Posts by Christopher Dempsey
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Ah. There really might be another one coming
And reading the linked story I see this gem...
Deputy Prime Minister Bill English was returning to Wellington from his home in Dipton to deal with the situation. He was expected to update media this afternoon.
I know acts of nature prompt freaky behaviour (see Tutukaka video) but really, this takes the cake.
-
Sacha, Dilworth's endowment is enormous, [snip!]. Dilworth could survive without any government funding, and aren't known for crying "poor, poor" in any case.
And often, being the good Anglican school that they are, give the air of faint embarrassment at being the target of Tolley's 'let's-shovel-lots-of-money-to-poor-little-rich-private-schools' crusade.
Thankfully for them when it comes to prat-ish behaviour exhibited by those in power (developers, politicians) Kings gets fingered and rightly so.
-
And, for once, kudos to the media -- or at least RNZ -- whose coverage has been informative, restrained and untainted by disaster pron. [snip!]. I'm afraid to look at The Herald, though.
and
Unless you happen to be wandering along the mud flats at the time?
A few million periwinkles will get the ride of their lives...
too late. I can see it already - breathless reporting by Granny interviewing some periwinkles....
-
your friendly local elected representative back again...
Has anyone considered, you know, complaining to the bodies that actually set the capacity? Like the Council and/or the Fire Service?
What's been described previously sounds like a disaster waiting to happen, which is the whole point of restricting capacity in the first place. If people can barely move, that's a venue that's a panicked shout of "Fire" away from deaths by crushing/asphyxiation.There is something you can do. Some years back in response to just this very issue, pubs and the like were required to display publicly the maximum number of patrons allowed on the premises. If you have a look around venues, you should see something, usually next to the liquor licence.
If you think that there are more patrons than permitted then ring the fire service or police. Just ring. Tis better to be safe than sorry.
The only downside is that the show will be stopped while the situation is sorted. But on the upside, do that a few times and the venue will get the message and save everyone the bother by restricting patrons.
Mind, they need the money to pay the rent. So if they restrict, you could be paying a few bucks more for that beer. Grin and bear it. At least you are safe.
Whipping off hat...
-
Necessary hat movements I assure you so the muscular arms are a bonus.
-
The council seems quite willing to hand out planning permission and sign off shonky ghetto style apartments (at least they WILL be very slum like in 10 years, with no proper maintenance) with no consideration given to the impact these cheap nasty developments have on their surrounding environs. Double standards in Auckland City as usual!
Sigh. Jamming my hat on again....
The planning rules for this kind of development were cast into place under a Cits'n'Rats council, in the early to mid 1990s. Their philosophy derives from ACT and National Party, which is that the free market rules. Consequently, a very light hand was placed over development.
Cue forward through time and we have this:
Housing on sites zoned business next to a business building lawfully built out on land zoned business. Yes, that's a building barely one metre away from residential balconies.
Our infamous chicken coop apartments.
I'm sure you can add your own horror stories - McD's in Balmoral anyone? - there are plenty.
To fix this planning system requires a) money and no council is willing to spend the several million and several years it will require b) integrity in the sense of standing up to developers and saying NO - only a few hardy councillors have done this and have been pilloried by the press/developers.
The more important point is this: we can choose how we want our neighbourhoods to develop. BUT it requires a long term view, and stickability over that long term - something that precious few are willing to commit to.
In defense of Cits'n'Rats I will point out that at least in this situation - shonky developments - there are no double standards. They have been very explicit about things. People just failed to stop, think and figure out what it meant - which is no mean feat given that the planning system has been presented as some 'mythical scary beast', which it's not.
My advice - if you are going to buy anywhere and given that we all know about the horror stories - it is incumbent on you to check zoning maps and planning rules. Ask around, there are plenty of community associations who have developed expertise in this area through various planning battles.
Whipping hat off....
-
Just whilst we're dissecting Auckland City Council policy, what think you all of the proposed new pokie rules? I had a go at working out the implications but am sure some of you could do a much better job.
Sticking on my ER hat again...
Cits'n'Rats wanted to liberalise this policy by removing the sinking lid criteria - being the free marketeers that they are - hey share the evil around!
City Vision managed to get an amendment to the policy which prohibits new venues from opening in socially deprived areas (decile 8,9,10)
Without this amendment, the policy would have meant migration of pokie machines to socially deprived areas - making them poorer than they already are.
As it is the draft policy means that pokie machine numbers will be stable (not fall), and will locate in areas less deprived - likely to be the Avondales, Onehungas, Mt Wellingtons, Sandringhams, etc.
That is, if Cits'n'Rats don't decide to remove the socially deprived criteria.
I note that the consultation period for the Liquor Policy closes on 7th October so get your submission in quick smart here.
Doffing said hat to higher wisdom of RB....
-
Donning my Elected Rep hat...
I am not particularly surprised at this policy, and how it has unfolded. Given that I have pointed out to the policy writer that in effect the policy creates areas of high profit (entertainment precincts that close at 3am) versus areas of low profit (everywhere else that closes at 11pm).
It's not a stretch to imagine that the areas of high profit will attract say, Lion, or DB, or Dominion (I honestly don't know what booze baron companies there are) into the area, where in order to make maximum profit they have to have very large barns - booze barns. I know that there are two booze barons running around so that means if one sets up in say, Mt Eden Entertainment Precinct - the other will surely follow as day follows night.
Where does the existing retail go? Out the door. Booze barns need space so there goes the butcher, baker and bookshop owner.
In effect the policy decimates retail in those high profit areas. And that's something I'm not thrilled about, as I've explained to officers several times.
The solution is to make everywhere a high profit area or low profit area. But the policy die is cast, and it is hard to get rid of already written policy unless Council simply refuses to endorse it - which is not looking likely under C'n'R.
I will continue to agitate for a minimum of re-written policy, or abandonment of it, but if anyone is at all worried about the implications of the policy then they need to lobby councillors. Don't bother lobbying City Vision Councillors - they understand this issue very well - being the free-marketeers that they are. It's the nanny-state C'n'R Councillors that you need to lobby.
Donning said hat.....
-
Wearing said ER hat...
No-one. That's the short answer Sacha.
Council's are required to have a code of conduct which governs conduct of councillors. Breaches are handled either by Council as a whole or a delegated committee.
But as Laws has proved, a person can bring W(h)anganui Council into disrepute without much censure from his fellow councillors.
By and large Codes of Conduct ensure that Council meetings are relatively cordial, and that Councillor behaviour towards constituents and citizens is relatively respectful, but there is no real form of punishment if breaches are committed.
The only real form of punishment is vote disapproval and given that the good burghers of W(h)anganui appear to vote Laws in every election, Laws can freely operate without any fear.
The other form of punishment tends to be marginalisation. Being a 'common touch-telling it like it is-a spade is a shovel' kind of mayor tends to marginalise oneself within the political elite, both in W(h)anganui and outside of it. The more you operate in black and white, them more you find yourself outside of the 'grey' area where most politicians play.
Removing said hat.
-
Wearing my Elected Rep hat may I point out that really, there is very little 'official' sanction that Laws may receive. You can complain to the CEO, but as Laws is exercising his political muscle, the CEO can do little. You could complain to the Council as a whole, but given that half support Laws and the other half don't, you would not get very far.
The only thing that receives much official interest is corruption and the like. I'm afraid in this instance, corruption of public intelligence is not a prosecutable offense.
The OIA request is interesting. OIA's can be useful, I've done it a few times myself. For OIA's to succeed you need to be very very precise. The above OIA fails IMHO because there are no criteria attached to the terms 'abusive', 'partly abusive', and 'not abusive'.
This leaves it completely open for the officer to exercise discretion and should said officer decide that 'F*** off you lazy old cow' is, while extravagant, not abusive in the context of the person making the statement, then it's not abusive.
Leave absolutely no wriggle room in OIAs. That way you are more likely to get what you are after.
And finally, while Laws's conduct is deplorable and somewhat reprehensible, rest assured that the universe works in mysterious ways.
Whipping said ER hat off.