Posts by Patrick Reynolds
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Well Queen St is no urban centre but rather a lid on a creek turned into a traffic sewer. It has improved considerably through the simple addition of humans- I can remember its lowest points around the early 90s- and the great and increasing volumes of people, lead by the survival then the expansion of inner city universities, is what will improve the commercial environment.
If it needs much improving that is; hard not to see Cr Brewer here little doing more than sneering in the search for anything to pick away at Brown with as he leads up to trying to ride that wave of entitled resentment know as the C+R ticket all way to the Mayoralty.
But Queen St is no great place physically, and short of daylighting the stream [yes!] What needs to be done?
The whole city, and not just the CBD desperately needs the City Rail Link; as it will bring even more people and more viable retail and entertainment business without the deadening impact of of adding more land hungry cars. While connecting many of the more distant bits much more effectively to the centre and each other. Remember two train tracks equals 10 motorway lanes, and requires no vast and wasteful parking resource and clogs no local roads [like Queen St!]. Prosperity at a bargain then. Here:
http://publicaddress.net/speaker/why-auckland-and-new-zealand-needs-the-city/
But as it seems we will have to wait for a government that bases policy on facts and evidence and not just whim, prejudice, and cronyism to get this done what else can we do with this street. Well, a lot, like this:
http://transportblog.co.nz/2011/08/30/guest-post-why-are-there-cars-on-queen-st/
-
Hard News: The Next Labour Leader, in reply to Patrick Reynolds,
..... or Jones as deputy?? Seems a more powerful Maori presence than Mahuta to me...? Though I'm no student of the politics of this.... Would signal a foregrounding of Maori issues that would then have to be successfully acted upon....
-
Seems clear to me that the best answer is Shearer with Cuniliffe as Finance spokesman. Only downside is if the latter can't man up [a lá English] and spends the next three years snipping at Shearer as he learns on the job....? That aside it's win/win. Fresh face, new story and 'authenticity' with attack dog numbers dude as his 'wing man' [pace Mr Key].
The reverse doesn't work, Cuniliffe's power in that portfolio would be neutered by the leadership role and Shearer is more Foreign Affairs or similar....
Choose a deputy to unite the country, Robertson? Or, of course, a woman or South Islander [any?O'Connor, cough!]. Ardern has turned either post down, which is fair enough at 31. Don't want to go back to old Labour ministers so other options? Parker is impressive, but would that make the team too Auckland...? And again he'll have a key [oooops] role to play on the front bench, as will Ardern.
-
For further analysis of the economic case for the CRL go to the ever brilliant transportblog site: http://transportblog.co.nz/2011/11/08/re-analysing-the-city-rail-links-benefits/
-
Speaker: Why Auckland, and New Zealand,…, in reply to Nat,
Nat for Roughan's earlier form on rail in AK, go here: http://publicaddress.net/speaker/john-roughan-is-scared/
-
Speaker: Why Auckland, and New Zealand,…, in reply to Nat,
Nat the Herald is run by regressive Nat Party naturals like John Roughan which means the whole publication has a very clear subtext. I sent them a carefully tailored piece on the AK plans, ideal length etc. Result? not only is it not run but it just spurs Roughan to write his nonsense shilling for the opposite view. Here: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/local-government/news/article.cfm?c_id=250&objectid=10762330
No courage to run an opposing view as well of course, bullying coward, so i realise by submitting pieces I'm just giving the smug idiots ideas for their own tired views! So no, the Herald is more than a waste of time for any real engagement.
-
Speaker: Why Auckland, and New Zealand,…, in reply to Nat,
Nat, have you seen the Herald? No Chance, I've tried.
-
Speaker: Why Auckland, and New Zealand,…, in reply to Angus Robertson,
Angus, I just don't just want something in particular, I want a rational, balanced, and transformative transport investment programme with our money.
Do you mean because the Link is in one place the people around it should pay for it directly? Well every single road is only ever in one place too, so AK should pay for Southland's roads AND AK's roads and rail too? 2 billion+ is spent a year BY US on transport infrastructure all I'm suggesting is the completely reasonable thought that some of it goes on this, but also that a more balanced process is used that isn't based on crazy MOT and NZTA models designed to favour the current ministers whims and prejudices. And friends.
-
Speaker: Why Auckland, and New Zealand,…, in reply to Russell Brown,
There is something very insincere and cynical about Nikki Kaye's 'support' for this project. It's like she has a free pass to muddy the waters, the Nats know the people want this but not only are not going to help fund it have done nothing but work hard to make it appear less affordable and not as necessary as it is. She also repeats Joyce's lies about how much they have/are funding rail in AK and the rest of the country. Virtually all of the numbers they quote were either sums voted under the previous gov [who should have done more] or are loans... meanwhile they push more fantasy math around their ongoing and impoverishing motorway orgy. Remember Nikki was allowed to go offline about mining too, this is where they learnt the usefulness of this idea. No chance she'll achieve anything meaningful, but fall perfectly into line behind the big boys when it comes to supporting their insane, imbalanced and petrol eating transport policy: 'Show me the money, Nikki'.
-
Cracker: On the trail, pt 1., in reply to Damian Christie,
Ta Damian, and good luck with the new human.
How about a true minority Nat gov? As biggest party? Could that work under current rules? Or is Key more likely to call new election with the gamble that a vote for the others is a vote for instability?
DCB yes and no. Pre this election campaign I'd agree, but by throwing Lab out we got them to listen, greens not only real opposition now: Assets/Tax/Youth/Transport/Afganistan/Pharmac./ACC/Aid/Telly ... all big differences now