Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification



View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | ... | 232 | 233 | 234 | 235 | 236 | 237 

gzt

gzt
18710 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7841

Lifetime subscriber

  #3481030 15-Apr-2026 13:55
Send private message quote this post

SaltyNZ: [Bishop] certainly tried to, although I remain highly dubious about opening up more land around Drury/Pukekohe for a number of reasons. But he's been really let down by Luxon who has caved to pressure from his NIMBY constituents - and probably himself to be honest - who are appalled that their leafy suburbs might have to house people with a less than seven figure net worth.

I'm not sure that income gap thing is an actual issue. A small family apartment in most places is pretty near 70% of seven figures. Apartments in high net worth suburbs and grammar zones I think you're referring to look different and are going to cost a lot more. I drive past a few. They look like pretty quiet places. In many cases I suspect it's retired people cashing out and staying local with low maintenance, and a few families and younger people. Probably a nice mix for the residents.



sen8or
1898 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1403


  #3481035 15-Apr-2026 14:07
Send private message quote this post

its fair to say they wouldn't want land opened up for social housing, but given the likely land cost, the Govt could house double or more quantity of houses in outlying areas vs the leafy suburbs so for a "bang for your buck" perspective makes sense to house as many as possible


gzt

gzt
18710 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7841

Lifetime subscriber

  #3481135 15-Apr-2026 17:39
Send private message quote this post

Luxon seems close to increasing max vehicle weights claiming maximum vehicle loading weights are a non-essential regulatory barrier to fuel efficiency.

Video: Luxon: (2 27) "Our government is also exploring options for removing non-essential regulatory barriers to help improve fuel efficiency" (2:43) "These proposals include common sense things like allowing heavy vehicles to carry heavier loads"

That does not sound like common sense or non-essential regulation. In an emergency situation, maybe. It would be difficult to get that genie back in the bottle once it's on the road. I'd assume Luxon has no intention of putting it back. I'm guessing there are very few well maintained corridors built to the new standard. That means a large future commitment to road updating and maintenance, if it goes through. Potentially they might come up with some 'rated roads' concept to limit the issues to major corridors.



SaltyNZ
8877 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9573

Trusted
2degrees
Lifetime subscriber

  #3481143 15-Apr-2026 18:47
Send private message quote this post

gzt: Luxon seems close to increasing max vehicle weights claiming maximum vehicle loading weights are a non-essential regulatory barrier to fuel efficiency.

 

However they are an essential regulatory barrier to not tearing up our roads.





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

 

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


1 | ... | 232 | 233 | 234 | 235 | 236 | 237 
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic








Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.