Posts by Simon Lyall
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: So what now?, in reply to Marc C,
She talked about all those lovely older homes in my area, and how nice it was, as she knew no such homes still existed in much of Sydney. Then I had to tell her that our suburb has in large areas been proposed to be zoned into Terrace Housing and Apartment Building zone, allowing up to five or even seven storey developments. She was gob-smacked and in disbelief, that we follow Sydney’s intensification that has led to homes being unaffordable in many inner suburbs and the centre for twin income earning young professional couples.
Where Marc is your little hidden piece of Auckland where "lovely older homes"are affordable still?
How much are these properties? Something a young couple on $100,000 between them and a $50,000 deposit could afford?
-
Hard News: So what now?, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
The video of the meeting/presentations are here. Flora and Alex start talking at 1h 2m
-
Hard News: So what now?, in reply to Matthew Hooton,
It seems to me vast intensification is possible in these areas (and in the 100m radius around train stations throughout the region) that would create mini-Portlands and mini-Manhattens for people who want them, reduce congestion and make the CBD and transport node areas safer, without causing disruption to suburbs.
You don't understand those areas are "villages" and Auckland 2040 is Penelope Keith standing up against evil developers trying to turn the local commons into an office park.
Seriously though standard walking distance is 5-10 minutes so this should be closer to a 500-750 metre radius and should also include places that are well served by buses (eg Dominion, Mt Eden and Sandringham roads). Except of course all that is completely opposed by those who seem to think Dominion Rd is a quiet country lane.
When 3 story buildings are demonized as skyscrapers and Hong Kong (dog-whistle) it is pretty hard to argue for 4-5 story apartments ( eg Turing )
-
What exactly is the point of opening up submissions again? We all know what all the NIMBYs will say.
The only question is what the final decision will be and that will be influenced by pressure and political considerations rather than any submissions.
-
Hard News: The CRL and the nature of change, in reply to kw,
We have to fix Auckland, but we can also make life better for everyone by trying to reduce this rate and spread it across other parts of the country.
Realistically this is not going to happen. For example I did a quick check of advertised IT jobs on a couple of days ago. Here is the breakdown (total around 1800):
Auckland - 58.5%
Wellington - 23.7%
Canterbury - 10.9%
Rest of the country - 6.7%and I suspect many other high-paying professions will be similar. The choice for skilled people isn't between living in Taupo and Auckland it is Auckland vs Sydney or London.
Think about immigrants, these days you need at least a degree and other skills to get enough points. Somebody like that is going to settle somewhere where those skills can be put to use.
It is possible for smaller places to compete in the global market but even for the Hamilton, Dunedin and Tauranga this requires a lot of skill and luck.
-
Here is a story from 1988 of a supermarket in Dunedin using a helicopter to find trolleys "borrowed" by students. Video won't play for me but might work for others.
-
"Nimby"
-
Hard News: The Message, in reply to BenWilson,
Well they do need to get more votes, and put more people off voting National. I’m not seeing why those particular ones are of such importance. With the exit of the best qualified neoliberal from the Labour camp, they may well just vote Blue unconflicted from now on.
So, you are saying that Labour should not compromise it's principles, to concentrate of the leftmost 30-40% of voters (minus what the Greens/Mana pick up) and leave the centre-right 60% to National and friends?
So effectively National governments till (a) National implode in some scandal or (b) The above policy is reversed by a Blair-type leader.
I have an attachment to (c) Centre party splits off Labour and picks up the 20% in the middle. I mean if they are neo-liberals who will never vote for Labour (again, since many probably did in 2008 or before) why not create another party to give them an alternative to National?
But part of that is my wishful thinking that such a party would cherry pick the policies I like from the other parties :) . Also that Labour would actually be able to do such a thing.
-
Hard News: The Message, in reply to BenWilson,
He’s the guy that won more votes for their party than he did for Labour in his own electorate. Pretty clearly, National voters like the guy more than they even like their own guys
Well there are a lot of ways to interpret the differences between the list and party votes in electorates. How about this one:
Around 10% of the Mt Roskill electorate likes Labour enough to vote for their local candidate but preferred a National government
Those are the voters that Labour need to win [back] to get into government. They are not "National voters", they are "Potential Labour voters who voted National in 2014".
They are also likely to respond better to someone whose politics are closer to Phil Goff than to Sue Bradford (or Jeremy Corbyn).
-
I'm not sure the situation in the UK is a 100% fit for NZ since we have PR. In the 2014 election if people didn't think that Labour is far enough left then they had the option of voting for the Greens or Mana.
Also if people don't think National was right-wing enough they could have voted for Act or the Conservatives. Probably not as good as option on that side since both were struggling to make the threshold.
Between National and Labour things are harder. United Future, Maori and NZ First are not really traditional centre parties. United Future might be the closest but doesn't really seem to have been able to capitalise on it.