Those pesky boundaries for Auckland

31 comments on “Those pesky boundaries for Auckland ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Ianmac 1

   12 September 2009 at 3:54 pm

   It puts me in mind the rather larger example of Partition. Without consultation India was divided on an arbitary line drawn on a map and India and Parkistan, and Kashmir were created. The problems after more than 60 years still echo. Auckland may not be on that scale but the principle or lack of it seems strange to a non-Aucklander.
2. burt 2

   12 September 2009 at 3:55 pm

   Caption contest: My plants are this high.
3. Noko 3

   12 September 2009 at 4:58 pm

   Not without the water from the catchment area they aren’t.
4. Irascible 4

   12 September 2009 at 6:02 pm

   A demonstration of the lack of thought,planning and constructive import permitted in a policy decided on behind the closed doors of the self-interested and those with dictatorial tendencies.
   I have no doubt that we will see even more of these poorly considered actions as Rodney & his mates John & John continue on their stasi nanny state way over the next two and a bit years.
5. Akldnut 5

   12 September 2009 at 6:09 pm

   Caption contest:From this day on this will be the ACT party salute (as well as all Aucklanders) to its leader, delivered with a gutteral Zeig Heil!
   • Tim Ellis 5.1

     12 September 2009 at 6:30 pm

     Did it take up much effort to godwin this post?
     • Akldnut 5.1.1

       12 September 2009 at 7:19 pm

       Na but it seemed appropriate to me the way he carried on about Maori seats,
       and the Supercity (but on reflection….mmm….I could have left out the Zeig Heil!)
       • outofbed 5.1.1.1

         12 September 2009 at 11:56 pm

         act ung ?
6. NickS 6

   12 September 2009 at 6:23 pm

   Brilliant choice of a picture, though it does Godwin this blog post…

   And yeah, why the hell would it be smart to remove Auckland’s main water source from Council jurisdiction, since it can create resource consent and management issues? That is unless the Wretched Hide is planning to have the council owned water company flogged off…
   • Draco T Bastard 6.1

     12 September 2009 at 9:18 pm

     We know he’s planning that. It’s a general part of ACTs policy to sell of everything that the people own so that they have to pay and pay and pay.
   • Macro 6.2

     12 September 2009 at 9:22 pm

     “That is unless the Wretched Hide is planning to have the council owned water company flogged off ”
     You better believe it!! Why else would you do such a foolhardy thing?
     Thank god I’m moving out of Auckland is all I can say. As for the cost of this stupidity expect rates to go up by up to 48% in some areas, (according to the Rodney Times) Especially in the new Kaipara where land values will affect ratings for many farms now in Rodney. Different rating system – different rates. Most farmers are NOT happy. And this is a solid National area. (Lockward and John.) Hopefully it will come back to bite them.

     Capthca “enemys” – that thing is unreal!
   • lprent 6.3

     12 September 2009 at 10:15 pm

     Just happened to be the most recent photo I’ve seen of Rodney. It was on a caption contest at Red Alert. Easier than hunting for one.

     It is hard to find one where he isn’t doing something daft. I’ve seen ones as some kind of dwarf, waving a rifle around, looking like some kind of seal, obviously cooked under sunlamp, looking like a penguin imitation, etc etc

     Besides I don’t want to waste time on him. I dislike him almost as much as camera’s do. I tend to pick the last picture I remember a location for.
     • NickS 6.3.1

       13 September 2009 at 6:19 am

       Heh, yeah Hide’s never been known to be particularly photogenic…
     • Tim Ellis 6.3.2

       13 September 2009 at 9:38 am

       In that case LP you approve of images of Ms Clark that may be very unflattering?

       What is it about you, LP, that sees you justify personal gutter attacks like this against your political opponents’ appearance, yet you come up with howls of indignation when your opponents stoop to the same tactics?

       I hope you’ve been able to find an outlet for your anger at the conference.
       • lprent 6.3.2.1

         13 September 2009 at 10:16 am

         TE: Point to such a outburst by me. You will not find one. I don’t like it, but it is what politicians have to live with.

         But such a long way of saying that I’m lying. I don’t bother. I have to conclude you are spinning your usual line of crap. Faux outrage trying to define the grounds of debate that are on your terms. So pious, such a pompous dick. That is why you are widely viewed as just being a yet another PR mouthpiece for National. Not even a particularly good one.
         • Tim Ellis 6.3.2.1.1

           13 September 2009 at 10:41 am

           LP, perhaps I came across a bit strong. I said you were justifying personal attacks against politician’s appearance. In fact you weren’t justifying such attacks, but you were definitely engaging in them when you said:

           I’ve seen ones as some kind of dwarf, waving a rifle around, looking like some kind of seal, obviously cooked under sunlamp, looking like a penguin imitation, etc etc

           Besides I don’t want to waste time on him. I dislike him almost as much as camera’s do. I tend to pick the last picture I remember a location for.

           I don’t think you’re lying. I just think there’s a disconnect between your outrage at gutter tactics against your political friends, and you engaging in such attacks against your enemies as above against Mr Hide. If you interpreted my comment as saying you were lying, that was not my intention. I was commenting that your attacks on Mr Hide’s personal appearance are hypocritical.
           • lprent 6.3.2.1.1.1

             13 September 2009 at 11:44 am

             I didn’t. Someone asked why I’d used that particular picture. I’ve googled for pictures of Rodney before, those were the ones I’ve seen (although the seal one was on the back of a bus).

             Have a look at this search. If I’d wanted to godwin Hide, there are better ones – eg this, this, and this.

             So I tend to just take the most recent image that I’ve seen. The reason why he is on the post is because he is the minister of local government and directly responsible for this abortion of a
           • Tim Ellis 6.3.2.1.1.2

             13 September 2009 at 1:28 pm

             You’re behaving very tribally LP. When you say: “I dislike him almost as much as cameras do”, then that is a personal attack on Mr Hide’s appearance. When you refer to pictures of him that apparently make him look like a penguin, “some kind of dwarf”, “obviously cooked under sunlamp” and “some kind of seal”, those are your characterisations of the images of Mr Hide.

             Yet you have objected to others who describe Ms Clark’s appearance in negative terms, and as Burt says even banned them as trolls.
     • burt 6.3.3

       13 September 2009 at 12:58 pm

       Pondering the times when comments about Helen Clark’s appearance were valid reason for banning ‘trolls’.
7. rolla_fxgt 7

   12 September 2009 at 9:06 pm

   I’m not an aucklander, I’m from the deep south, but to me its not a big issue. Obviously Auckland is lacking from having large amounts of cheaply accessible drinking water within its geographical boundaries/watershed, in the past they have had the area of these ranges to store and access water from, but it was an anomaly in terms of geography.
   I can’t see how its going to hinder Auckland to have its drinking water dams outside the new boundary, its not like their water is going to be cut off overnight or even any time in the near future. It may even encourage Auckland to look at alternative sources of drinking water to diversify supply.
   Also on the regional park issue, its not like Aucklanders are going to be banned from them or asked for their passport at the border, so really a non issue for most people. If the boundaries make better geographical and community sense, then isn’t it sensible and right to change them?
   • Macro 7.1

     12 September 2009 at 9:25 pm

     “I can’t see how its going to hinder Auckland to have its drinking water dams outside the new boundary, its not like their water is going to be cut off overnight or even any time in the near future. It may even encourage Auckland to look at alternative sources of drinking water to diversify supply.”

     You obviously have very little history and forget the drought of 1994.
     • Tigger 7.1.1

       12 September 2009 at 9:37 pm

       Water Inc, coming to a local council near you… This might feel like an Auckland issue but that’s just where Rodney is going to start.
       • Armchair Critic 7.1.1.1

         12 September 2009 at 10:14 pm

         The lobby group, Water NZ, agree with you. The by-line of the second document says it all.
         http://www.waternz.org.nz/documents/comment_and_submissions/090306_final_central_leadership.pdf
         http://www.waternz.org.nz/documents/comment_and_submissions/Media%20Release%20Royal%20Commission%20Auckland%20Governance%20090327.pdf
         • Draco T Bastard 7.1.1.1.1

           12 September 2009 at 10:50 pm

           http://www.waternz.org.nz/about.html

           Water New Zealand is a national not for profit sector organisation comprising over 1500 corporate and individual members in New Zealand and overseas.

           We need to keep the corporates off our water.
     • sweetd 7.1.2

       12 September 2009 at 10:51 pm

       The ’94 drought wasn’t caused by a reorganization of the Auckland area. And, the good thing to come from the drought was the tunnel from the waikato river to the auckland water supply.
     • rolla_fxgt 7.1.3

       12 September 2009 at 11:19 pm

       No I remember the Auckland drought, and that’s why I suggested that the moving of the water supply outside the new Auckland boundary could be a good thing as it might act as an incentive to diversifying Auckland’s drinking water supply. Which can only be a good thing right? Especially if desalination (expensive) is a possible option, or sourcing water from north of Auckland. Anything has to be better than the pipe for water from the Waikato river (which is outside the Auckland boundary anyway), so what’s the big deal now?
       • NickS 7.1.3.1

         13 September 2009 at 6:17 am

         …Excepting of course that useful alternative water sources may not be economically viable, or can only be gained by further damming valleys in protected areas.
8. Draco T Bastard 8

   12 September 2009 at 9:23 pm

   According to Google Earth, Kaiaua isn’t in the Auckland region anyway. It’s already in the Waikato so why is their shopping so important?
9. Mac1 9

   12 September 2009 at 10:21 pm

   Waikato folk are right to look south for education. Nelson, Friday night?

   Bloody All Blacks should do the same.

   Gripe “Robbie Deans” Mutter “Ma’a Nonu” Moan “Thank God, it’s a National gummint.”
10. infused 10

    12 September 2009 at 11:02 pm

    At the end of the day though, it’s Auckland… do we really care? 🙂
11. Mac1 11

    13 September 2009 at 1:16 am

    Edit:It was Blenheim, Friday night where we educated Waikato.

    Tonight,on Saturday night, a lot of NZ, especially SW of Wellington, (except for the under-educated Undies), were more interested in the All Blacks than the provenance of Auckland’s water.

    But , Infused, we do have to remember the old wisdom….”First they came for Auckland, and we did nothing. Then they came for us”. So we should care, shouldn’t we?

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS