Posts by Matthew Poole
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
It's a shame the current regime is not a fan of transparency or honesty in government, as evidenced by the way the OIA is gamed by all holders of ministerial warrants. The only way shit like this stops is if the Minister says "Oi! You! NO!"
-
Hard News: The Message, in reply to Kumara Republic,
if a Manhattan-style apartment was planned for Epsom, would David Seymour use the RMA that he wants watered down to block it?
Probably. He has supported the burghers of Epsom and Mt Eden in their fight against re-zoning for higher densities.
-
Hard News: The Message, in reply to George Darroch,
Most people are not children.
It's estimated that about 20% of Auckland's population is under the age of 16. That is a not-inconsiderable number of people, and they are also the portion of the population least likely to have an independent income.
-
Hard News: The Message, in reply to Sacha,
current residents do not get a veto on the needs of future ones
In which parallel universe do you reside, Sacha? Are they taking applications? Coz the universe I currently occupy very definitely gives veto rights to those with the money and connections to say "I've got mine, so you can fuck right off!"
They even have their own supposedly-libertarian MP, going by the name of David Seymour. -
Hard News: The Message, in reply to Tom Semmens,
Oh goody, Bernard Orsman is back to his click bating best.
Really struggled to muster any fucks on reading that article. The residents of aforementioned "leafy suburbs" have been determined to keep everyone out, but they'll happily preach long and loud about how Auckland really does need to stop sprawling.
-
Hard News: After Len, in reply to Swan,
Matthew, what regional infrastructure did the North Shore not contribute to?
I said facilities, not infrastructure. Y'all paid the least you could get away with towards things like the Zoo, Motat, the museum, Westpac helicopter, regional parks, etc etc. You were the region's bludger. You hold up NSCC's water treatment facility (waste water only, mind) like it's some beacon of hope that absolves you lot from your scandalous leeching off the body politic on everything that existed at a regional level.
Guess what: we're all one city now, and you aren't the only ones who contributed assets to the Watercare balance sheet. All the things that you weren't paying for previously are now showing up on your rates sheet.
Watercare isn't funded out of rates. Your Rosedale plant means squat for rates, because it's paid for by metered water. The things you didn't pay for, like the Victoria Wharf and all those regional amenities? You're paying for them now. -
Hard News: After Len, in reply to Questioner,
A few full trains doesn’t justify building the CRL. There may be more cost efficient ways of transporting these people. Rail has a much higher level of subsidy than bus travel, but it’s unclear why it’s deserving of this high level of subsidy.
The CRL is about allowing the billion-ish dollars of investment that's been made in Auckland's rail network to deliver its full benefit. There's a lot of latent capacity that's unavailable while the primary source/destination station is a dead-end, and even making tweaks to routing to have some direct services between, say the south and the west, will not change that. Britomart is far and away the busiest station on the network, and it's limited to about 24 trains per hour because of its design. It's also a lot further away in travel time than is necessary because of the enforced Newmarket detour. If you can come up with a better way to move tens-of-thousands of people than in a dedicated corridor the width of three motorway lanes, please do let NZTA know.
The level of subsidy of rail has been decreasing and will continue to decrease in the future. Why direct subsidy of public transport is considered to be such an evil when we subsidise private transport indirectly to an enormous level is a mystery to me, and to many others. The space consumption and pollution involved in supporting the private automobile is massive, and it's not priced. As for why rail is more deserving, if you hadn't noticed trains don't take up road space. That's a saving.
The Council is doing more than prepatory works, my understanding is that they are starting construction of the cut and cover tunnel in Albert St next year.
You are absolutely correct. Work cannot wait. The revamp of Downtown is already being delayed by the fucking-about caused by the current regime's loathing of rail.
-
Hard News: After Len, in reply to Craig Young,
So what do the rest of you think about introducing the Single Transferable Vote for Auckland City local elections?
The sooner the better.
-
Hard News: After Len, in reply to Swan,
Leaving aside the large rates increases on the shore
Waaaaaaaaaaaaah. Our old council was the regional bludger and didn’t invest in local infrastructure, and now it’s caught up with us. Boo hoo!
Your rates have gone up significantly for two reasons:
1) your property values have seen some of the biggest levels of increase in the region
2) your rates were artificially low under NSCC because they sucked off the regional teat without really contributing, and they mostly did not put significant money into infrastructure maintenance (look at the Victoria Wharf, for example).Your sweet run of not contributing to regional facilities is over. Suck it up.
-
Hard News: After Len, in reply to Swan,
Yes both local and national government have studied [the City Rail Link], but they came up with different answers in terms of whether net benefits were positive or not.
No, they both decided it was of significant positive benefit, if evaluated using the same criteria as used for roads. The only way the Steven Joyce Memorial Holiday Highway ticks over even 1.0 is if "Wider Economic Benefits" are included. Using the most-conservative Treasury modelling the CRL gets 1.1, and with WEBs it's up to 3.5. Even 1.1 is above break-even.
There was a biased-as-all-hell hatchet job that found 0.4, but no subsequent piece of work done using accepted Treasury or NZTA methodology has found a negative return from the CRL.
Also, NZTA has said more recently that their post-project evaluations have found that business cases tend to over-state the benefits of road projects and under-state the benefits of public transport projects. So if we assume that the evaluations for the CRL are consistent with those trends the project returns positive by every measure; as opposed to the SJMHH, which only barely scrapes into positive returns territory through significant manipulation.