Whangamata Marina to go ahead
Whangamata people will mainly be celebrating tonight as David Benson-Pope has not over-turned the Environment Court decision in favour of the marina. Chris Carter did veto it, but was found by the High Court to have exceeded his powers. This is a fairly large slap in the face for him.
It’s still ridiculous though that it has taken 14 years and cost $1.5 million just to gain consent. National’s plans to remove the Ministerial power to over-turn the Environment Court is a step in the right decision.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
No tag for this post.
December 19th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
Chris Carter was only following the law as passed by national- incidentially his decision was to protect the environment on public owned land that was to be used for private deleopment.
December 19th, 2006 at 3:22 pm
I know people who live in Whangamata year round and who are bitterly disappointed at this result.
December 19th, 2006 at 3:37 pm
As I keep on saying the real conservation movement is dead and buried in this country. Its absolutely sick that even our elected representatives have no power to preserve some of our natural heritage.
December 19th, 2006 at 3:52 pm
Great News. We need to reduce the influence politicians have over us. The communities are able to regulate development in their own areas.
Porcupine – remember that our “elected representatives” have the support of barely 50% of the voters. What about the other 50%?
December 19th, 2006 at 3:58 pm
National does another flip flop over this:
“National’s plans to remove the Ministerial power to over-turn the Environment Court is a step in the right decision.”
National indroduced the law change in the good old 90’s. Now they are going to change it back. Always on the side of the developers
December 19th, 2006 at 4:03 pm
Its time to redirect our economic effort into efficient industry to enhance exports and replace imports. And to downsize and eventually eliminate our environmentally desctructve industries like pillaging the coastline for wealthy retirees and foriegners.
Then our kids and grandkids will have good jobs and an environment to enjoy when they have a break.
December 19th, 2006 at 4:24 pm
Porcupine, what sort of exports do you have in mind?
December 19th, 2006 at 4:30 pm
Sonic
I suggest the homosexual Carter should export his aids infested brain .
December 19th, 2006 at 4:39 pm
Sonic,
Well I think there is still a lot of potential for adding value to our raw materials instead of exporting them raw. The government keeps talking obout our knowlegde economy whereby we could sell our knowledge, expertise and intellectual property. Or better still keep our intellectual property and sell the products.
We have quite a lot of potential for developing a competitive pharmacuetical industry.
Its harder now than ever given that we’ve wasted the last 20 years opportunity and we are now competing with India and china hard out. But we do have the infrastructure and knowhow to tap some niche markets.
Plus self sufficiency in some imports would help shore us up when the downturn comes, I think.
December 19th, 2006 at 4:48 pm
I suggest Dad4J that you think long and hard about making comments like that.
Interesting stuff Mr P, I’ve not thought along those lines before.
December 19th, 2006 at 6:47 pm
National’s new policy on removing a minister’s veto power is *not* a step in the right direction.
Candida has a pretty romantic picture of development in this country. Many local authorities would be unable to administer the heritage and conservation provisions of the RMA if ultimate decision-making responsibility were to be devolved to them because they can’t compete with the private sector. Graduates work at councils for three years before being invited to play in the big boys’ sand-pit.
Developers, effectively, would be able to buy themselves consent to do almost anything in smaller districts without a large and well-resourced planning department; or without continuity of staff. It would be an unmitigated disaster and our environment (both aesthetic and ecological) would surely suffer.
You need to understand the equation: development must equal profit. Developers are not altruistic, nor am I suggesting they should be. We should simply be aware that their primary interest is motivated by money. It’s the community that has to live with their creation, so the community should be able to have input.
National legislation protecting this right is fundamental to development, and any sensible politician should do whatever it takes to preserve and not dilute it.
December 19th, 2006 at 7:08 pm
Porc,
You are a bit behind the times.The days of sending frozen carcases of mutton to the UK is long gone.There has been quite a change in the meat and dairy sectors in the last 20 years in how we sell our goods.Maybe there are still a few logs going of shore unprocessed but there is no money in doing this for the forestry owner anyway.
December 19th, 2006 at 8:00 pm
Don’t know why some are having hissy fits about the decision been over-turned. Those that wanted the marina jumped through ever hoop put in front of them (RMA). An enviroment court said they could go ahead but of course the minister said no. This decision was more about politics then any concern for the enviroment.
I guess those that are upset with this would also be happy if we did away with a jury and the judge made all the decisions, better still why not just ask the Liarbour party are they not the holders of truth and light.
December 19th, 2006 at 8:04 pm
Rob Davies
I agree with you while we have to work with the highly bureaucratic RMA and all this “too much democracy”. I am beginning to be glad we’ve got it with some of the attitudes to the environment we see, even if it does bleed millions out of the economy that could be usefully spent securing our futures.
There should be a simple answer for the councils: “Goodbye developer, end of story”.
I think the long term solution is to create large parts of NZ that are developer no go zones. If a party campaigned on that I would probably vote for them. They’ve screwed many places with short sited developments and they aren’t making any more land.
towaka
I’m not behind the times it NZ that is 20-30 years behind. Instead of fighting amongst ourselves we could have been following the primary sector’s lead. A lot of the countries we compete against put much more emphasis on R&D which then yields economic rewards. We could target American markets much better if our politicians would just get off their high horses – they love us over there.
What we desperately need is a new level of smart private industry that sits outside governments and quangos like universities. Then our smart people could come back and these industries would have to compete for them thereby increasing incomes and within country mobility and thereby retaining and attracting more smart people. If this happened you’d see ideas coming out thick and fast.
What do you suggest, giving up and leaving the country in the hands of developers and property speculators – thats not sustainable!
December 19th, 2006 at 8:10 pm
SSB, you must have gathered by now I am not a liarbour apologist!
What sort of NZ do you want your kids and grandkids living in?
The property development industry (and some elements of the wider building and construction industries) really are the “unpleasant and unacceptable” underbelly of NZ capitalism. Not only have we had rampant subdivision on barely stable land for decades with the use of the cheapest shoddiest building materials leading to leaky homes, land slips etc… which will cost our hard working kids dearly in the future because the government will make them pay for it becuase there’s always more where that came from!
In addition we have had to watch uncontrolled sales of our best land to elites and foreigners, scorched earth policies of taking sections back to the clay to build on, with subsequent erosion and runoff into harbours. Sprawling subdivisions along coastlines where reticulation costs are expensive and hooking into proper effluent treatment impossible. And where are the developers when the homes start leaking, the land starts subsiding and the septic tanks burst?
December 19th, 2006 at 8:42 pm
You never engage your brain before opening your yap chronic, why the hell should anyone else?
Have you taken ownership of this site now?
December 19th, 2006 at 8:52 pm
Porc,
All fine words but I have been hearing them for years.Remember the 1980`s and how farming was a ‘’sunset industry”.We had Bob Jones skiting that his company was going to make more money for NZ than from our wool clip.Also talk that we were going to be a great fiancial center to rival Hong Kong etc.Yeah it all went down the gurgler in the 87 crash.
Meanwhile the bills are still paid through the primary sector which has had year on year productivity growth of 4% which is outstanding compared to the rest of our laggard economy.The disgrace is how R&D spending on agriculture by succesive Govts have halved in the last 10 years or so.
December 19th, 2006 at 9:26 pm
towaka, First I know that we will always be reliant on primary industry, that’s fine. thats why the profits should be returned to R&D, capital expenditure and marketing in the sector that is performing (except property speculating – land plundering and relying on cutting up farms for retirement – that can stop!).
There is still more value to be added to that primary industry with R&D, molecular drug production, nutriceuticals (if we must, I have a problem there). I don’t have all the answers.
It didn’t go down the gurglar in the 87 crash at all – it was just a predictable blip. Wait till next time Wall St or Beijing sneezes! It was easily achievable if we had got the message – the world does not owe us a living. Unfortunately we did not get that message with every loony faction and his dog fighting us every step of the way (bunny huggers, treehugers, regulatory bureaucrats, anti-GM, flotsam and jetsam). I know of cases where if the government had invested $10M in the D of R&D they would stand to create a $100M industry.
Even now, when I fear it is too late, we have two choices – to be in the game or not.
Some of my motivation comes from a genuine blue green concern for the environment and the need to move away from property speculation (for which Bob got a knighthood for services rendered to).
What would you suggest?
December 19th, 2006 at 9:50 pm
Porc,
You ask what I would suggest.How about backing a winner for a start which is our agricultural sector.There is still along way to go in this country in regards to productivity from the land with the big advantage we have is our bountifull supplies of water.An irrigated farm is up to 30% more productive than a non irrigated one and all over NZ there are millions of cubic meters of water that flow out to sea.But it is only getting harder and harder for farmers to get to use this water.
There are interesting developments in the great south basin of the coast of the South Is. which might yet get us out of the soup as a country.Do not now how it will fit in with ”dear leaders” wish for us to be carbon neutral though!
December 19th, 2006 at 10:03 pm
I have no arguement with that. All I’m saying is lets cover our options by continuing to diversify in industries that dont waste land and leave the land for primary production. If we could develop a third tier of industry we could shore ourselves up byu becoming less dependent on exports or any one sector.
But if we strike it rich I’m sure “dear leaders” plans will not include reinvesting the money in the productive sectors where it belongs.
December 19th, 2006 at 10:10 pm
Dad4Justice – Chris Carter’s sexuality has nothing to do with this, and I find it offensive you referring to him as AIDS infested.
Hayman – you claim Carter was only following the law. You are once again totally wrong. The court found he did not follow the law – he broke it.
And equally sad is your calling this a flipflop. National’s policy since 1998 has been to remove the Ministerial veto. Sure 16 years ago National did not remove it from Labour’s bill which it passed, but it is quite normal and desirable for parties to improve laws based on actual experience.
As for the environmental issues, well what makes you think Ministers are better placed to decide than the Environment Court?
December 19th, 2006 at 11:23 pm
I elect representatives to represent my views every 3 years. From a ‘democracy perspective’ Ministers are better placed to make decisions like this one than some pompous Judge. Judges are unelected and are not experts at all in anything but the decision making process, (not the substantive issues in of themselves).
I had to scoff when I saw the marina proponents on the news tonight, pretending to be ‘Kiwi battlers’. Scoff scoff scorn scorn, these guys aren’t ‘batters’, they are truly wealthy individuals who could afford the best lawyers, hence got their way at the end of the day. Once again big bucks win again.
December 20th, 2006 at 8:31 am
Hey d4j guess what?
Chris Carter can have kids and you can’t: he can adopt them but they will never let a pathetic sociopathic wanker like you near any. As for your own kids, i can see why their mother doesn’t want you near them.
So keep firing those moronic statements out there, I love it when ill-informed conservatives out themselves as fundamentalist fruicakes. Hey besides, your disease is worse than AIDS (in good old NZ we have funding and treatment for that) but we can’t and we don’t want to do anything about pathologically depressed and twisted individuals like yourself.
December 20th, 2006 at 9:28 am
The Christmas Elf seems hungover.
December 20th, 2006 at 9:47 am
David F the owner of this blog has already said my comment was offensive and I respect him for that. I do tend to slightly agree that there is nothing worse than aggressive stupidity, however lets not mention the huge cost to the taxpayer’s that Mr Carter’s inept action which lacked integrity and judgement, only to “get burnt.” I am rather surprised at the reaction of people in general when you mention the words homosexual and aids in the same sentence? Touchy, touchy say no more, other than I find homosexuality an offensive detestable practice. I am allowed my opinion on this!
Fyi – Mr Sad Hungover Christmas Elf –d4j has reunited a couple dozen kids back with their heartbroken parents. Later on today I represent a grandmother in de family court who is seeking access rights to her 10-year-old son who is supposed to be in the safe hands of CYFS caregivers, yeah right, the young confused lad only last week set fire to car. Who needs law school eh? Tomorrow I visit a young girl who recently beat her mother to death with an axe because I was asked by family to go visit her locked up in the new hotel Rolly youth justice facility. Your comments about my alienated children and me don’t affect me, quite the opposite in fact as you show yourself allied to a corrupt regime that brings misery by its decrees.
My situation regarding my present predicament with my sad /alienated children was not my fault, as I did not start the raging fire, but I soon got engulfed in the flames of judicial corruption. I like what Clayton Cosgrove, the old school friend of mine recently said, “ Nobody likes false allegations made about you. The only thing you have is your good name and integrity.”
Integrity needs no rules ; Albert Camus
December 20th, 2006 at 9:53 am
Someone has suggested we have a developer “no-go” zone.
Most countries aspire to having ten percent of their land in conservation estate. We in New Zealand have at least 40% in conservation estate and this is heading towards 50% with the high country tenure review and numerous purchases going on all the time. Then significant areas of farmland are designatied significant natural areas – in some cases up to thirty percent of private land.
Then the Minister of Conservation has the power of veto over coastal areas.
So however you want to measure it about half of New Zealand is already a development no go zone.
How much more do you want?
December 20th, 2006 at 9:56 am
I find it interesting that the Minister of Conservation delegated the second “decision” to the Minister for the Environment.
I can find no section in the Act which allows such delegation.
The relevant section refers specifically to the Minister of Conservation and to no one else.
But when have our governments let the law get in the way of convenience?
December 20th, 2006 at 9:58 am
David, firstly I agree with captain agh – the minister and their scientific advisers may be no better placed to decide than the environment court. Its also matter of trust though – we see judges in other areas making shocking decisions.
The judicial system is one of the burgeoning elite systems in this country that essentially operate along side and outdie of the democratic process, since they are not all replaced when a different government gets in or if public opinion turns agains them.
Secondly the environment is a fragile thing so envrionmental protection should get the benefit of the doubt more often. If there are downstream unforseen consequences who mops up?
Thirdly, there is economics – politicians love going on about our clean green image and how we can make money off it, but are seldom interested in putting their money where their mouth is. If we’re not very careful we will kill the goose that lays the golden egg.
December 20th, 2006 at 10:53 am
Porupine I respect your veiws and know you are not a left wing nut job but you have it wrong on this one. Carters decisison to halt the marina had very little to do with his love of the enviroment. This was a desision that was based on the political poles at the time. At the time Liarbour was taking a beating at the poles espeacially on issues like the foreshore and seabed act this was a decision to placate Maori voters.
Like you I have no wish to see the enviroment destroyed, on our farm alone we have planted thousands of trees, many natives. When I kick the bucket I want the farm looking better for the next generation. But I don’t need regulation or some jumped up tosser telling me what I can and cannot do. I think you would find that if people were free to make their own desisions they usually do the right thing. Saying no to progress is not the way to go look at the huge enviromental problems that are in countrys where the state manages the enviroment.
December 20th, 2006 at 11:09 am
I appreciate that SSB, but the coastline is a problem for environment policy because we have Iwi wanting it on one hand and developers on the other. So a solution must be found. I very much doubt that Owen’s 40-50% applies to the coastline and if it did it would be the usual – ie the bits no one can use and the developers dont want.
I admit I do not have a deep knowledge of the issues in some of these specific cases, but in general when you look around you can see deveopments which smack of crossing the councils palm with enough money to make them go away.
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:07 pm
A PROPERTY SPECULATORS GUIDE ON HOW TO MANIPULATE COUNCILS, AND MAKE A HANDSOME PROFIT.
This whole saga is not about a Marina. The Marina is simply the icing on the cake, a tool, a mechanism for ramping up property prices, ruthlessly disregarding Environmental Impacts along the way.
To view the Timline of events that have documented this pathway of Greed and Ignorance, follow this link : http://au.geocities.com/the_p_i_guy/index.htm
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:10 pm
A PROPERTY SPECULATORS GUIDE ON HOW TO MANIPULATE COUNCILS, AND MAKE A HANDSOME PROFIT.
This whole saga is not about a Marina. The Marina is simply the icing on the cake, a tool, a mechanism for ramping up property prices, ruthlessly disregarding Environmental Impacts along the way.
To view the Timline of events that have documented this pathway of Greed and Ignorance, follow this link : http://au.geocities.com/the_p_i_guy/index.htm
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:21 pm
A PROPERTY SPECULATORS GUIDE ON HOW TO MANIPULATE COUNCILS, AND MAKE A HANDSOME PROFIT.
This whole saga is not about a Marina. The Marina is simply the icing on the cake, a tool, a mechanism for ramping up property prices, ruthlessly disregarding Environmental Impacts along the way.
To view the Timline of events that have documented this pathway of Greed and Ignorance, follow this link : http://au.geocities.com/the_p_i_guy/index.htm
May 2nd, 2007 at 5:55 pm
A PROPERTY SPECULATORS GUIDE ON HOW TO MANIPULATE COUNCILS, AND MAKE A HANDSOME PROFIT.
This whole saga is not about a Marina. The Marina is simply the icing on the cake, a tool, a mechanism for ramping up property prices, ruthlessly disregarding Environmental Impacts along the way.
To view the Timline of events that have documented this pathway of Greed and Ignorance, follow this link : http://au.geocities.com/the_p_i_guy/index.htm
June 2nd, 2007 at 9:08 pm
New google surprise!
http://www.yahdex.ru test [url=www.yahdex.ru]test[/url]
http://www.yahdex.ru test [url=www.yahdex.ru]test[/url]
http://www.yahdex.ru test [url=www.yahdex.ru]test[/url]
http://www.yahdex.ru test [url=www.yahdex.ru]test[/url]
http://www.yahdex.ru test [url=www.yahdex.ru]test[/url]
http://www.yahdex.ru test [url=www.yahdex.ru]test[/url]
Click adsense and win new car speakers !