Posts by Gareth Ward
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
While I applaud the fact that SST are (supposedly) in the business of protecting victims' rights, it's a shame their policy stances will just create more and more victims to protect. It's not meant to be a "growth industry" folks.
-
If there's one thing people in Christchurch don't need to hear, it's anyone else's musings about how perhaps it would be best to just give up and clear out.
Absolutely, nothing worse than "outsiders" making those comments about someone's home and city. But I would be interested in hearing the views of ChChers on what the predicted geological future of that region is (do we know if it's changed? Can we?) and any necessary changes in how people will live/work/build there.And from outside, it strikes me that >50% (not sure what that percentage is) of the wider city is still standing/operating as it always was, yes? The idea that you should not only not rebuild but presumedly bowl the majority that is "fine" seems more than a little absurd.
-
Hard News: Bishop Brian: It's worse than…, in reply to Kumara Republic,
Quite a few fundies have been rightly de-regged as charities - the Fists, the Sensibles, the Climate Science Coalition, you name it.
Greenpeace
-
"I don't believe a Maori could have written that"
Ummm, huh?
-
Southerly: One Hundred and Thirty-one…, in reply to stephen walker,
if the weather is good (i.e. no rain) and it is not too hot (under 20C) and you are going less than 10km, i doubt you would need to change clothes though
Yeah thanks folks, when I consider that my ride to work would only be a few kms all downhill I should probably stop overanalysing! The ride home uphill can get a bit sweaty if need be.
Now who was it that linked to those Velo Ideale people - you may have just cost me an inordinate amount of money... -
Re the shower/change facilities at workplaces - how do people usually make this work? As in, how do you get your corporate worky clothes to said facilities - drive once a week or something?
Current workplace is well setup for this sort of thing and not that far from home (although far enough that I'm likely in need of a change at the other end in summer at least), but trying to work out the mechanics of that side of things...
-
Muse: Hooray for Wellywood (Really!), in reply to Tom Beard,
I would like to see a process whereby the public are invited to make written submissions, which the planners have to take into account in their decision. Again, this would not be a vote, but would allow people to point out information and effects that officers might have missed, or to make cogent arguments for or against the proposal. Large consents, or those that breach District Plan standards to the extent that they are non-complying, would still be able to trigger a full hearing, but there needs to be a lightweight intermediate step.
Laying claim to www.facebook.com/RMA as we speak... :)
-
Muse: Hooray for Wellywood (Really!), in reply to Craig Ranapia,
Have I really made a mistake reconciling myself to the simple reality that the Sky Tower isn’t going anywhere?
Do I really really need to get laid?
Ha (and sorry but unable to view said cock and balls due to being @W - in the NSFW schema)
I do think those questions you raise there are the interesting ones though, this is a classic discussion of personal property rights coming up against broader property rights and social design. Gnomes make for a good logical argument at one end of that argument; painting an entire hillside with the word FUCK is another (although I'd be inclined to let both slide personally so maybe not). Defined colour, material and height of houses in the Lakes District are an interesting middle ground to compare to this sign.
I think one interesting point here is that a lot of dissenters (myself included) would probably applaud if one of those amazing works by Anish Kapoor or Neil Dawson had been taken out of Alan Gibbs' private estate and placed on that hill. So it opens that whole nasty "what's art" can'o'worms - although I still think that the broader community would have had a say in something that intrudes so significantly on their own properties and environment.
-
I did notice those exact questions from DPF - the answers quite clearly being "their execution of their property rights" and "Wellington Council via a non-notified consent". There's a bunch of interesting questions here around any limits on property rights in a communal society and comparisons around "what if they'd chucked cheap apartments all over that hill instead?" Are there natural limits of property rights when the sheer scale of your personal execution of them impinges on others property - in this case visual, in others sound levels or smell?
But I wish someone would posit those questions - TBH you rather lost an opportunity there and awful little gnomes don't quite qualify I'm afraid.
-
This $1.2b isn't all it's cracked up to be. It's coming out of money the government was pumping into private KiwiSaver accounts.
They needed an extra $1.2b in funding (I'd argue they needed more but OK), and got most of it by raising taxes (through reversing tax credits) on private retirement savings. Ace.