The commies are right

September 28th, 2010 at 2:00 pm by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

candidates are split almost equally over whether the new council should play a bigger role in providing social for low-income people.

Mayoral candidate and 17 other candidates have told a survey by the Waitakere Housing Call to Action group that the council should maintain or expand the pensioner units it will inherit from existing councils, and work with the Government and community groups to provide more social housing. …

Mr Brown told a social issues forum in Otahuhu yesterday that he wanted to double the existing number of units.

He advocated putting “1000 new units of affordable housing, both personally owned and rented”, into Housing NZ urban renewal projects at Tamaki, Clendon and Papakura.

No no no. Local Government isn’t there to find schools, hospitals and provide housing. That is the role of central Government, Len Brown wants to spend over $1 billion of ratepayers money on housing – money that could either lower rates, or be far better spent on public transport, roads, parks etc.

Not everyone thank God wants to spend $1 billion on housing. No I dodn’t mean John Banks, but the two communist (Annalucia is standing for the Communist League, and Penny – well if it sounds like a duck, walks like a duck ….) candidates:

The candidate survey found some unexpected bedfellows. Far-left mayoral candidates and both urged expansion of social housing – but by the state, not the new council.

And Penny and Alllucia are right. This is the role of central Government – through Housing NZ. What next from Len – have the Council start its own welfare department?

Tags: , , , ,

59 Responses to “The commies are right”

  1. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Sounds to me like they’re all commies. Just fighting over where to spend the stolen money and who should have first right to take it.

    (Glad to see you using the term all the same. You should do it more often)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Sam (493 comments) says:

    Just watch that $91million get eaten up by election promises…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Chris2 (703 comments) says:

    I’m old enough to remember when only property-owners could vote in local elections because they were the ones whose rates funded Councils.

    If that form of voting was brought back there wouldn’t be any of this social-engineering at Council level, but we would probably have a good roading system, unbroken pavements and cash to spare for replacing 100 year-old sewerage pipes.

    On a related matter, DPF you are professional pollster, what do you make of the poll in Saturday’s Herald claiming Brown has a huge lead over Banks? The sample was less than 600, which seems rather small for the Herald to be so certain.

    [DPF: That was reporting a Horizon poll I think. As far as I can tell they use an online panel, which is not at all reliable. Their last poll had National just 8% ahead of Labour while Colmar Brunton had the gap at 22%. think this speaks volumes.

    I actually think the reporting of "online panel" polls in this election has been disgraceful by the media, as they can become self-flfilling prophecies.]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. ben (2,385 comments) says:

    If anyone in politics has a heart then they will stop entrapping the poor in their schemes which do not work. The fastest way to put people into poverty and keep them there is to throw government money at them, pay them to be poor and then raise their effective marginal tax rates into the 90s or the 100s to keep them there.

    Just how many times does the socialist model have to fail before finally voters stop rewarding politicians for this idiocy?

    Government policy is nearly the entire reason housing is so unaffordable in the first place in this country. Land prices are so high because supply is badly constrained. It is simply indefensible to have politicians spending other peoples money to fix the problems they themselves created. Is it too much to ask voters to recognise the relationship between the RMA, council zoning, and house prices?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. bchapman (649 comments) says:

    Why shouldn’t Regional Government take over the running of these things? Wellington has proved itself incapable of administering housing policy- every year Housing NZ’s waiting list keeps growing in Auckland as less and less new stuff gets built. This is the whole idea of the Super City- get our taxes back so we can stop propping up Wellington’s bureaucracy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Fale Andrew Lesa (473 comments) says:

    Oh for goodness sake David, grow up!

    This is not a local version of Housing NZ expansion, this is housing for the elderly, as SOLD by John Banks. Central government has done an appalling job with housing for the elderly, and naturally, local-government should pick up the slack.

    At least we know where Len Brown stands on the issue, so many have flip-flopped their way through from day one.

    [DPF: So should ratepayers also fund local hospitals and schools if you think central Govt is not doing enough there?]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. dog_eat_dog (675 comments) says:

    No Andrew, why should I as a rate payer pay more in Auckland because a business in Hamilton got a NZT&E grant? The government collects tax to pay on central government activities. If you have a political council plugging alleged gaps in central government expenditure, then you have two taxation authorities supposedly providing the same services.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. m@tt (535 comments) says:

    Oh how you howl when you perceive things which don’t fit your neat little rule book.
    News flash David. The real world doesn’t conform to your idealistic views. I suggest if you want to make informed comment you pull your head from your arse some time and go and experience some real life, with real people, with real needs.

    [DPF:20 demerits. Try doing a response that addresses the issue, instead of insulting me]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Lance (2,309 comments) says:

    @Fale
    With whose money?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Chris2 (703 comments) says:

    Fale Andrew Lesa – are you the same Fale Andrew Lesa who has only just returned from a ten-day swan to Rwanda where you were apparently taught “peacebuilding” skills by the Royal Commonwealth Society?

    The language used in your posting above, doesn’t sound like peacebuilding.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Hagues (711 comments) says:

    “And Penny and Alllucia are right. This is the role of central Government – through Housing NZ.”

    Well even that is up for debate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Fot (252 comments) says:

    Fale

    Since when has it been the job of the rate payer to provide housing?

    Everybody in our community uses the services provided by local governments so everybody should pay, I fail to see why only rate payers are left with the bill.

    The sooner we introduce a poll tax the better.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Rex Widerstrom (5,124 comments) says:

    Philosophically, I’m in agreement with DPF. Practically, however, I’m not.

    Yes, housing etc is the duty of central government. To tax Person A’s home at a higher rate in order to provide a home for Person B – with no regard to Person A’s ability to pay – is fundamentally wrong.

    But David, your friends and idols in central government have long abdicated their duty in this and a number of other areas of serious social need. In fact the only thing they do efficiently is funnel billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money, through WINZ, into the pockets of private landlords, who are able to charge ridiculous rents because no one else can build houses thanks to… you guessed it… central government.

    Thus Councils’ (and it’s not just Auckland) concerns about housing people who live in their communities is understandable, if inappropriate. The alternative is to have the parks you think they should be funding instead full of homeless people and their swags.

    Seeing as how you’re so vexed about the issue, perhaps you should have a chat to your friends in central government. Judging by your post they seem oblivious to the fact that they are the sole cause of the problem to which Councils are reacting. I’m sure once you’ve made them aware of that, they start fixing it. Won’t they?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Bob R (1,250 comments) says:

    How about actually doing something to reduce the number of children born into poverty – like making contraception a condition of welfare payments? Temporary birth control shots could easily be administered and would save millions in housing, welfare & criminal justice costs in the long run.

    http://kidshealth.org/teen/sexual_health/contraception/contraception_depo.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Sam (493 comments) says:

    Bernard Hickey agrees wrt the commies are right – I’ve just blogged how he’s just come out over at interest.co.nz as all interventionist-hugging…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. ben (2,385 comments) says:

    No government intervention at any level is required in this market. There is demand for housing. There is an entire industry set up to supply it. If you think the poor need help getting into accommodation, then provide a cash grant to them.

    By the far the dominant reason for housing being expensive in New Zealand is because government makes it so difficult to build, at every level through zoning, RMA, and council consents. My little 150 sq m house has over 400 pages of council consents and sign offs. The man hours it took to write all those buy next to nothing – certainly not protection from incompetence – but must be paid for. At the point, ultimately, of a gun. It is a racket.

    If you want affordable housing – and who doesn’t – then the solution is to get government the hell out of interfering in that market. Len Brown is simply proposing to lump distortion on distortion on distortion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. ben (2,385 comments) says:

    How about actually doing something to reduce the number of children born into poverty – like making contraception a condition of welfare payments? Temporary birth control shots could easily be administered and would save millions in housing, welfare & criminal justice costs in the long run.

    Christ. Will the last freedom lover in this god forsaken country please turn out the goddamned lights?

    Bob R – the one thing this country does not need more of is more intervention. Jesus H Christ, is there anybody that doesn’t think we need more rules?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Fot (252 comments) says:

    Bob R is on the money, it is all very well banging on about freedoms but those same freedoms end up costing the rest of us money.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Repton (769 comments) says:

    Everybody in our community uses the services provided by local governments so everybody should pay, I fail to see why only rate payers are left with the bill.

    I don’t pay rates. But I pay rent, and my landlord pays rates. What’s the difference?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Viking2 (10,694 comments) says:

    Central government has done an appalling job with housing for the elderly, and naturally, local-government should pick up the slack.

    Yeh it has and no they should not. That is their families responsibility.
    However the various companies that have built pensioner villages and lifestyle villages, at least in the Tauranga area have done a good job.
    HNZ are buying and renting cheap at way below the real cost.
    Why the hell should a rate payer or taxpayer front up for someone who didn’t bother.
    Just leave us with our money, our choices and our responsibilities,without adding in someone else’s. You know you will only stuff it up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Chris2 (703 comments) says:

    Repton at 3:20pm wrote
    I don’t pay rates. But I pay rent, and my landlord pays rates. What’s the difference?

    The difference is that your landlord only gets one vote, whereas you, your misses, and every other adult member of your household gets a vote. Why should your family as tenants, have more electoral influence than the owner of the property you live in?

    This is how those Indians in South Auckland tried to rig the voting, by enrolling over 80 people at two addresses

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

    “it is all very well banging on about freedoms but those same freedoms end up costing the rest of us money.”

    Nope. Its irresponsibility that costs the money. That’s because socialists hold the community accountable rather than the individual, and foster that notion.

    Responsible citizens/ individuals don’t need other people’s money.

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

    “go and experience some real life, with real people, with real needs.”

    Something you as a communist wouldn’t have a clue about.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Repton (769 comments) says:

    The difference is that your landlord only gets one vote, whereas you, your misses, and every other adult member of your household gets a vote. Why should your family as tenants, have more electoral clout that the landlord of the property you live in?

    My landlord gets one vote. I get one vote. My partner gets one vote. My landlord’s wife gets one vote. I’m still not seeing the problem here.

    Heck, I could invert your argument:
    “I only get one vote. Whereas my landlord, his wife, and every other adult member of his household gets a vote. Why should his family have more electoral clout than me?”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Hagues (711 comments) says:

    Well at least we have on record that DPF agrees that housing provided by Central Government is a Communist ideal to which he agrees. Not sure why my money should be taken off me to provide the 3brm 1/4 acre dream to others when I can barely afford it myself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. ben (2,385 comments) says:

    Bob R is on the money, it is all very well banging on about freedoms but those same freedoms end up costing the rest of us money.

    Nobody is banging on about freedoms. No one. Just arguing over the best form of central control. “Central government should do it!” “No, no, local government should!”. Etc.

    And since freedom by definition means not having the cost of someone else’s housing come out of your pocket, I don’t know WTF you’re on about.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. unaha-closp (1,033 comments) says:

    What next from Len – have the Council start its own welfare department?

    Len Brown has a masterplan:

    1. Amalgamate into a super city with the biggest and most productive economy (protesting a little that we don’t want to).
    2. Form shadow departments – housing, social welfare, police.
    3. Secede.

    Most everyone here knows this and agrees its for the best, so we are all voting for Len Brown. For a future in a free and independent Auckland.

    The Communists and other statist sympathisers (John Banks) will not stand in our way.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Chris2 (703 comments) says:

    Why should his family have more electoral clout than me?

    Because he is the one responsible for funding the Councils activities. You are not.

    Whether his property is tenanted or not, 24 hours a days he has strict liability and has to keep on paying rates to the Council even if he is deriving no income from the property.

    Whereas you can walk away from the property anytime without a care for him, or the Council.

    Your landlord even gets charged penalties if he doesn’t pay his rates on time, but he can’t charge you penalties if you don’t pay your rent on time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Repton (769 comments) says:

    Because he is the one responsible for funding the Councils activities. You are not.

    Part of my rent goes towards the rates he pays. Thus, I help to fund the council’s activities.

    Whether his property is tenanted or not, 24 hours a days he has strict liability and has to keep on paying rates to the Council even if he is deriving no income from it.

    And I’m sure this is priced into the rent I pay.

    Whereas you can walk away from the property anytime without a care for him, or the Council.

    And here was me thinking I’d signed a contract…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Rick Rowling (776 comments) says:

    unaha-closp : “secede”

    And the New New Zealand (excl. Auckland) would suddenly have a balance of payments surplus. Yaay.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. lastmanstanding (1,154 comments) says:

    Ive been a taxpayer for 40 years and a ratepayer for 37 years. And always the biggest concern is how Central and Local governments deliberately obsure their functions.

    IMHO they double dip and they do so knowingly. The Socialists are the worst so when you have a Socialist central and local government they both rip you off for the same proported purposes.

    Over the years they have conspired to overtax by both saying they will provide what is the same service but charging twice.

    I fear the Auckland City under a Brown lead regime will raise the double dipping to new levels.

    Let us not forget this is a person whose moral compass decided the ratepayers should pay for his birthday party

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Bob R (1,250 comments) says:

    ***ben (1,257) Says:

    …Will the last freedom lover in this god forsaken country please turn out the goddamned lights?

    Bob R – the one thing this country does not need more of is more intervention.***

    ben,

    Did you even read my post? I wasn’t saying make birth control mandatory. I was saying it should be a _condition_ of receiving welfare (albeit a temporary one via birth control shots). Unless you think welfare is a natural right which shouldn’t impose any obligations on the recipient, I’m not sure what your point is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Psycho Milt (1,974 comments) says:

    Repton: landlords tend to imagine the fact that they’re recovering from you via rent the rates “they” supposedly pay, somehow doesn’t make you the person paying the rates. See, all you’re doing is earning the money and handing it over – they have the far more difficult, complex and ultimately worthy task of directing your money to the council.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    It appears a majority of Aucklanders prefer Len Brown’s vision, such as it is, to that of his opponents. a city needs to be the master of its own destiny, not rely on the whims of ever-changing governments. The fact is that local body politicians tend to be more long term than those on the national stage.

    Personally, I encourage Len in his housing vision, and particularly provide good housing, not ghettos, for refugees and asylum-seekers, especially as the now widely expected influx caused by global warming gathers steam.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Hagues (711 comments) says:

    When I go to McDonalds I pay for a burger, fries, and drink. Now when deciding how much to charge me for that combo Ronald will have factored in the cost of ingrediants, lease, employees wages, cleaning, electricity, water, etc. But I am buying a burger, fries, and a drink and that is all I am paying for. Same applies when one purchases the service of rented accommodation. The tenant is purchasing the right to rent and use the house for a period of time. The landlord has factored in a number of costs to himself to be able to provide the service (opportunity cost of deposit, mortgage, rates, his own time, advertising, maintenance etc) as well as prevailing market forces when deciding how much to charge for providing the service. The tenant is paying for the service of rented accommodation only. The tenant cannot claim to be paying for the individual components that the landlord is paying. (Try claiming a share of ownership of the house based on the fact that it was you, the tenant, that really was paying the mortgage).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Rich Prick (1,319 comments) says:

    Exactly Hagues. Better still, look at where the liability to pay rates falls. Certainly not on the tenant. When my tenants do a runner leaving rent well and truly in arrears, I don’t get a discount from the Council. Those tenants have freeloaded on democracy and I’m left with the bill.

    If the saying “no taxation without representation” remains true, then no representation without taxation must be equally true.

    And it is worse when my rates fund Council housing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Bob R (1,250 comments) says:

    ***Personally, I encourage Len in his housing vision, and particularly provide good housing, not ghettos, for refugees and asylum-seekers, especially as the now widely expected influx caused by global warming gathers steam.***

    Luc Hansen,

    Sorry, but are you insane? NZ can’t afford to provide for its own as it is. I recall Child Poverty Action Group reporting on 200,000 children being in poverty a year or so ago. It cannot afford to increase its refugee intake – if anything it needs to be reduced to about 50 per year max (we should follow Japan’s example on this).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. JohnG (22 comments) says:

    Some mixed messages on this thread. So to add to the confusion with my views:

    Rex W (2.52): I agree with your first bit “Yes, housing etc is the duty of central government” to the extent that you mean social or last resort housing, but not the bit about “the pockets of private landlords, who are able to charge ridiculous rents because no one else can build houses.” Sorry, but rents are set by the market, which is driven by the underlying costs.

    ben (2.58) is spot on when he says “By the far the dominant reason for housing being expensive in New Zealand is because government makes it so difficult to build, at every level through zoning, RMA, and council consents.” Further to that, urban land values are ridiculously high due, in no small part, to town planners (I use the term loosely) who limit city boundaries, push for high density housing, etc.

    And (surprisingly) I agree with Repton that tenants as residents are entitled to equal voting rights with landlords or owner-occupiers by virtue of their indirect contribution to rates. Sure, landlords (of which I am one) carry all the risk, but that’s an investment choice – and better than Blue Chip et al.

    And I’m most impressed that Luc H (5.04) managed to squeak global warming into a housing discussion; now that came out of left field! But what about all the trees cut down to build houses? :) This also reminds me of John Clark’s spoof of Kevin Rudd: “Hey Penny, I’ve got it, plant a tree, save the planet” or something like that (can’t locate the link, sorry).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. jaba (2,068 comments) says:

    does anyone know what restaurant Lenny B is in during his TV ad .. it’s not Volare from what I can tell?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    John G

    Sorry mate, but closing your eyes won’t make something go away.

    And, as one Auckland landlord to another, I’m happy that we see eye-to-eye on the rights of tenants as residents AND as human beings.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Bob R

    I’m sure our definition of poverty would be a definition of wealth for those forced out of their lands by western-induced climate change.

    Furthermore, economic surveys show that immigrants actually add wealth, and surely there can never be enough of that!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Put it away (2,888 comments) says:

    Any council with a billion dollars kicking around with nothing to do is charging far too much for rates.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Rex Widerstrom (5,124 comments) says:

    JohnG says:

    Rex W (2.52): I agree with your first bit “Yes, housing etc is the duty of central government” to the extent that you mean social or last resort housing,

    Yes, sorry that does sound a bit like I’m advocating the government house everyone. I did of course mean social or last resort housing (and pensioner housing).

    but not the bit about “the pockets of private landlords, who are able to charge ridiculous rents because no one else can build houses.” Sorry, but rents are set by the market, which is driven by the underlying costs.

    Do you not think an underlying cost is the shortage of land for new developments due to too much of it being protected by some form of covenant or another and then, when it’s released, the vast mountain of paperwork and compliance facing any would-be developer?! As ben says above:

    My little 150 sq m house has over 400 pages of council consents and sign offs. The man hours it took to write all those buy next to nothing – certainly not protection from incompetence – but must be paid for. At the point, ultimately, of a gun.

    That’s not some unavoidable “underlying cost”, it’s a nonsensical regime empowering thousands of unnecessary drones to interfere with a person’s private property rights – the costs of which go straight into the selling or rental price of the finished property.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Put it away (2,888 comments) says:

    Luc Hands-on – meanwhile, on another thread, your precious immigrants are issuing death threats because they don’t like being caught commiting electoral fraud.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Hagues (711 comments) says:

    Luc Hansen “Personally, I encourage Len in his housing vision, and particularly provide good housing, not ghettos, for refugees and asylum-seekers, especially as the now widely expected influx caused by global warming gathers steam.”

    Then when challenged on it states

    Luc Hansen “economic surveys show that immigrants actually add wealth, and surely there can never be enough of that!”

    Now that is two different groups of people. Nice switch-a-roo, but we aren’t falling for it. I’m sure “immigrants” – those that are accepted into the country on the basis that they are going to contribute to the country – do as a whole add economic wealth. “refugees and asylum-seekers” on the other hand…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. OctagonGrappler (84 comments) says:

    Luc supports open door Immigration which is infact just code for study for residence/Housing Ponzi Scam. Is that why you support lens housing plan.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Psycho Milt (1,974 comments) says:

    The tenant cannot claim to be paying for the individual components that the landlord is paying.

    Absolutely not – except for the fact that the landlord is recovering the cost of the rates back from the tenant. So, yeah, apart from the tenant paying the cost of the rates, the tenant is not paying the rates at all.

    If you want to whine about “representation without taxation,” here’s what you do: you take the current rent you’re charging for your property, subtract from that the amount you’re currently paying in rates on the property, and revise the rent to reflect the new figure. Once the tenant’s paying that new rate, feel free to bleat all you like about how your tenant’s getting representation based on your taxation. But expect the following suggestion: “Why not just recover the taxes from the tenant?”

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

    OctagonGrappler, Luc supports open door immigration because immigrants are the only ones who have not been tarnished by years of lefty bullshit and are thus perfect cannon fodder for up and coming lefty politicians.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. OctagonGrappler (84 comments) says:

    side show bob I think its Branch Stacking is what they call it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Rich Prick (1,319 comments) says:

    “rights of tenants … AND as human beings.”

    But you have no time for rape victims buried to their breasts and stoned to death by the religion of peace Luc, the very religion you so desperately defend around here.

    Back on point, why should I as an owner of rental property and as a rate-payer, pay for my Council competition? Especially when Councils don’t pay rates on their rental property, but I must. The State, or local Councils ought never to be in a position of competitive advantage, especially when their competitors are compelled to fund them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. JohnG (22 comments) says:

    @Rex W (6.45), yes I do agree with you and ben that part of the underlying cost is the cost of compliance, in addition to my earlier point about so-called town “planning” (often initiated by fresh, and genuinely keen, young graduates but with no practical experience in the real world).

    Ironically, the system sometimes fails when needed most – there is an unfinished and abandoned (new) house near me that is so non-compliant it will probably be torn down; certainly no-one wants to buy it. So where was the army of building inspectors when it was needed? Not that I have much sympathy for the bank that lent the full “future” value to the developer and now has no hope of recovery.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    But you have no time for rape victims buried to their breasts and stoned to death by the religion of peace Luc, the very religion you so desperately defend around here.

    I don’t defend any religion. I don’t do religion, myself. However, I defend anyone’s right to their religion. Big difference.

    And of course I have time for those victims, but I don’t demonise an entire multi-ethnic group because of the actions of the few. I condemn those few. But I don’t advocate that we kill or maim millions of people for the actions of that few. Think about it.

    You may be rich, and you may well be a prick, I don’t know, because you are anonymous, but you certainly are a racist in denial.

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

    “you certainly are a racist in denial.”

    So what “race” is Islam again??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Rich Prick (1,319 comments) says:

    When was Islam a race?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Rich Prick (1,319 comments) says:

    I am racist because I am offened by women being tortured and killed by a religion? I will be the first in line to have the “racist” badge pinned on me if that is the case. Luc, you are a fucking wanker.

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

    “Luc, you are a fucking wanker.”

    If he were indeed just a fucking wanker, it wouldn’t be so bad. In fact fucking wankers are relatively benign in that they’re usually just bumbling fools a bigger threat to themselves than anyone. Luc on the other hand is a dangerous zealot infected with the doctrine of the neo communist, and (thanks to a dysfunctional education system and an ideologically corrupt mainstream media) he and his brain damaged ilk exist in numbers that make them, like their comrades from history, a potentially fatal danger to any civilised society.

    When confronted with an idea or manner of thinking he disapproves of, it drives him into a paroxysm of rage and intolerance. He hops from foot to foot and struggles to finds a word or phrase that is the modern day equivalent of “send that dissenter to the furtherest gulag”.

    Since firing squads became passe and recognised as so clumsy and messy, the left have developed far more sophisticated measures to enforce their doctrine, and one of the most successful is to label dissenters as “unclean”. You don’t agree with what leftists proclaim is the way and the truth, and you will not be educated to agree, so you must be cast out.

    The unclean attract labels that automatically identify them as ideological lepers- xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, sexist, capitalist, Conservative, all of these are code for “unclean”. Their advantage is that they remove the need for any kind of rational argument or logical defence of the leftist position. Once you’re identified as belonging to one of these groups you’re officially a non person, sent to an ideological gulag and denied any part in “legitimate” discussion on any topical issue.

    “Racist” is Lucs favourite code word. If he had been with Pol Pot in Cambodia’s killing fields, he would have been suffocating you with a plastic bag held over your head. If he had been with Castro enforcing socialism in Cuba after the revolution, he would have just shot you. If he had been with Joe Stalin, you would have found yourself in the icy Siberian waste lands behind a barbed wire fence chewing the fat with Alexandar Solzhenitsyn. If he had been with Mao you would have been starved to death.

    He’s not of course, he’s in NZ , and here on Kiwiblog, and all he can do is call you racist, even when the issue has nothing to do with race. He’s happy with that though, he knows that firing squads are counter productive, and he also understands the theory that all he has to do is (like all his comrades) keep screaming racist (or any other of the above labels) for a long long time, and eventually he’ll get the conformity of thought that is his obsession.

    He’s far worse than a fucking wanker, In fact he’s vile totalitarian scum, and the modern day manifestation of an ideology that has more blood on its hands than any other phenomenon in human history.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Psycho Milt (1,974 comments) says:

    So what “race” is Islam again??

    What “race” is Judaism? Doesn’t stop bigots from hating ‘em.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Pete George (21,796 comments) says:

    Redparody strikes again:

    When confronted with an idea or manner of thinking he disapproves of, it drives him into a paroxysm of rage and intolerance. He hops from foot to foot and struggles to finds a word or phrase that is the modern day equivalent of “send that dissenter to the nearest lamppost”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. krazykiwi (9,188 comments) says:

    red, 1:02am – good comment. Absolutely on target.

    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.