33 Comments Posted

  1. But on the other hand I believe the rule is there so that customers going to new businesses do not tie up street parking and make it harder for locals

    There are other ways to avoid those issues though – like residents’ parking permits and the like.

  2. Bluepeter – good on him for planting his water edges. It’s a step in the right direction and may be effective on his farm but can be misleading where there are field tiles in the ground, transporting effluent under the plantings to the river. His situation might be bona fide, but ‘riparian planting’ can be a cover for greater crimes against the river, like over-stocking.
    My view is that ‘stream-side planting’ is never enough and we shouldn’t be pacified by pretty streamsides. It’s the river water that should look (and test) clean.

  3. The video convinced me about the hidden subsidies to car owners inherent in the rule about minimum car parks. But on the other hand I believe the rule is there so that customers going to new businesses do not tie up street parking and make it harder for locals

  4. Interesting is right Russel. Cars are of course, more.
    I mean people Love their Cars Rusty….you can’t take the chariot off’n Roman – y’know they die helplessly when made to cycle.
    Started Feeding the Survivors; y’never know which brilliant kiwi is gunna crash the World Stage – did you see Russell Crowe’s face when a TV journo called him an Australian?
    Went across like a dead rat in the salad.
    Shoulda kept the Tram Tracks after all kiwi?
    Those soft fella’s not gonna walk.

  5. >>not all in the blog community think its a good idea.

    They’re after the links. Links boost your rank in the search engines. If the links are no-followed then they don’t get the link boost. Some posters feel they should get the link boost in return for posting, hence the debate.

    It won’t stop all the bots, just the bots looking for link opportunities without the no-follow tag.

  6. Completely agree with abolishing compulsory minimum parking requirements.

    Also would abolish compulsory maximum numbers of car parks (which I suspect you wont agree with). Let parking be provide commercially like other land use.

    The next step is commercialising roads so kerbside spaces are also priced at market rates, so road owners would weigh up whether adjacent property owners matter or road users matter. In many places it will be free, as the transaction costs aren’t worth it, in other places it could vary by time of day. Varying parking charges by time of day would help manage demand, and reduce the incidence of people circling looking for parks.

  7. frog,

    Since this thread has been hijacked a bit to discuss frogblog itself, I have a request. The option to receive emails when new replies are added seems to have disappeared. Would it be possible to have a web page showing the threads which have been commented on most recently, and perhaps a small piece of the last post?


  8. Squashed the post.

    You should really use the “no follow” tag on links in comments.

    We don’t allow tracebacks and pingbacks, but I don’t see a no follow option.

  9. As though there was the slightest resemblance. There should be a Godwin’s type law for those who invoke Godwin’s law erroneously as a straw man. Let’s call it Blue’s law.

  10. People who object to the cap-n-trade scam are equivalent to AIDS deniers?

    Whatever next? I’m picking Godwins law.

  11. He had planted alongside the waterway. The suggestion was that the plants reduced the toxic run-off, leaving the water clear.

    But it sounds as if that was a little misleading if it was a spring?

  12. The ‘green farmer’ was standing in a spring, btw, scooping up water for the interviewer to sample. She pronounced it sweet. A spring is not a river. Nevertheless, it was refreshing to see water that you could see through. The state of the rivers the programme featured was foul.

  13. Which suggestion in particular Peter?

    In the meantime, this is for you.


    … sceptical views are important, as they force the scientific community to seek carefully for flaws in the analysis. A similar debate occurred about AIDS, where a minority of scientists maintained for a long time that the disease was not caused by a virus. This view was manifestly wrong in the eyes of most scientists, but nevertheless some distinguished scientists, albeit usually not experts in virology, took different views until the science became irrefutable. The political consequences of this denialism had tragic results in some African countries.

  14. Yup, I just saw that too. Weasel-wording of the highest order. Bastards have a lot to answer for.

    You have to hope that video clip doesn’t make it to our target markets for clean, green produce (or tourism) though, or we’ll be screwed.

  15. Sh*t.

    Fonterra spokesman Barry Harris, when asked if our 100% Pure NZ brand is a lie,answered,
    “I don’t believe it’s a lie. These things aren’t black and white”.

    No Barry, you d*ckhead, these things are brown, sh*t brown.

  16. Everyone watching ’60 Minutes’ on 3?

    100% Pure New Zealand rivers.

    Hope Key, Smith, Roy and co. are watching

    (but I doubt it!)

  17. Hmmm… a marketing bot? Sure. The text is non-specific. Clearly enough. It is just another sort of spam. I’d have to guess that it isn’t too particular about its targets, given that we are a long long way from Newport Beach.

    We’ll wind up with Captcha yet.


  18. bj – there ya go – that’s what I’m talking about – Andybell – brilliantly insightful comment and lo and behold, a link to his business.

    Waw great!!!!!

  19. dbuckley, the argument in the above video is simply that the developer should be let to decide how many parking spaces they want. If they want a big carpark (like Westfield Riccarton) then nobody’s going to stop them.

    In New Lynn there are twice as many carparks as really necessary, yet even that amount doesn’t meet District Plan requirements. That leads to a huge waste of space for no good purpose.

  20. I spent many years living in London, and London has an efficient and workable public transport system that can, for the most part, render a car unnecessary, or even make it an expensive encumberance.

    If we had cities like London, then the same would apply here. But we dont, and that to me is really important. If I wanted to live in London with the population and workplace density such that public transport is all one needs then I’d go back to London. I like our low density country. This means that effectively one needs toeithger have private transport or choose where one lives and works carefully.

    Of course I know that private transport is going to have to undergo changes in the next few years, and thats going to lead to interesting times. But in the meantime we have a gorgeous low density model that is really lovely to live and work in, and I do wish people who want New Zealand to look like London (or many other European big cities) would just pick up their passports and go enjoy it.

    I did for a while… but no longer.

    This doesn’t mean I’m against public transport, far from it, but breaking private transport in the absence of useful public transport is not acceptable.

    And, if mall owners are so against “wasting” space for car parks, why has Westfield Riccarton just built (voluntarily one must assume) a big new car park? (Rhetorical, the answer is ‘cos the existing parks are inadequate)

    And who allowed Christchurch Womens Hospital to relocate without there being adequate car parking? That person (or group of persons) are the most anti-environmental bunch in the country, because the result of their actions is cars driving around, sometimes for many tens of minutes, looking for somewhere to park. Rank stupidity.

  21. Trevor, considering there are 30 electric cars in the country at the moment, I don’t really see how that would make much of a difference.

  22. Wat, people make choices in the exercise of power just as they do in making purchases. The best one can aim for is for a reasonable set of checks and balances. I find people on the right pretend western capitalism could exist without a government and then use this imaginary counterfactual as a basis for critique. It reminds me of the old joke:

    Q Why are markets free?
    A Because they are provided by the Government!


  23. It isn’t such an absurd rule if you then add the requirement that new developments also include recharging outlets for PHEVs and BEVs.


  24. wat dabney

    The Green Party has not formed any government, thus not been a party to building the structure and power of western government over the past few centuries.

  25. You seem to be oblivious to the fact that when you champion intrusive state regulation of people’s lives and property, those powers will inevitably be wielded at some point by people you disagree with.
    In this case, it’s just rather ironical that a state has used the sorts of government powers you delight in, to produce an outcome that you see as favouring the demonic internal combustion engine.

    But if any future NZ government ever misuses the powers you have allowed to the state for your own agenda, you are directly responsible.

  26. Good to see this vid getting aired again.

    Minimum parking requirements are probably one of the worst planning rules we’ve thought up of over the years. Along with “units per site” regulations I suppose.

Comments are closed.