Posts by Craig Ranapia
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Mark:
I've looked at both the Government and The Auckland Council sites you link to. My problem isn't that there's a pretty obvious "bias" involved, but that someone appears to just be pulling numbers out their arse. Sorry for sounding like a broken record, but if these were pitches from private property developers I wouldn't be thinking cowboy, I'd be thinking Brokeback Mountain - we're getting the stealthy grope, so when are we going to get shafted?
-
David wrote:
I was just saying to someone in an email this afternoon:I'm a bit irked that anyone who objects to the thing is damned as a dithering visionless wowser. Generally, I'm up for a punt. But just 14 days to resolve this? Do me a favour.
One useful aspect, though: it's been instructive for us all to get some direct experience of the Mallard style of bullying and intimidation.
Reading the preceding two posts, I feel entirely strengthened in my resolve. This is no way to go about it.
Well, hear hear from a fellow unpatriotic, effete NIMBY girly-man. :) Here's another question, do much of the current 'Build. It. Now' crowd (not looking at anyone in particular, Russell) feel the slight twinge of inconsistency about their new-found fondness for fast-tracking major developments largely out of public money, where there's next to no hard details on the table? Or is it only bad when the Nats hold the treasury benches, and there's right-wingers in the Town Hall?
-
Mark Thomas wrote:
[Brash] said its up to auckland which stadium we want, he's just concerned with the timeframe and budget of the waterfront proposal. it was his "personal" view that eden park was the better option.OMG, who does that ass Brash think he is? Like, wanting to actually see some hard details before he commits his party to supporting enabling legislation and funding committments that will have a longer life than the current Government. What a wet, wimpy, unpatriotic girly-man... :)
Now, when are we going to have a politician with the balls to say "If 'Auckland' really wants it, then 'Auckland' can pay for it - and decide how. Now if you'll excuse me, I think a pig just crash-landed on the roof...
-
Peter:
Ugh... I really shouldn't try and write - let alone proof read - through a shracking migraine. I think you're missing my point - or I'm not making it clearl (which is more likely)y: No amount of process is going to produce and outcome that totally satisfies everyone. I get it. ( And if you can, you need to find a better use for your God-like powers. :) )
But let's cash a reality check here. I don't know if you've ever built a home, or had substantial renovations done, but would you sign up under pressure - and no prospect of a design, let alone costings, for months? Come on... I agree with Russell it's a no-brainer, just not in the way he means. And if that makes me an unpatriotic, NIMBY pansy tree-hugger, well...
-
It would just be nice if personalities could be put aside and the actual respective merits of the two sites looked at. But I'm not holding my breath.
With all due respect, Russell, do you think it might just be possible that then 'Build. It. Now. Brigade' have nobody but themselves to blame for this situation? Take a walk around Wellington some time: What happens when you want to get it right, rather than done right now? Civic Square and a genuinely iconic Pulbic Library. Te Papa, and what boradly regarded as a good balance of public space and private delopment. And when you have politicians with edifice complexes: The Queens Wharf Events Center.
Sorry, folks, I'm not a NIMBY, anti-development, tree-hugging blah blah blah... But I do actually have to wonder if there are a few people in political and media circles who need to stop acting like petulent children who want to play with their Leggo, and take their own cause seriously.
-
Ben Austin wrote:
There are few things I find more annoying than being judged by a Bible literalist as being amoral due to my atheist position.Right back at ya, mate. There are more things I find more annoying than being judged by atheists as being a heartbeat away from burning down the nearest library once I've massacred every infidel within reach.
-
Yes, Russell, I'm very fond of Melbourne too - but mostly because they didn't manage to FUBAR all their splendid Victorian and Edwardian architecture, despite the heroic efforts of cowboy developers and state and local government quite happy to bend planning regulations into quite ingenious shapes. I don't usually agree with Brian Rudman on much but he has a fair point when he writes,
For years I have stuck my neck out in defence of RMA procedures, backing this Government's argument that the act's safeguards protect both the citizenry and the environment from the worst excesses of rampant and unbridled development. In the past, when the cowboys have railed against the barriers erected to keep them in check, I have defended the processes, arguing, as the Government did, that the RMA was the community's shark net against the barbarians.
I still believe that and I feel betrayed that the Government, and my mayor, seem to believe that when they want to play the shark, they have some special licence to raise and lower the net as they see fit.
At least they could have been upfront about it and invoked the draconian Public Works Act. But that would have involved trying to argue they were seizing the land for essential public works, and that could have been a tad embarrassing, even where a rugby stadium was concerned.
So instead, they've decided to drive a hole through the RMA. How weak the Government will sound in future when their opponents demand amendments to the act to help their developer buddies.
Sorry, but I think Rudman's right and it's just not good enough to have Hubbard, Mallard et. al. pretend it just doesn't matter. If they don't actually believe in their own policies and rules, that's fine. But could they just stop feeding us bulls**t and pretending it's chocolate?
-
Oh come on, like G&S's Mikado, don't you find Dick Hubbard a source of innocent merriment. My eyes almost popped out when I saw him intone in the Herald, "I come from the business community where to get things done sometimes circumstances dictate a reasonable amount of speed. Sometimes instead of ready, aim, fire, it's ready, fire, aim."
This is a serious question: Does anyone think Dick Hubbard quite has his head around the notion that the Auckland City Council isn't a closely-held private company? Like the 'one city' concept a few months back - which I was also open to be convinced by - the more Hubbard speaks, the more I want to run screaming from the room and dash my head against the nearest brick wall.
-
Steve V wrote:
The Chinese have created a huge about of new stadiums for the Olympics, lets get them here to build the water front stadium on time ;-)Yup, must be wonderful when you don't have to worry about tiresome things like labour and environmental standards. :)
RB wrote:
I'm inclined to regard contestability as a distraction in a project like this. After all, a tendering process didn't exactly provide a quality result in the case of the Vector Arena.This thing will cost more than they're saying at the moment, but it would be nice to see an independent assessment of its deliverability. At the moment, everyone who says it can or can't be done seems to have a vested interest in what they're saying.
Well, perhaps you have a point but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect rigorous public scrutiny and debate when there's hundreds of millions of dollars in public money involved. A rigorous genuinely independent assessment would be nice, but I just don't think it's going to happen in the next two weeks. Do you? I can understand the politics of trying to have commitments made quickly, but I have my doubts whether 'marry in haste, repent at leisure' is a particularly good basis for a massive infrastructure project with significant long-term consequences.
-
I see the appeal too. I would just like someone to tell me it can absolutely, positively be built in time to fulfil its purpose.
With all due respect, Russell, I've three words for anyone who will do any such thing: Multiplex, Wembley Stadium. It would also be rather nice if some of cheerleaders got their heads around the notion that the Rapture isn't going to happen ten minutes after the end of the World Cup final in 2011. What is it that makes it so hard to get the words rugby and rational policy debate in the same sentence?
Gary Hutching has it right, IMO: I was pretty agnositc about the idea of a waterfront stadium, but I strenuously object to the stench of badly thought through proposals being cooked up in back rooms, then presented to the stupid plebs (who are ultimately going to be picking up the tab when it all goes to custard) as a done deal. Well, Mr. Hubbard and Auckland MPs of all stripes better consider there's two electoral cycles to go before 2011, and a lot of Aucklanders who are quickly losing patience with politicians with severe edifice complexes.