Comments on: Campylobacter

By: Kevin

Kevin — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 20:44:11 +0000

some good points there Owen, but it looks like we must agree to differ. I see John Key has now come out saying that it is the investment incentives for housing over other businesses that needs to be taken another look at. I agree with him but it would be interesting to see where his advice is coming from.

I meant no offense that you were unproductive or uninformed. Will catch up with you off line. Cheers.

By: Brian Smaller

Brian Smaller — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 07:45:49 +0000

“Also, interesting tid-bit: did you know the most dangerous job that involves radiation is being a member of crew on a commercial airliner?”

Yeah, but aren’t the Greens oppsoed to airlines as well?

By: Owen McShane

Owen McShane — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 01:08:57 +0000

Kevin
I have stayed closely in touch with the housing industry since the 60s and indeed am invited to speak at International speakers on the subject every year.
First, the sixties was just about the peak of migration into our cities. Since the mid eighties the markets have been dominated by outmigration, first of pre-retirees and recently of divorced women and their children. True the is inmigration to the central city areas by singles and childless couples – I enabled that with my work in Freeman’s Bay and went to live there. Suburban developers pay for their own roads and peripheral arterials are the most effective way to reduce congestion provided you allow business to relocate to where it wants. Peripheral commuters have the shortest commute times – not the longest.
Excessive densification is the certain way to overload your drains. In my park developments the sewage is an asset that feeds and irrigates the subtropical fruits etc. There is no shortage of farm land. However huge amounts of peri-urban land are waste by planners and their love affair with 10, 20 and 40 acre lots when most purchasers are happy with an acre. That is where densification would help. We are not all “unproductive”. We led the way in the wine industry and I was the first in our area to plant olives and truffles. Landowners know best how to use their land efficiently. Planners are taught nothing about the rural economy. Most lifestylers don’t want these massive lots – its the planners who are too thick to let them have want they want. It is not the building industry which has a fixation on 1/8 th acre lots. They are forced by planners.
Peoples preferences are varied and vary over time. I used to live in a high rise apartment close to the nightclubs of Queen Street. Now I live on a 5 acre lot in the country, growing all manner of crops and enjoying my chooks and ducks.
I have no desire to live near nightclubs now and broadband means I do not need to be near a library or my clients. I have just received an invite to speak at a conference in New York in March. I am hardly an unproductive country hick.

By: philu

philu — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 05:51:09 +0000

hey..!..chicken breast guy..!

how old are you..?

phil(whoar.co.nz)

By: Steve

Steve — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 04:47:10 +0000

What is all this shit about irradiation?
You cut your finger and put on a sterile dressing.
How was this dressing sterilised?
OMG you have just put on an irradiated material that is in contact with your blood. The radiation is now in your body and eating your brain!!
FOR FUCKS SAKE get real.
Stupid people.

By: Danyl Mclauchlan

Danyl Mclauchlan — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 03:25:52 +0000

Serial killers kill people. Irradiating food doesnt.

Look – it’s trying to think!

By: Kimble

Kimble — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 03:13:05 +0000

“And maybe people are afraid of serial killers because of the Sensible Sentencing Trust.”

Serial killers kill people. Irradiating food doesnt.

By: Redbaiter

Redbaiter — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 03:06:50 +0000

“And maybe people are afraid of serial killers because of the Sensible Sentencing Trust. Come on.”

That’s not what he meant and you know it. He’s referring to the fascist Green’s penchant for scaremongering….

By: Kevin

Kevin — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 03:03:16 +0000

Irradiated food does not cause cancer.

By: Wycroft

Wycroft — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 03:00:15 +0000

Hey phil, you hi-jacked the thread about 80 posts ago from one about whether the most popular form of meat protein in our diets was adequately safe to one about whether it was morally acceptable. So, hmm, why don’t you just fuck off?

By: stephen

stephen — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 02:53:46 +0000

“Hiroshima”?? Again, WHAT scare campaign?!

By: Kevin

Kevin — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 02:46:26 +0000

There is no doubt that the public has an irrational fear of radiation because of the good job the luddites did in linking the issue to Hiroshima. I hope they put their money where their mouth is and don’t go out in the sun.

Re Densification. A lot has changed since the 60s Owen. Better building materials, more people wanting to live cnetrally, oil comparatively more expensive etc. I hate the fact that people have to spend $50K doing a subdivision only a little bit less that the fact that my rates have to rise to pay for roads out to their places, for my drainage to be upgraded when it is overloaded and when their house slips into the sea nad Fly by night subdivisions can’t pay because they are in liquidation.

Not to mention, how much cash are we loosing from all that land not being in productive industry? is that factored into your calculations?

The main problem hold genuine solutions back in auckland is the building industry’s fixation with the house on 1/8 acre and the lifestylers beliving that they have the right to subdivide productive farmland because they were too thick to save for their retirement.

By: dime

dime — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 02:20:28 +0000

gee phil, you must love me. i eat 6 meals a day a tonne of protein.. 3-4 chicken breasts a day heh

By: radar

radar — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 02:19:40 +0000

“Not sure why vegetarians feel the need to constantly exert themselves with regards to meat eating diseases. I recently read that some plants have been discovered to have feelings. They grow better either near or away from the same species so this may be an example of compasionate behaviour. As such, we could argue that gardening is inhumane. So please, I respect your opinion to not eat meat, please respect mine to eat it.”

What a load of crap. Plants have neither a brain nor a central nervous system, therefore they are not able to feel or suffer.

“We” could argue that gardening is inhumane, but “we” should get locked up for doing so.

By: Danyl Mclauchlan

Danyl Mclauchlan — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 02:18:55 +0000

But arguably the reason so many are afraid of radiation is because of the evil luddite greens!

And maybe people are afraid of serial killers because of the Sensible Sentencing Trust. Come on.

[DPF: Serial killers have no redeeming characteristics as you know. Radiation and nuclear energy have both positives and negatives and the hysteria generated by the greens (small g) have made it very hard to have a rational debate - they did the same with GE - demanding a Royal Commission and then attacking it when it chose science over fearmongering]

By: Buggerlugs

Buggerlugs — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 02:11:44 +0000

What argument? I eat meat and have never had a sick day in my life, you don’t and have trouble with word wrapping, inter alia.

I loved the dog story…I bet they sit there yapping to each other saying “I wonder what meat tastes like…let’s just give him a wee nip…he can’t hose us all down…”

By: Seamonkey Madness

Seamonkey Madness — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 01:59:53 +0000

It is when arguing with a myopic person such as yourself.

By: Sam

Sam — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 01:55:27 +0000

Thanks for that explanation Owen.

By: philu

philu — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 01:44:46 +0000

try focussing on/rebutting the argument/evidence..numbnuts..!

too hard..?

phil(whoar.co.nz)

By: Owen McShane

Owen McShane — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 01:36:11 +0000

Re Densification.
Back in the sixties while in the Auckland City Council I did a study of density and residential land use. I concluded that different densities should be enabled to improve choice which was limited then. However, increasing densities above medium density (two stories) delivers no public good benefits and certainly has no measurable impact on urban area – unless you abandon environmental standards.
So we wrote codes which enabled town housing (I invented the word) and infill housing etc and medium densification took off and was high quality. This is why Auckland is about 2.5 time as dense as most new world cities of equivalent size etc. We have already done our efficient densification.
Pushing up further simply increases costs, (especially with high earthquake and wind loads), and because of loss of net area to public spaces such as lifts etc, overloads underground services, and increases congestion and pollution.
All these disadvantages mean that to force it you have to constrain normal development with MULs etc. The costs then skyrocket as we have seen. All the severely unaffordable markets in the Demographia survey promote densification. If you want severely unaffordable housing, a wealthy legal profession, long commuting times, congestion and pollution, and lack of choice then go for it.