Ihumātao land protest.

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

Forums › Politics › Ihumātao land protest.

1 | 2

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2316939 13-Sep-2019 08:54

Journeyman:

The housing development won't be built up to the boundary of the historic reserve OR the village nearby. So why is SOUL saying it will be?

They aren't saying that at all. They're saying "adjacent to" and "in close proximity to".

I presume nobody disputes that it's a site of historical significance.

GV27

5977 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2316953 13-Sep-2019 09:18

Fred99:

Journeyman:

The housing development won't be built up to the boundary of the historic reserve OR the village nearby. So why is SOUL saying it will be?

They aren't saying that at all. They're saying "adjacent to" and "in close proximity to".

I presume nobody disputes that it's a site of historical significance.

Cornwall Park is a site of significant cultural and geological heritage as well; we still built houses next to it.

I have found the lack of distinction between the Reserve land and the housing development proposal really unhelpful in this whole debate. Some people are trying to make out Fletchers are proposing bulldozing the whole Stonefields area.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2317020 13-Sep-2019 09:59

GV27:

Cornwall Park is a site of significant cultural and geological heritage as well; we still built houses next to it.

Cornwall Park is huge, and because of the elevation of Maungakiekie / One Tree Hill, it's got nothing like the impact of a new McSubdivision next to a relatively low small site.

Journeyman

1206 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1237

#2317912 14-Sep-2019 19:13

Fred99:

Journeyman:

The housing development won't be built up to the boundary of the historic reserve OR the village nearby. So why is SOUL saying it will be?

They aren't saying that at all.

it's precisely what they said. I used quotation marks because that was a quote from their website.

This is a map from Wikipedia. It shows that houses won't be built up to the boundary of the historic reserve or the village.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2318026 15-Sep-2019 10:34

Oh - I must have missed seeing that block of text.
But if the map you posted is correct, then it looks like it's technically the truth anyway, either because the returned land becomes part of the reserve, and the returned land doesn't extend around all shared boundary between the reserve and the development block.

Just to clarify, I don't live in Akl, I've never see the site, and I don't know enough about it to form a strong opinion or argue details. However, from what I have read, it's clearly not simple and knee-jerk response by some that they're just troublemakers etc isn't going to help.

GV27

5977 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4212

#2318043 15-Sep-2019 11:17

Fred99:
Just to clarify, I don't live in Akl, I've never see the site, and I don't know enough about it to form a strong opinion or argue details. However, from what I have read, it's clearly not simple and knee-jerk response by some that they're just troublemakers etc isn't going to help.

Not helped by commercial development already going to the edge at the South Western edge either.

While I appreciate the 'knee jerk' response is fun to paint as 'knee jerk' this has gone through every legal process available; there has been no overturning the development on the grounds of due process and the protesters have been ordered off the land.

I feel like there's an equal knee-jerk response siding with the protests which is doing its best to overlook many things, the above legal rulings and the distinction between the reserve and the housing development land.

And after all that, I'm still not sure what a good outcome is or what we're likely to end up with.

New World

Shop on-line at New World now for your groceries (affiliate link).

Journeyman

1206 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1237

#2318154 15-Sep-2019 16:53

Fred99: Oh - I must have missed seeing that block of text.
But if the map you posted is correct, then it looks like it's technically the truth anyway, either because the returned land becomes part of the reserve, and the returned land doesn't extend around all shared boundary between the reserve and the development block.

The returned land forms a buffer between the housing development and the Stonefields and the village on the other side of the buffer. You can call it a reserve if you want, but it still forms a separation between the two and it means that when the protestors say the housing will be built up to the edge of the historic reserve - they're wrong.

I'm not sure that the buffer land does need to extend all around the housing development. The only part it doesn't cover is the bit on the south-west edge which is separated by a road anyway.

The protestors claim on this one is far from correct and only slightly accurate if you want to use a very specific definition. I don't appreciate them fudging the facts like this.

shk292

2916 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2040

Lifetime subscriber

#2318181 15-Sep-2019 18:38

The SOUL statement is clearly incorrect, it says "houses built up to the existing boundary of the historic reserve" - that is wrong, as the diagram shows. I thought their leader was a lawyer, who I would expect to get such a simple statement correct.

I've been out to this area, I had to drop a parcel at one of the village houses once for a family member. It's slightly bizarre - sort of a "shanty" village that you'd expect to find in rural Northland, but a few minutes drive from the largest airport in NZ. The proposed development site is just an incongruous block of farmland. To me, it's crying out to be a housing area for people working at the airport or industrial areas nearby. The protest is just nimbyism mixed with grievance politics

JaseNZ

2576 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1489

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#2318182 15-Sep-2019 18:42

What is actually stopping Fletchers just going ahead and starting the development ?? , Would they not have a legal right to do so ??

Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding : Ice cream man , Ice cream man

Varkk

643 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 477

#2318377 16-Sep-2019 09:34

JaseNZ:

What is actually stopping Fletchers just going ahead and starting the development ?? , Would they not have a legal right to do so ??

The protest and occupation. While they may have won the legal right the occupation is the last ditch effort to stop it. The Police don't want to get in there too heavy as that never looks good on the news. At the moment they are still trying to negotiate a peaceful outcome to all of this.

1 | 2