Speaker: Grand Theft Auckland
100 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last
-
Oh, snap!
-
It's not that it's unfashionable, it's that its simplistic and condescending. A little more substance, a little less cadence might have helped construct a more effective political argument that is not about self-promotion and preaching to the converted.
-
inconsistency between local authorities about what is ok for the environment
I can see the frustrations about that, and in some cases it is silly. Nick Smith said something about there being different standards for cellphone mast radiation in Northland and Invercargill, and that would be pointless because radio waves and human flesh are pretty much the same everywhere. However, the visual effects on cellphone towers, and the impact of their cabinets upon footpaths, will be different, depending upon the nature of the built or natural environment for which they are proposed.
Decisions between local authorities can and should be inconsistent at times, because cities are inconsistent. And thank god for that: it's what we call "sense of place".
-
Isn't it possible there might be a whole heap of, um, legal stuff to sort out?
And both the councils and central government have whole legal services departments to do that.
I disagree with the whole concept of the Junta. It's supposed to be to stop the elected councils from sabotaging the supercity, but if the change process had consensus behind it, that wouldn't be neccesary.
Auckland is reasonably effectively governed already. A lot of peoples pet schemes might not have got built (waterfront stadium, Eastern motorway), but that's usually for the very good reason that the voters didn't want them. The basic jobs of councils are getting done, trash gets elected, permits get processed, a new logo gets produced every three years. There's no real reason to scrap democracy in order to push through rapid change.
Except of course, that democracy won't deliver they outcome Rodney wants. It's a hard task to leverage 5% of ACT voters in Greater Auckland into an ACT controlled council, but Rodney's having a good go at it.
-
trash gets elected,
s/elected/collected/p
Freudian slip!
-
Geez guys, sounds like Russel N's hit a raw nerve. Not like it's about anything important like global warming, civic representation, housing, corruption or sustainability or anything.
Nick I agree spectral politics gets tiresome. But so too does the ruling elite abusing its power. Actional is pure, uncut, outdated, right wing dogma. Labour also clusters policies around predictable left-right criteria (although with notable exceptions like free trade deals and savings plans showed far more flexibility than National, even in opposition).
While the Greens occasionally struggle with the spectrum as a result of a strong contingent of workers' rights champions, these people by no means represent the totality of the party's constituency. Lots of Greenies - perhaps most - yearn for the demise of the left right quagmire you too complain about.
The Greens ar also extremely into that quaint old fashioned concept of fairness. Who would be most likely to join a party with that preoccupation? Most people, after all, are not rich bosses.
-
I disagree with the whole concept of the Junta. It's supposed to be to stop the elected councils from sabotaging the supercity, but if the change process had consensus behind it, that wouldn't be neccesary.
Totally agree with this - if you're going to change to a supercity then I expect you do need a transition team but it should be put together with some level of consensus from the existing councils (which may be difficult but at least let it go to a vote from them)
-
Geez guys, sounds like Russel N's hit a raw nerve.
Yeah it's a shame this has partly derailed to a discussion on Green messaging when the underlying points are very strong ones. Sorry for my part in that!
-
Oh, yeah, go the hikoi.
-
Is there any chance of getting, say, STV rather than FPP for electing the new council? I haven't heard anybody canvassing that option, which looks at first glance like a sensible response to the 'only the rich will get enough face recognitiion' argument against at-large councillors.
-
Leighton Smith has just said he's against the Supercity because altho' everyone thinks (okay, he's projecting his own desire here) Banks & Co will get in, the reality is that Auckland leans left and Mike Lee and his leftie cronies will get in - and take all the power.
Actually, I kinda agree with him on the 'Auckland leans left'. By next October 2010 there could be a swing against National...
Simon Grigg posted this great link on his Facebook page, about how Exectutive Power opposed for Bush is now being mooted for Obama:
-
And both the councils and central government have whole legal services departments to do that.
The transition team will need to instruct its own lawyers. The person in charge of instructing them will need a legal background to understand and implement the advice received. Sorry, but I don't see any vast right-wing conspiracy in that.
-
Felix: snap.
The person in charge of instructing them will need a legal background to understand and implement the advice received
ScottY: Is that to say that only lawyers can understand lawyers? That sounds like a most expensive and inefficient business model.
-
ScottY: Is that to say that only lawyers can understand lawyers? That sounds like a most expensive and inefficient business model.
No. It's how most large organisations operate. In most large corporates for example, the Head of Legal or Company Secretary (usually a lawyer) has to explain to the board and other senior managers what the lawyers said. If the person who has to disseminate the message throughout the organisation can't understand the message, mistakes get made and people get in trouble.
Most boards also have at least one accountant. The same reasons apply. It is normal commercial practice.
-
Sorry, but I don't see any vast right-wing conspiracy in that.
Perhaps that's because no-one's talking about such a thing.
With your talk of "illuminati elites" and "burn the capitalist citadel" you guys appear to be imposing a subtext which, frankly, I fail to see in Russel's post.
In fact he was very specific about the narrow group of interested parties who are set to benefit from the proposed changes.
But damn the issues, pedantry shall rule the day!
-
It is normal commercial practice.
That says it all, really. Auckland is being treated as if it's a business, with the sole shareholder R. Hide, of Epsom. As opposed to a democratic body for the exercise of the people's will.
The reason there isn't STV, or Maori seats, or a mayor accountable to a decent sized council, not to mention why bits of Waikato and Northland are being annexed into Auckland are simple: it's to make sure the new council is in "business-friendly" hands. Leighton Smith is being disingenuous - there's no chance that Rodney will let a left-winger take over the city. It'll be Banks, or if that doesn't work, Paul Holmes. Or Tony Veitch.
-
about how Exectutive Power opposed for Bush is now being mooted for Obama
That is some scary shit. The politics of fear Obama-style.
I had some hope (but not much) when he was voted in but it didn't take too long for the real power in Washington to exert itself. It was always on the cards for Obama to go this way with Dems and Republicans really just being different shades of grey.
-
In fact he was very specific about the narrow group of interested parties who are set to benefit from the proposed changes.
Yes, apparently the only problem with the super city is that it's going to mean more developments and more roads - which would happen to be Greens issues. The coincidence! But actually, the threats arising from the lack of consultation and proper democratic representation are far broader, and have been discussed much more purposefully and intelligently on these very boards for a few weeks now. I fail to see what the whole spiel about the bad guys rolling in with they crown limos contributes to anything other than the profile of our guest.
-
Thank you, Russell. That sums it up very well. The government's intention to get rid of MMP arises from the same source. Democracy prevents these procedural pirates from seizing assets and milking us for our cash. So democracy is the enemy. If one messagecomes through loud and clear from the government, this is it.
-
In fact he was very specific about the narrow group of interested parties who are set to benefit from the proposed changes.
These people?
And those select few who make a whole lot of money from the Growth Machine - the property developers, the motorway builders, the corporate investors
BTW, what exactly does Russel mean by "corporate investors"? People who invest in corporates? (what if I have 500 shares in Contact Energy? Am I one of "them"?) Or corporations who invest (most corporations invest in something - so basically the entire capitalist system?) That's the point, see - the list isn't specific at all. Could be anyone. That's the problem with identifying a vague and shadowy group of enemies.
That says it all, really. Auckland is being treated as if it's a business, with the sole shareholder R. Hide, of Epsom. As opposed to a democratic body for the exercise of the people's will.
Numerous charitable and government organisations have lawyers and accountants on their boards. Wouldn't you want a group of people handling millions of dollars to have among them someone with these professional skills? I'm not advocating that every board member should be a lawyer or accountant.
-
That says it all, really. Auckland is being treated as if it's a business, with the sole shareholder R. Hide, of Epsom. As opposed to a democratic body for the exercise of the people's will.
I don't find the fact that there's a lawyer on there at all unusual. I think that's entirely sensible.
We appointed a lawyer to the board of our sports facility. For an organisation that signs large contracts and employs people, having a legal voice on it is very important. Another club actually appointed an accountant to the same board so they're two good voices to have involved. Both are also involved in the clubs and have children that play, so there expertise is only part of their purpose.
The transition board is going to oversee (rightly or wrongly) millions of dollars of expenditure, sign very complex legal documents, and interpret what I suspect is going to be hastily written law.
I don't have any problem with the idea that there should be community representation of some sort on the board. No legal and financial expertise? That's nuts.
-
This SupaCity will consist of the same area, with the same voters that elect the Auckland Regional Council. Is the ARC a right-wing business freindly rubber stamp on ever increasing sprawl?
-
My understanding is that is what the regional council was intended to do but was netuereded because the government of the day as they were afraid it would make Auckland something like a super-city...
-
Oh, there was a good turn out at the Hikoi today.
-
@Rich of Observationz et al
As some have already mentioned, legal input at the highest level is often invaluable. Given the legal labyrinth that the transition group will have to contend with and the well funded, legally backed, agendas that are being pushed (from all sides; not just that which Russel portrays), having someone of Miriam Dean QC's experience and acumen is a logical choice. Having worked with Ms Dean on many occasions can I also add that she has a frighteningly ferocious appetite for hard work and a knack for asking the hard questions, both of which also make her ideally suited. It is amusing to see people target lawyers as homogeneous lackeys of the establishment as if that alone supports the argument - hardly a useful contribution in this instance.
That is not to say that I am anything but dismayed at the way that I have already been disenfranchised - perhaps more so than many given that I live in a rural area that I purposely chose to live in because it was NOT Auckland, North Shore or one of the other more logical greater Auckland constituents!
Post your response…
This topic is closed.