what is it about trivial things like this (and yes, as much as I think the sign is a fucking stupid idea, it's still trivial) that makes people so pissed off?
Culture is powerful, as are names.
Cliff Whiting(major carver & designer of the museum marae) is Te Whanau a Apanui - -they do not have women speaking & that is
the current protocol at what is supposed to be a national marae. I deeply deeply object to that- Raymond, go check out the protocol/kawa of "Te Papa Tongarewa"(even that name is offensive to some of us) and maybe- see why?
Ka mihi koa-
Peter Jackson movies – was I too oblique?
May I make it explicit?
Peter Jackson is a director of splatter movies.
I dont like splatter movies.
Haven't seen it - I live in a gully where I don't get reception and I'm a late adopter when it comes to new tech.
I have however heard a lot of good things about it and I'm really looking forward to catching it on DVD. Since the series is a revision, I don't need to wring my hands over whether Benedict Cumberbatch is better than Jeremy Brett :)
I have also, just recently, by DVD, discovered that Matt Smith is definitely my favourite Doctor since Tom Baker.
You seem to be holding the film producer responsible for the airport company's sign. Boycotting one will not address the other.
Since the series is a revision
A very smart one, I'd say
Sacha - I dont think you being deliberately obtuse BUT-
just where do you think the influence for that sign
is coming from? Hmmm?
And boycotting Jackson's shit actually works quite well-
I did notice those exact questions from DPF - the answers quite clearly being "their execution of their property rights" and "Wellington Council via a non-notified consent". There's a bunch of interesting questions here around any limits on property rights in a communal society and comparisons around "what if they'd chucked cheap apartments all over that hill instead?" Are there natural limits of property rights when the sheer scale of your personal execution of them impinges on others property - in this case visual, in others sound levels or smell?
But I wish someone would posit those questions - TBH you rather lost an opportunity there and awful little gnomes don't quite qualify I'm afraid.
What did you make of that new Sherlock show?
Just watched the first, and want to see more. It's certainly not shit, Sherlock.
So I hear. I shiver with antici-
just where do you think the influence for that sign is coming from? Hmmm?
Madam's right Sir!
So, what do you feel about graffitti, Craig? Art or vandalism?
Ooh, I was really hoping it would be a struggle to fill my false equivalence bingo card. I’m not going to commission Askew One to decorate the retaining wall in the garden any time soon, but if you think the whole Poynton Terrace farce served any kind of public good please don’t stand for the Auckland City Council.
I guess history will judge whether Askew or Rob Shields have made the greater contribution to the cultural life and general well-being of Auckland. But I’m pretty damn sure that if I wanted to live in a community where the local government gets to dictate what colour I paint the walls, I’d move to the place they did the exteriors for The Truman Show.
Talk about 'duck'-
Sherlock? I was mightily impressed–very smart, in a postmodern fashion, but with style and grace. The only real adjustment was trying to forget Martin Freeman's persona in The Office.
One good thing that could come of the sign not going ahead is that a large number of otherwise politically apathetic youngsters will see that vociferous protest and demonstration actually does have the power to change things they don't like. Because sadly most protests don't change a thing. This issue might be trivial, but the sign not going ahead would still be a victory for the will of the people. We don't have many such victories so when they happen they're worth celebrating.
Or we could just end up with a sign that we all hate as our city's welcome mat, a permanent reminder that we were powerless in the face of the interests of a single misguided company. Unfortunately that's the way these things usually play out.
But I wish someone would posit those questions – TBH you rather lost an opportunity there and awful little gnomes don’t quite qualify I’m afraid.
Probably, but I do feel much better for getting the bile out of my system. :) But quite seriously, if a gnome don’t count (and they’re my personal answer to coulrophobia) how about a four foot high concrete cock and balls (see above for link to NSFW image)? Would it be more/less/equally offensive if it was carefully positioned so it wasn’t visible from the street, but visible to the neighbours?
Have I really made a mistake reconciling myself to the simple reality that the Sky Tower isn’t going anywhere?
Do I really really need to get laid?
Since the series is a revision, I don’t need to wring my hands over whether Benedict Cumberbatch is better than Jeremy Brett :)
Weird thing is Cumerbatch's performance reminds me of Jeremy Brett's, in a good way -- both a wee bit camp, detached but desperately searching for something, anything, to keep the black dog of boredom from the door.
Something else I really loved about Sherlock is that they didn't make Lestrade a buffoon or a dribbling moron you can't believe is competent to go potty without help, let alone become a senior Police officer. Rupert Graves very nicely plays him as The Brig to Cumerbatch's Third Doctor. (Would that make Martin Freeman Sarah Jane? :) )
ENORMOUS (much bigger than the District Plan actually permits)
Well, that's complicated: there's a lot of difference between a "permitted activity" and that which is anticipated by the District Plan. "Permitted" means that it doesn't need resource consent. If it's not "permitted" it doesn't mean that it isn't allowed: far from it, since there are usually objectives, policies and guidelines to help Council officers make an assessment of such activities. For instance, in Wellington's Central Area there is pretty much no such thing as a "permitted" building: every new building needs consent and must be assessed by planners, urban designers, traffic experts and so forth. It doesn't mean that, in laypeople's terms, buildings are not permitted. It's only when the proposal gets to a stage known as "Non Complying" that there is a strong presumption that it shouldn't be consented: and even then there are cases when such a proposal might still meet the overall intent of the Plan.
In this case, the Airport rules are unique and perhaps a bit odd. To be "permitted", a free-standing sign must be no more than 8 sq m (for masochists, please see rule 188.8.131.52.3 in this document). This makes the Wellywood sign a Discretionary (Restricted) activity, which is another example of the brain-bending oddness of RMA language, since it doesn't mean that the activity is restricted: instead, Council's discretion is restricted to certain aspects, and they're not allowed to look at any other aspects. In most parts of the city, this discretion extends to the visual obtrusiveness of a proposed sign, but not in the Airport Precinct. Instead, under Rule 11.3.4 (same document), Council's discretion is limited to position, dimensions, lighting and traffic safety. What's more, that rule contains a standard that says "the maximum height of any free standing sign must not exceed 9m". This sets an expectation that signs up to 9m high are anticipated by the Plan, which would make it pretty much impossible for a planner to say that the "position and dimension" effects of the 3.5m tall Wellywood sign would have a "more than minor effect" compared to an anticipated much larger sign.
One might argue (and I won't, since my code of conduct makes me nervous) that Objectives such as 10.2.6 (in this chapter) require Council to look at the visual effects of the sign. But that would still be compared to the scale of activity anticipated by the District Plan, and when a standard says that 9m is the maximum height, in the strange world of RMA law it's hard to say (in the absence of discretion over qualitative aspects) that there are any quantifiable negative effects beyond that.
Oh, and there are two aspects that WCC couldn't consider under the District Plan: the content of the sign, and notification.
I saw that image as a lingham Craig - a religious image for a lot of people (as you very well know) & not offensive.
As for - anything else- hey, go play-
other matters - may I agree totally with mattgeeknz? This is how we all learn to disagree - civilly, definitely, and not blowing anyone up?
other matters – may I agree totally with mattgeeknz? This is how we all learn to disagree – civilly, definitely, and not blowing anyone up?
The most delightful kind of disagreement. In my own defence, I really think Mr Herkt's choice of false equivalence was remarkably ill-judged considering my low opinion of the ACC’s treatment of Askew One’s mural in Poynton Terrace (which was not “tagging” in any rational sense) is no secret. (And while it’s earned me some odium from the Kiwibog crowd, I find the idea that Bruce William Emery was justified in stabbing an alleged tagger to death beneath contempt.)
very smart, in a postmodern fashion, but with style and grace
I loved the text overlays
Craig, can I say I'm sick of this. Why do you think it is okay to dismiss this particular grievance as opposed to others? You don't have to live it. You don't have to experience it on a day to day basis. Yet you claim privilege over my right to object, as someone who has to live and live with this thing sitting over the eastern suburbs of my city.
This, despite it's "frivolous" nature as presented by Auckland televised news media, isn't a side-bar to any kind of debate. This is my fucking city you're fucking mocking with your gnome equivalences. To put it bluntly.
the content of the sign
Which sadly renders planners impotent over the core issue (though Council always has other avenues of influence like their ownership stake in the airport company). I guess there would be nothing to stop owners putting a big sign on their cbd office block saying "Absolutely Poxily Wellington" then.
Speaking of incivil disagreement, if one of my more charming e-mail correspondents is reading this, a usage note.
"Fucking JAFA" is not only a tautology but one that uses a cliché that was whiskery when Roger Hall trotted it out in Market Forces fifteen years ago.
Try 'Rangitoto Yank' instead. I'm a sucker for well-tailored vintage.
I do apologise for my foul language in my previous comment. But I do feel aggrieved, very aggrieved, that my desire to love and live and love-and-live in my city is declared to be no more than objecting to "a painted garden gnome" by this writer.