little response from MfE or the Regional Councils, but given how heated things have been about such a "treasonous" topic, I suppose I'm not that surprised.
Part of the problem when determining "best" quality water is that you have to come down to some selection of what "good" water should look like, which is stupidly subjective. In NZ, we've typically focused on what we think ideal aquatic biologically communities should look like, which is a little tricky at the best of times - but the relationship between these communities and measurable parameters isn't always well-coupled. We have pristine natural geothermal communities living in water choc-full (naturally) of things like arsenic, and we have the old thorny issue that a lot of our remaining native species like the water however it comes (eels as the very best example). From a fish perspective, we've ended up in the somewhat awkward predicament that introduced trout species are our "canary in the mine" species.
It also doesn't help that parameters like water clarity aren't so sensible in a country in which alpine streams can be clearer than anyone can measure while even un-impacted lowland muddy streams can be practically solid. It also doesn't help that the analysis of our State of the Environment monitoring data (and I know this from experience) can be massively skewed because the criteria are based on 95th percentiles, but the data you're analysing might be restricted to only a handful of samples - you end up with things appearing really bad due to one off events.
This isn't to say it isn't worth striving to improve things. Just that we should be focused on what we're doing on a local level, and not how we compare to Burundi or whereever.
There's no shift - the indices are different (our number 2012 is based on a 2010 number and hasn't changed between 2000 and 2010 apparently).
In short these indices are a mess, which isn't that surprising. Part of the problem is that "national" water quality is a weird, weird thing in the first place, given the massive diversity of water ways, usages etc.. It's also a little cruel to compare so-called developed countries to so-called undeveloped countries, as by definition things should be much rosier in the latter.
I thinks it's a pity the official response isn't just " Yup, we've got some problems, and we're working on them" (and then actually commit to working on them). You know, like an adult might if they had a mind to act mature.