Posts by Steve Barnes
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Housing: the Feudal Model, in reply to Swan,
underpricing water is regressive.
Water falls from the sky, others collect it and charge for it. The infrastructure that reticulates is just another way of making us have to pay for our survival.
. Who wins there?.
I guess we could get “Mum and Dad” investors to take the risk and profit but I sincerely hope National will lose the next election regardless of how many people with two first names they can recruit to their sick power play. -
Hard News: Housing: the Feudal Model, in reply to Sacha,
closest current network
I can see where the confusion comes from but....
We are, or should be, looking at a country we all want to live in, not just Aucklanders or those with the ability to have the wherewithal to live there. What ever happened to the egalitarian principals this country was founded on?
It is the responsibility of central Govt. to do that in my humble opinion. -
Hard News: Housing: the Feudal Model, in reply to Sacha,
If you just happen, through right if inheritance, own a bit of land that could be developed then why should the onus be on you to provide infrastructure that will be to the benefit of society at large? I suppose you could just run a sewage pipe to the nearest river but that is so Canterbury farmer attitude for the likes of the majority.
We have a Govt. for a reason, this is one of the major reasons.. -
Hard News: Housing: the Feudal Model, in reply to Sacha,
Who pays to build any new water and sewage lines across the region, not just within a subdivision to which development levies may apply?
TLDR? Central Govt. Spread the load, works for all not just the privileged.
-
Hard News: Housing: the Feudal Model, in reply to Sacha,
If Watercare could inflate their prices for all their customers then they could reduce them for developers, sure. How that’s good for anyone else is unclear.
Not quite sure what you mean by “inflate”. The true cost of Watercare’s services do not include infrastructure costs other than maintenance. Building the infrastructure for a new development had fallen to the developer, who then passes that cost onto the new building owners and that cost is reflected in the resale price too. There is this money being charged onto the buyers of property and only the initial part of that goes to Watercare.
As the price of property is tied to demand then it makes sense to decrease the burden of that demand by increasing supply by making it cheaper to subdivide and construct by Govt. paying for infrastructure.
And that, is good for everyone.
Sure, those evil developers don’t have to spend that extra fistful of dollars but they also won’t have to reap them back in higher house prices.On another point… As usual this Government has tried to solve the problem by decreasing demand from the unworthy poor.
ETA.
As I said earlier, the problem in affordability is also exacerbated by a low wage economy, something that this Govt. sees as a good thing. -
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Sacha,
Courtesy of obedient choirboys fantasising about ‘freedom’.
Or obedient protestants running with the "work ethic", turning us from Human Beings to Human Doings.
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Deborah,
had to step away from the keyboard.I think I’ll just stay away from it, actually.
I know how you feel.
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
Well, I hope Rosa Parks is feeling thoroughly put in her place wherever she is.
Point taken.
This though is now,and we would like to think, as a species, we should have grown beyond that but… -
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to llew40,
In this case, after much discussion, we elected to withdraw, for what we believe were entirely the right reasons.We felt very comfortable with the decision and our customer feedback strongly supported it
And those “right reasons” were?
-
The Gio connection is quite illustrative, once the advertisers felt that public opinion would go against them they, apparently ( there are contracts I suppose so, next month deferred?} withdrew their ads, an ad in itself. Those that pander to public opinion for commercial reasons should not be regarded as a moral compass
Good on Gio for doing something rather than just complain about the inaction of others though.