Sorry I ment Contentious for some but not for me, My opinion is straight forward.

JaseNZ:

 

Sorry I ment Contentious for some but not for me, My opinion is straight forward.

 

So you'll have no problem explaining in a concise manner how you formed that straightforward opinion?

I thought the solution was very simple, we go back in time and prevent the land under contention from being sold to a developer. The issues around the land were known by the council and government at the time. But pressed ahead anyway.

Varkk:

 

I thought the solution was very simple, we go back in time and prevent the land under contention from being sold to a developer. The issues around the land were known by the council and government at the time. But pressed ahead anyway.

 

So if we could go back in time, we'd stop the transaction, but not the initial confiscation? 😄

As awkward as the whole thing is, the Courts have ruled on this now, repeatedly. Matters not helped by many media reports which strongly suggested the stonefields reserve would be bulldozed over for housing, not land adjacent to it, which is kind of irresponsible. 

I guess it comes down to whether you think individual/factional protests are something that should be enshrined over all the other stuff we have to balance when it comes to historical grievances. Hopefully everyone can come to some arrangement that doesn't totally unwind the treaty process to date. 

Fred99:

 

JaseNZ:

 

Sorry I ment Contentious for some but not for me, My opinion is straight forward.

 

 

So you'll have no problem explaining in a concise manner how you formed that straightforward opinion?

 

Yup they do not own it trespass them and tell them to get off.

JaseNZ:

 

Fred99:

 

JaseNZ:

 

Sorry I ment Contentious for some but not for me, My opinion is straight forward.

 

 

So you'll have no problem explaining in a concise manner how you formed that straightforward opinion?

 

 

Yup they do not own it trespass them and tell them to get off.

 

They did - and if they keep going along those lines, they'll create a festering sore that'll linger for decades/centuries.

Fred99:

 

JaseNZ:

 

Fred99:

 

JaseNZ:

 

Sorry I ment Contentious for some but not for me, My opinion is straight forward.

 

 

So you'll have no problem explaining in a concise manner how you formed that straightforward opinion?

 

 

Yup they do not own it trespass them and tell them to get off.

 

 

They did - and if they keep going along those lines, they'll create a festering sore that'll linger for decades/centuries.

 

So where do you draw the line though ??, if they are trespassing in the eye's of the law they can be arrested and the area cleared so work can begin or is doing that all being to pc sorry but i am so over all this sh*t, I work with homeless and people struggling and in need on a daily basis and it just pis*ses me off to see work being held up like this.

JaseNZ:

 

I work with homeless and people struggling and in need on a daily basis and it just pis*ses me off to see work being held up like this.

 

Not sure what that's got to do with it.

The land was designated for special housing - fast track/low cost, but with the usual "drift" toward something more profitable, was onsold to a subsidiary and now a 77.85% foreign owned corporation is going to build 480 relatively high-cost homes.  IOW hardly of benefit to the NZ homeless, struggling, and in need.

Maybe I'm a bit biased, I don't like Fletchers. (Personal experiences / dealings)

I believe Fletchers made quite a concession to them some time ago, with a very generous offer. Hasnt the treaty claim around this group been settled twice already?

I also believe Fletchers bought it in good faith from the previous private land owner, so the land has been in private ownership for a very long time. Is this all you need to do if you want something real bad and dont want to pay for it?

Seems like a once in a lifetime opportunity to utilise the site for tourism - get some kind of niu zillind-henge thing going there.

Mahon:

 

I believe Fletchers made quite a concession to them some time ago, with a very generous offer. Hasnt the treaty claim around this group been settled twice already?

 

I also believe Fletchers bought it in good faith from the previous private land owner, so the land has been in private ownership for a very long time. Is this all you need to do if you want something real bad and dont want to pay for it?

 

I don't think the protest is about "money", but protecting the site. At least that's the impression given on their website.
It does seem that no, the people involved were not compensated.  It seems to me that it's a can of worms - bringing up an apparently legitimate grievance about how TOW settlements are made, so some Iwi as well as government won't be very happy - but that doesn't automatically mean that they're wrong.

Fletchers gifting back some of the land probably has implications too, on the surface a "generous gesture" but at the same time acknowledging that something wasn't quite right with the land purchase. 

I'm not taking sides - I don't know enough about it.  I live in Chch, where hundreds of millions are going to be spent restoring a cathedral, because it's a site of historical significance. 

JaseNZ:

 

Contentious issue I know and everybody will have their own opinion for sure.

 

Get on with building the houses and stop pi*sing around. Enough is enough move everybody out and get started.

 

Kia ora all !

Thoughtful comments in response to this post.

As another NZ Jase, I'd like to add a comment for the benefit of my fellow white New Zealanders:

This is not just a Maori land issue.

It's a treaty settlement issue. And that speaks to the issue of pakeha justice, and the quality thereof, or its lack. 

Just as we pakeha vote in a national party for national affairs, then disagree locally, so too tribes settle in principle, but disagree with local edicts. That's not a Mawree problem, that's an all-of-us problem. Our pakeha culture includes a time of bewigged judges whose costumes dates back centuries. Lawyers and judges no longer wear the wigs, but the law remains. Let's be proud of that culture, and stand up for it.

A personal note?

I've walked the fields of Ihumatao. During a couple of annual community days. Thousands of people turned up to see the Westpac rescue helicopter, pet the lambs and cows at a temporary urban zoo, eat fun food, listen to music, and get lost among hundreds of parked cars. Almost lost my son there, when he was four years old. Was in line for hot chips at a hot chip and hot dog caravan, and ducked down to get some money out of our bag. Only guessing, but he must have looked up, no longer saw me 'up there' and went looking for me. I too looked up after five seconds and saw his back disappearing among the dense crowd. Was a waaay more cautious daddy after that.  

Amongst the crowds wanting to be on the land, let's not lose sight of our family.

Kia toa!

JaseNZ2 

. . .

avaiki:

 

It's a treaty settlement issue.

 

How so?

Fred99:

 

Mahon:

 

I believe Fletchers made quite a concession to them some time ago, with a very generous offer. Hasnt the treaty claim around this group been settled twice already?

 

I also believe Fletchers bought it in good faith from the previous private land owner, so the land has been in private ownership for a very long time. Is this all you need to do if you want something real bad and dont want to pay for it?

 

 

I don't think the protest is about "money", but protecting the site. At least that's the impression given on their website.

 

The thing with 'protecting the site' is that I'm not sure what is left to protect after the land has been farmed on for a century and a half. I'm sceptical as to how historically significant the land is, given the occupiers intention to turn the land into a "research, visitor and education centre, a food forest, a working farm, guided walkways, cultural experiences".

I find the SOUL website a little bit misleading as well. They state "This cultural landscape connects with one of New Zealand's’ oldest continuously inhabited papakainga (village) and this connection will be irreparably broken by the proposed development. Houses built up to the existing boundary of the Historic Reserve will threaten its future." But that's incorrect. 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?