Posts by Matthew Poole
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Housing: the Feudal Model, in reply to Glenn Pearce,
The US model of funding schools from property taxes is flawed, large funding differences occur between wealthy and impoverished communities, between States and within States.
We don’t want to go down that road.
Depends who "we" is, doesn't it?
-
Hard News: Housing: the Feudal Model, in reply to Maui Smith,
How about having a 180 day notice period?
How about doing away with without-cause evictions entirely? And make it a criminal offence to use the “family reasons” excuse if the house is not then occupied by family of the landlord within a month of vacancy and for at least three months following. Not merely a civil wrong, but an actual crime.
Strengthening this Act in favour of long term tenants may also make investors think twice thereby easing demand.
Just strengthening it in favour of all tenants would be a good start. When you can be kicked out in three months' time, for no better reason that "I feel like it", there's little wonder renting holds so little appeal. That, and the iron fist of landlords to deny tenants any right to make a house their home.
-
Hard News: Housing: the Feudal Model, in reply to Rob Stowell,
Schools are also built and funded via bonds and repaid via the same taxes on the homeowner.
Who pays for the new fire station(s), at a million dollars a year for a single-appliance 24x7 paid station, on top of a million dollars to build it? Even a volunteer station has the same up-front cost and runs to several tens-of-thousands of dollars a year in training, maintenance and operation costs. The taxpayer will be wearing that, guaranteed. And the new police station(s). And, in a round-about way, the new ambulance station.
As for schools, fark. The new high school for Flat Bush cost $50m!Sprawl is hugely expensive, no matter how it's funded. I liked the proposal for its potential to focus the debate on the real financial costs of sprawl, but if those costs all get hidden behind debt that places the developer at no risk, maybe that's not actually going to happen.
-
Speaker: TPP: This is a fight worth joining, in reply to Russell Brown,
I suppose the idea of just expelling the US and getting a deal done isn’t realistic …
I suspect not, no, particularly since trade negotiations work on consensus and the US wouldn't agree to being ejected when there's still the possibility of brow-beating everyone else into submission in the US's favour.
-
Speaker: TPP: This is a fight worth joining, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
and hell, the US ain’t good at honouring the associations it already belongs to
Indeed not. Their long and ignominious history of losing before the WTO, only to be taken back for the exact same behaviour by the same victim "trading partner" shortly thereafter, speaks volumes to their true colours on trade: their way, or no way.
-
Speaker: TPP: This is a fight worth joining, in reply to gregfullmoon,
How would it be bad for New Zealand to walk away from it?
We are not gaining anything from it, are we?
Let's ignore the US, for the moment. Pretend their obnoxious positions aren't present, and it's the original trade agreement that was envisaged. A comprehensive winding-back of agricultural protectionism in the likes of Korea would be good for NZ. That would still happen, with or without the other bullshit which has been introduced, and still be good. It's just that the monetary and social costs imposed by the position of the US turns the entire agreement into negative territory for NZ. Our farmers will win monetarily from more income, which is why they're so bullish about the negotiations, but one can't help thinking that nobody has spelled out to them how many other costs will come from the agreement as it stands.
It was a reasonable agreement until the US got involved, and it's a shame that Goff seems to feel like he can't express regret for having been party to that happening.
-
Hard News: Narcissists and bullies, in reply to James W,
Does New Zealand not have a parody defence like in the U.S.?
No. And even in the US that's a defence for civil claims relating to infringement of copyright and trademark, or defamation, not against criminal charges.
-
Hard News: Narcissists and bullies, in reply to Danielle,
Matthew might have to consider and fully accept that the police were deliberate lying shitwads in this case.
I thought I’d made it pretty explicitly clear that I think they’ve fallen far short of what I and society expect. However, until you can provide me evidence that this entire saga is about glossing over the involvement of a cop’s son, you’re not going to get me to concede anything like what you’re seeking. Fuck’s sake, I even suggested that the failure to pursue could be about protecting a police district’s numbers, which would be a whole hell of a lot bigger an issue than not chasing some cop’s kid, even when it’s for serial rape.
[UNFATHOMABLY STUPID AND INSENSITIVE METAPHOR DELETED HERE. BACK THE FUCK OFF ON THIS SORT OF TALK OR I WILL BAN YOU – RB] and my unwillingness to join the trendy pile-on rankles you, but I’m not going to leap to any particular conclusion without evidence in support. Which means I’m quite happy to say they’ve lied about their progress after Louise Nichols, in as many words. But for more than that, show me the fucking proof!
-
Hard News: Narcissists and bullies, in reply to BenWilson,
If interviewing rape victims is so specialized, perhaps it should be done by specialists, just like forensic analysis is.
I believe that there are some rules about who can take formal statements, in terms of legal validity (sworn officers have statutory authority to witness documents), but that's a strictly legislative matter that can easily be fixed. It is, however, a potential issue. Fixing it so that victims of sexual crimes can have their statements taken and witnessed by a suitably-warranted non-sworn police employee would resolve this kind of problem.
Being a sworn officer carries various requirements that make sense when one's most fundamental duty is to enforce the law. Allowing some side-stepping of that for specialists who engage in specific duties that need particular powers that are otherwise only available to "holders of the office of constable" is already provided for with jailers, motorway support officers, and various other non-sworn support roles. Expanding the law to allow the Commissioner to warrant personnel in specific roles to take victim statements is a minor change to the existing law.
-
Hard News: Narcissists and bullies, in reply to BenWilson,
Perhaps a tighter discussion would be about quotas for senior positions
And that actually would be a useful tool. Above about sergeant the police ceases to be representative of the force at large, and after inspector it's very much a white men's club, with the odd Maori thrown in for a spot of ethnic diversity.