Christopher Luxon, New Zealand Prime Minister 2023

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Christopher Luxon, New Zealand Prime Minister 2023

1 | ... | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | ... | 187

8225 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#3244582 5-Jun-2024 07:29

Kyanar:
That is not typically the case. The CTP is included in that figure. The misconception likely arises because the registration fee is charged based on the number of cylinders (example using Queensland's costs) - a V8 has a registration cost over $700, but lesser ones not so much.

Ah, I see that is now true - it wasn’t the last time I registered a car. Even so the point is that registration in Australia is still far more expensive than it is here.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

SaltyNZ

8225 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#3244584 5-Jun-2024 07:35

sir1963:. They are creating new slums and damaging the community around them. They need to spread them out so there is no concentration of problems jammed into one area.

"build housing stock fit for purpose for their tennant profile" is just more BS Bingo.

Bit of a tough one to balance. On the one hand, medium/high density gives the best bang for the buck, as it were, and we know that Mr. And Mrs. J Average Kiwi would prefer that $0 in tax was spent on housing poor people. We also know that any time KO wants to build anything anywhere the Average Kiwis come out in droves to oppose it.

What exactly are they supposed to do? I don’t have any answers here, I just see that they are opposed at every turn. And yet if we don’t do it, then as a purely practical matter all those problem tenants are causing even more problems as they have nowhere to go.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

sir1963

3260 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#3244602 5-Jun-2024 08:00

SaltyNZ:
sir1963:. They are creating new slums and damaging the community around them. They need to spread them out so there is no concentration of problems jammed into one area.

"build housing stock fit for purpose for their tennant profile" is just more BS Bingo.

Bit of a tough one to balance. On the one hand, medium/high density gives the best bang for the buck, as it were, and we know that Mr. And Mrs. J Average Kiwi would prefer that $0 in tax was spent on housing poor people. We also know that any time KO wants to build anything anywhere the Average Kiwis come out in droves to oppose it.

What exactly are they supposed to do? I don’t have any answers here, I just see that they are opposed at every turn. And yet if we don’t do it, then as a purely practical matter all those problem tenants are causing even more problems as they have nowhere to go.

I agree. However in this case "best bang for the buck" is just the up front cost, not the long term ownership cost.
Just think of all the Housing NZ "communities they made in the 60's and 70's that became (as intended ?) slums. Even now they have gang issues, crime issues, etc.
They are just building smaller versions of "Gordon Wilson Flats".
They are over-specced , even the ones on the 3rd floor (no lifts) were going to have disabled bathrooms etc.

mudguard

2114 posts

Uber Geek

#3244882 5-Jun-2024 16:46

SaltyNZ: We also know that any time KO wants to build anything anywhere the Average Kiwis come out in droves to oppose it.

Where I live a golf course has gone under (and the clubhouse up in flames spectacularly), and the community are in up in arms about the plans and what can be done to stop and it keep it a green space. Which is fair enough to an extent. But the community wouldn't be in this situation if the golf course made money. It would never have been sold to a developer. If another person buys it and recovers the golf course, will everyone rush to join to keep it viable? Probably not. Rinse and repeat.

gzt

17111 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3245037 5-Jun-2024 22:17

sir1963: I am 100% behind Kainga Ora housing, but not when they create new kennels just to "house" as many as they can in one spot. They are creating new slums and damaging the community around them. They need to spread them out so there is no concentration of problems jammed into one area. "build housing stock fit for purpose for their tennant profile" is just more BS Bingo.

There are many retired or aged or illness-ed out of a physical job single people and they all need housing. How many of those people turn out to be a problem I would not know but I expect it's a fairly small proportion. The alternative is increasingly a combination of cars and streets and other suboptimal accommodation. All of those people deserve a safe place to live.

sir1963

3260 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#3245068 6-Jun-2024 07:23

gzt:
sir1963: I am 100% behind Kainga Ora housing, but not when they create new kennels just to "house" as many as they can in one spot. They are creating new slums and damaging the community around them. They need to spread them out so there is no concentration of problems jammed into one area. "build housing stock fit for purpose for their tennant profile" is just more BS Bingo.

There are many retired or aged or illness-ed out of a physical job single people and they all need housing. How many of those people turn out to be a problem I would not know but I expect it's a fairly small proportion. The alternative is increasingly a combination of cars and streets and other suboptimal accommodation. All of those people deserve a safe place to live.

And I 100% agree with you. But KO has a proven track record of bad management of problem tenants.
These are also the kind of tenants who are easily bullied by bad tenants, and give how it has taken KO years to move bad tenants on, you only need one or two among 120+ to ruin it.
Also within that demographic the incidence of issues is likely much higher than the average population.

KO is interested is a roof over the head, they have zero interest in actual tenant/tenancy matching, that takes time and resources something (especially now) they do not have.

gzt

17111 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3245071 6-Jun-2024 08:02

National/ACT policy addresses the removal of disruptive tennants.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/512032/government-takes-stricter-stance-on-unruly-social-housing-tenants

It seems the parties have sent a strongly worded letter to Kainga Ora. Not much thought involved but it seems to be having some effect anyway.

Sharesies kids

Free kids accounts - trade shares and funds (NZ, US) with Sharesies (affiliate link).

SaltyNZ

8225 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#3245077 6-Jun-2024 08:28

gzt: National/ACT policy addresses the removal of disruptive tennants.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/512032/government-takes-stricter-stance-on-unruly-social-housing-tenants

It seems the parties have sent a strongly worded letter to Kainga Ora. Not much thought involved but it seems to be having some effect anyway.

New Kāinga Ora bad tenant complaints website is live.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

GV27

5896 posts

Uber Geek

#3245262 6-Jun-2024 14:09

mudguard:

Where I live a golf course has gone under (and the clubhouse up in flames spectacularly), and the community are in up in arms about the plans and what can be done to stop and it keep it a green space. Which is fair enough to an extent. But the community wouldn't be in this situation if the golf course made money. It would never have been sold to a developer. If another person buys it and recovers the golf course, will everyone rush to join to keep it viable? Probably not. Rinse and repeat.

Bit different there, where the land can literally only ever be used as an open space according to the rules it was developed under, and that the surrounding community bought into.

mudguard

2114 posts

Uber Geek

#3245335 6-Jun-2024 17:54

GV27:

Bit different there, where the land can literally only ever be used as an open space according to the rules it was developed under, and that the surrounding community bought into.

True and protected by an encumbrance. But what it doesn't protect it from is it turning into a jungle. Which it is on it's way to. The surrounding community is borrowing from the owner essentially. It's like buying a property one back from the beach. If the section in front of you is empty and you get to an enjoy a sea view, but it's just borrowed. Same with the golf course. If you bought on the boundary of it and enjoy the nice mown grass etc without being a member, then you are simply borrowing it also.

GV27

5896 posts

Uber Geek

#3245649 7-Jun-2024 12:08

mudguard:

True and protected by an encumbrance. But what it doesn't protect it from is it turning into a jungle. Which it is on it's way to. The surrounding community is borrowing from the owner essentially. It's like buying a property one back from the beach. If the section in front of you is empty and you get to an enjoy a sea view, but it's just borrowed. Same with the golf course. If you bought on the boundary of it and enjoy the nice mown grass etc without being a member, then you are simply borrowing it also.

That goes both ways. The owner paid for a golf course with those arrangements in place and altering that right of use is altering a contract with the community that was at the core of that whole development to begin with.

There's other things that land could be used for; i.e. a reserve, public amenity like schools etc that don't automatically mean a change-in-use should be either housing or nothing. And it's not just the surrounding houses, it's the wider community along the coast who will have to deal with the extra traffic and other things that won't be provisioned for that the current planning arrangements did not envisage, and indeed explicitly precluded from taking place.

mudguard

2114 posts

Uber Geek

#3245731 7-Jun-2024 14:13

GV27:

The owner paid for a golf course with those arrangements in place and altering that right of use is altering a contract with the community that was at the core of that whole development to begin with.

There's other things that land could be used for; i.e. a reserve, public amenity like schools etc that don't automatically mean a change-in-use should be either housing or nothing. And it's not just the surrounding houses, it's the wider community along the coast who will have to deal with the extra traffic and other things that won't be provisioned for that the current planning arrangements did not envisage, and indeed explicitly precluded from taking place.

I don't genuinely think it will turn into housing. But it can't be used for anything else. It's either a golf course, or empty land. Nothing can be built. And the community is dreaming if there's any chance of it turning into a park. No council is going to pay $20-50M to make a very odd shaped park.

And not to get too far off topic, but there are sections just as large in total that aren't houses, and unencumbered. Just in Gulf Harbour.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79263 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#3245940 8-Jun-2024 10:29

Law and order!

Leaked group messages from ACT’s campaign reveal billboard breaches | Stuff

You can't reason with extremists because they don't work on the same set of values. Lying to reach their goals is acceptable in their view.

In late April Stuff received a tip-off about resignations and cultural concerns within ACT. Since then we have spoken to current and former ACT Party staff, volunteers and candidates. This is the second story from Stuff’s Chief Political Correspondent Tova O’Brien, read the first here.

Leaked WhatsApp messages from the ACT Party’s campaign group chats appear to show an ACT board member encouraging volunteers to put up election billboards before they were legally allowed to.

Other messages, obtained by Stuff, show the campaign leadership told volunteers outright to ignore council requests to remove hoardings that were already up in Auckland and in breach in August last year.

Further emails sent to Stuff show that the Napier District Council also put ACT on notice about election signage which had gone up more than a month early.

Council bylaws dictate when election advertising and hoardings can be erected during the election campaign period, and it differs region to region.

gzt

17111 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3246074 8-Jun-2024 13:16

The first article in the series:

Stuff: campaign and treatment of volunteers as being like a “bizarre hunger games” where supporters were ranked and rewarded based on their usefulness.

That was backed up by another source who said volunteers felt used by senior campaign figures who reduced them to statistics.

“People were becoming numbers. [ACT board member], for example, was ranking supporters on their usefulness and whether or not they should be invited to a supporter party or not.”

Consistent with some of the policies anyway.

quickymart

13932 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#3246265 8-Jun-2024 18:10

Luxon and co not very popular at the protest today: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/fast-track-approvals-bill-protesters-to-gather-in-aucklands-aotea-square/TKKB6NJTU5BX5NMLG3HWLSR26Q/

1 | ... | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | ... | 187