Not public trees

May 5th, 2010 at 8:26 am by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

Aucklanders hoping to save a favourite tree from being chopped when the law changes in 2012 could face a $20,000 bill.

A planning report for Auckland City Council estimated that as the cost of adding a single pohutukawa in Epsom to its list of protected .

In another case, the Tree Council (Auckland) was told it would have to pay an $11,000 deposit to try for a private plan change to protect an 80 to 100-year-old pohutukawa in Rosebank Rd, Avondale.

The story is accompanied with a photo of a tree in a park next to a beach. This gives the impression that tress in public parks and areas are under some sort of threat.

Not once in the article is it made clear that these potential costs are around trees on private land. It is the cost of trying to impose your will onto the tree owner.

Under the old law the tree owner had to pay the Council for the right to trim or fell his or her own trees on their private property. Now the cost falls on the busy bodies who want to prevent a property owner from trimming or felling a tree they own. That is how it should be.

It is a shame the Herald article not once makes it clear this change is about trees on private land only, not on public land.

Tags: , ,

14 Responses to “Not public trees”

  1. barry (1,317 comments) says:

    This is the first time I am happy about a council charge. Of course it should be at least double what they paper says, but $20k should put the pretenders off – maybe they should spend more time savings kids in Ethiopia than wasting time on trees.
    The interesting thing is that Auckland got all its trees without any need for such loopy ideas.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Murray (8,838 comments) says:

    But I was told that the entire Auckland region was going to have been defoliated by now. Why are there still trees there at all?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. voice of reason (491 comments) says:

    What a pile of absolute crap – 20k to add a tree to a list. Ten phucking seconds of data entry.
    No wonder nothing gets done in this city. NASA got to the moon in 8 years. Here we cant even complete 2 km of ringroad in 35

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. tom hunter (4,430 comments) says:

    It is a shame the Herald article not once makes it clear this change is about trees on private land only, not on public land.

    I saw someone having a snide crack at my criticism of TV3′s Bennett story the other day – with the usual accusation about ‘conspiracy theories’.

    But this sentence makes it clear that the problem with our media is not even thinking ideological bias, let alone political bias, as much as a type of dopey, dreamy, soft-headed ideological bias that just automatically assumes that ‘private’ is bad and ‘public’ is good. The sort of thing that leads to Avatar storylines.

    There was a similar exposure on Morning Report today when the interviewer (Geoff Robinson?) asked of Rodney Hide something to this effect:

    …..but can you assure people that water will remain a public good, that profit won’t be involved…..?

    I’d like to think Rodney bit his tongue and decided not to go after this piece of bait – if that was what it was. Instead he took the usual, media-trained-focus-on-the-message approach and pointed out that National has said there will be no privatisation and he is abiding by that.

    But really – that sort of shit needs to be hit on the head from the moment it’s raised. It would have started a firestorm but Rodney should have come straight back at the prick and pointed out that ‘profit’ is part of the entire food production chain in our society, and that if we’ve figured out ways to make that work well (leaving aside the usual Far-Left for whom communal farms are still an ideal) then it can be done for water too.

    But of course he didn’t – which means the meme will continue to live as an intimidatory factor, one of those beautiful assumptions that predicate and frame such arguments before the debate has even begun – and which thereby render the debate meaningless as solution options are taken off the table. It’s even better when the people pulling these stunts can cover themselves with the mantle of being ‘moderate’ and ‘pragmatic’ – not like those awful ideological fanatics.

    Of course it’s entirely possible that Rodney did not even think of such a response, which is a damned sad thought.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    Why would anyone wish to live in the super sewer. And how much of this 20k a tree does the private tree owner get for the imposition of their property rights?. Sounds like the council wins again. It may rein in time wasters but the real loser will still be the tree owner.The whole fucking thing stinks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    The real point here’s is the Herald’s misreporting. The poor brainwashed product of the socialist education system who fancies herself as a reporter (Eloise Gibson) has completely missed the main issue- ie the one that relates to the trees being on PRIVATE PROPERTY. A concept apparently completely foreign to her Chavez style thinking processes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “But really – that sort of shit needs to be hit on the head from the moment it’s raised. ”

    Quite correct, but to use a phrase from GD yesterday, to say this now is a bit like closing the stable door after the horses have bolted. The left have assaulted so much of our freedom of expression, and none more so than in their use of the word “offensive”. Slowly, they have made it socially unacceptable to argue against common Progressive concepts.

    We should have been saying right from the start- “Get the fuck out of here with your commie shit you socialist drongo…!!”

    But we didn’t. We were blind sided by political correctness, and this allowed the left to establish a beachhead whereupon they took the whole country. They should have been stopped on the beaches, but they weren’t. We lay down and surrendered so meekly.

    Now its so damn hard, because we have a generation or more of ignorant of history indoctrinated loons like Eloise spouting socialist crap WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING A SKERRICK OF ITS ORIGINS..!!!!! Or knowing of any alternative political position.

    As Alexandar Solzhenitsyn says in “Gulag Archipelago”- In our abject submission to the mores of political correctness, and our spineless failure to resist, we asked for every thing we got. (paraphrased)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. RRM (9,471 comments) says:

    Curious that applying to get council protection for a tree costs more than getting building consent to build a house next to the tree…

    PS: I am in no doubt whatsoever that Redbaiter’s place will have a sign out the front “PRIVATE PROPERTY – KEEP OUT”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    And of course, regardless of the main issue, the council is only trying to meet its payroll by making these charges. NZ all over. A crowd of loafers trying to parasite an undeserved standard of living from the productive.

    The real tragedy..??

    This is a democratic country. Both central and local governments are elected by votes. You voted for it. You empowered these parasites to tyrannize you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. RRM (9,471 comments) says:

    PS2: Olde Auckland Town’s a pretty place and I’m all for protecting things like trees that make it that way. But once you start talking about $20,000 a pop to attempt to remove a landowner’s right to chop his own tree down, you have lost your grip on reality and it’s time to give up on “saving” privately owned trees and concentrate your beautification/preservation efforts elsewhere.

    Rather than on pen-pushing, wouldn’t $20,000 be better spent on offering to prune/maintain the tree at no cost to the owner, in return for an undertaking by the owner not to cut it down….?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Pete George (22,863 comments) says:

    There was a similar exposure on Morning Report today when the interviewer (Geoff Robinson?) asked of Rodney Hide something to this effect:

    …..but can you assure people that water will remain a public good, that profit won’t be involved…..?

    I’m sure a lot of profits are made selling water already. Strange people – they have free water but keep buying expensive packaging. Even mores strange – “pure” water is often more expensive than products that use water as an ingredient.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    ” Strange people ”

    You’re the one that is strange. There are a host of good reasons for buying bottled water.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Ed Snack (1,738 comments) says:

    Why not, as a thought, offer special rating discounts for hosting a significant tree and looking after it ? In Auckland trees grow prolifically anyway, it seems a shame to cut any down, but given how easy it is to recover, and with a bit of incentive to assist, surely a sensible way is to regard tree turnover as essentially natural and encourage regrowth ?

    One cause of the removal of trees is the policy of encouraging higher density housing, that leaves less room for decent sized trees. Another is the policies in place, when the rules controlling the removal and even pruning of trees were first enacted, almost all of my then neighbours went out and checked out their trees. One immediately chopped down all natives on the basis that they were more trouble than they could possibly be worth, and many others, almost in concert pruned and trimmed anything they could to bring trees in under the size limits. A great example of the law of unintended consequences.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. lastmanstanding (1,207 comments) says:

    I prune and cut trees on my property to both improve my view and protect the existing trees. I dont do clear felling. I am careful to preserve a balance and create a nice landscape.

    But I bloody well object to the nutters and whiners who blah blah on. Nature requires a little help from time to time as any one familiar with farming etc will know.

    To the extremists I say FOXTROT OSCAR. If you dont like it stump up the money to buy the property.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.