Here there are councillors and most likely large land owners who are using their connections to take from others in the form of land and money to give themselves capital gain or more power.

I have been thinking about this for some time and one solution I had was that those who’s land is being taken or lowered in value should have the right to take an equivalent amount of land in an area that is to benefit. The person who’s land in the beneficial area is now being taken should then receive market value + 10%. This would then be closer to the actual cost that would be incurred.

I have found some of those that trumpet the sanctity of private property go strangely quite when their side are involved in the theft.

Elite’s with their privileges
…………

??

So Neil, my local council gave my rates money to a private company (Central Plains Water) to take my land, David Bent-Pope gave this same company acquiring authority to take my land under the ‘Works Act’ and you think that if I have no money, I shouldn’t be allowed to fight these fucking mongrels to preserve my private property and basic human rights?

http://tinyurl.com/ceuvkr

also Neil so what is a TLA? but as you are a councilor I find it interesting that you believe only those with money should have a say.

Either that or an annual cull of RMA lawyers to keep their numbers down.

Labour by its opposition to the RMA reforms has become TOTALLY TOTALLY irrelevant to the political process.

Absolutely Negatively Wellington.
The RMA Amendment Bill makes a good attempt to prevent trade competitors using the RMA processes to stifle their competition. A whole new Part of the RMA, Part 11A, Act Not to be used to oppose Trade Competitors, seems to cover the ground in relation to objections to applications, while a new Section 51 also confirms that Local Authorities when preparing plans “shall not have regard to trade competition or the effects of trade competition.”
However, this may not be strong enough wording to prevent councils including “retail hierarchies” in their plans, which are then used to refuse consents to applicants who fall outside the preferred locations or the preferred scale of retail cente. For example Wellington City’s Proposed Plan Change 66 openly declares its intention to:
“Manage the location and scale of retail activities and integrated retail developments to ensure that they do not adversely impact on the sustainability of the Golden Mile and, where applicable, other identified Suburban Centre retail areas.”
The Golden Mile is the main shopping street in the Wellington CBD, and sustainability is a PC code word for profitability. So in this case the “anti-competitive” agent is the council itself.
The end result is that any existing retailer, anywhere in Wellington City, can oppose any proposal to open a new retail facility anywhere in the City, on the grounds that it conflicts with this objective. When times are tough they will certainly do so.
The Government must amend the current Amendment Bill to stop this anti-development and anti-employment planning in its tracks.

The North Shore Plan also has a similar “Retail hierarchy” policy and Progressive were simply able to argue that the Pac N Save was against the objectives and policies of the plan.
And yet Wellington City is about to repeat the “disgrace” but on a truly grand scale. And so I believe is Christchurch.

Indeed as things stand they will become far more common.
See my NBR columns today.