On 11 Feb 2023 20:32:09 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/131196837/for-sale-new-warm-and-dry-homes-the-catch-theyre-in-a-flood-plain-and-the-flood-is-coming-sooner-than-you-think
We have had the discussion of the proposed subdivision in a flod prone are a
recently.
Looks like it is s drop in the bucket, there are 55,000 houses in at risk of
flooding areas. Looks like it has been happening for many moons.
Amazing the power of lack of memory, optomisim, and greed.Certainly there is much to answer for from those that denied that
Climate Change would affect us, The extent of the change has however
been greater than scientists would have predicted when many of these
houses developed, and it is clear now that our stormwater systems are inadequate; Watercare has been doing a lot of good work, but they need
a much larger budget. Three Waters offers the possibility of
GOvernment sharing both the responsibility and the funding - National
want it to all stay with Local Councils - how much will Auckland Rates
have to increase if Nationl gets in at the next election?
On 11 Feb 2023 20:32:09 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/131196837/for-sale-new-warm-and-dry-homes-the-catch-theyre-in-a-flood-plain-and-the-flood-is-coming-sooner-than-you-think
We have had the discussion of the proposed subdivision in a flod prone are a >>recently.
Looks like it is s drop in the bucket, there are 55,000 houses in at risk of >>flooding areas. Looks like it has been happening for many moons.
Amazing the power of lack of memory, optomisim, and greed.
Certainly there is much to answer for from those that denied that
Climate Change would affect us, The extent of the change has however
been greater than scientists would have predicted when many of these
houses developed, and it is clear now that our stormwater systems are >inadequate; Watercare has been doing a lot of good work, but they need
a much larger budget. Three Waters offers the possibility of
GOvernment sharing both the responsibility and the funding - National
want it to all stay with Local Councils - how much will Auckland Rates
have to increase if Nationl gets in at the next election?
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/131196837/for-sale-new-warm-and-dry-homes-the-catch-theyre-in-a-flood-plain-and-the-flood-is-coming-sooner-than-you-think
We have had the discussion of the proposed subdivision in a flod prone are a >recently.
Looks like it is s drop in the bucket, there are 55,000 houses in at risk of >flooding areas. Looks like it has been happening for many moons.
Amazing the power of lack of memory, optomisim, and greed.
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 12:44:22 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>I was using rates as a generic term - it could be by Council rates
wrote:
On 11 Feb 2023 20:32:09 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/131196837/for-sale-new-warm-and-dry-homes-the-catch-theyre-in-a-flood-plain-and-the-flood-is-coming-sooner-than-you-think
We have had the discussion of the proposed subdivision in a flod prone are a >>>recently.
Looks like it is s drop in the bucket, there are 55,000 houses in at risk of >>>flooding areas. Looks like it has been happening for many moons.
Amazing the power of lack of memory, optomisim, and greed.
Certainly there is much to answer for from those that denied that
Climate Change would affect us, The extent of the change has however
been greater than scientists would have predicted when many of these
houses developed, and it is clear now that our stormwater systems are >>inadequate; Watercare has been doing a lot of good work, but they need
a much larger budget. Three Waters offers the possibility of
GOvernment sharing both the responsibility and the funding - National
want it to all stay with Local Councils - how much will Auckland Rates
have to increase if Nationl gets in at the next election?
What is it that leads you to believe that if local councils cannot
fund water asset maintenance that a rates increase is required?
IAnd National's policy (almost its only policy) is to reduce teh top
could equally postulate on how much tax rates will rise to fund Water >Entities doing the same development. The money has to come from
somewhere - either increased taxes or increased rates.
The differenceWhich sounds just like Watercare - what is the difference, Crash?
is that local bodies own and fund existing water assets and are run by
those elected to do so by ratepayers. Water entities are new,
forcibly acquire existing water assets, and are run entirely by
appointed directors.
There are water asset management and operation issues in some parts of
NZ. Labour have legislated a nationwide one-size-fits-all solution
(well-run and resourced water assets taken from the local bodies that
have no issues) with other totally undesirable and undemocratic
governance issues.
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 13:09:31 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>I don't know about Crash, but I do.
wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 12:44:22 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:I was using rates as a generic term - it could be by Council rates
On 11 Feb 2023 20:32:09 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/131196837/for-sale-new-warm-and-dry-homes-the-catch-theyre-in-a-flood-plain-and-the-flood-is-coming-sooner-than-you-think
We have had the discussion of the proposed subdivision in a flod prone are a
recently.
Looks like it is s drop in the bucket, there are 55,000 houses in at risk of
flooding areas. Looks like it has been happening for many moons.
Amazing the power of lack of memory, optomisim, and greed.
Certainly there is much to answer for from those that denied that
Climate Change would affect us, The extent of the change has however
been greater than scientists would have predicted when many of these >>>houses developed, and it is clear now that our stormwater systems are >>>inadequate; Watercare has been doing a lot of good work, but they need
a much larger budget. Three Waters offers the possibility of
GOvernment sharing both the responsibility and the funding - National >>>want it to all stay with Local Councils - how much will Auckland Rates >>>have to increase if Nationl gets in at the next election?
What is it that leads you to believe that if local councils cannot
fund water asset maintenance that a rates increase is required?
(based on property values) or increases in water charges - to a
certain extent that would be up to Auckland. Initial capital may be by >borrowing (and also bear in mind that local authority issued stock is
likely to be say 0.25% more expensive), increases to rates are likely
to be needed to fund repayment of borrowing. How else would the work
be funded if National were to be elected in November?
IAnd National's policy (almost its only policy) is to reduce teh top
could equally postulate on how much tax rates will rise to fund Water >>Entities doing the same development. The money has to come from
somewhere - either increased taxes or increased rates.
tax rate.
The differenceWhich sounds just like Watercare - what is the difference, Crash?
is that local bodies own and fund existing water assets and are run by >>those elected to do so by ratepayers. Water entities are new,
forcibly acquire existing water assets, and are run entirely by
appointed directors.
There are water asset management and operation issues in some parts of
NZ. Labour have legislated a nationwide one-size-fits-all solution >>(well-run and resourced water assets taken from the local bodies that
have no issues) with other totally undesirable and undemocratic
governance issues.
There will be fewer Water organisations, enabling a deeper strength of >expertise, greater cooperation between different areas, so a sharing
of expertise and possibly some equipment, but not one-size fits all
by any means - different locations have different water issues with
different solutions; but based around delivery of common standards,
using common science (hydrology, engineering etc). In addition there
will be government funding to ensure that areas with better current
current systems do not get penalised by having to fund less effective
current systems in other areas. At the end of the day of course
ongoing work will need tobe funded equitably over all of New Zealand.
Do you have a better alternative?
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 13:09:31 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 12:44:22 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:I was using rates as a generic term
On 11 Feb 2023 20:32:09 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/131196837/for-sale-new-warm-and-dry-homes-the-catch-theyre-in-a-flood-plain-and-the-flood-is-coming-sooner-than-you-think
We have had the discussion of the proposed subdivision in a flod prone are a
recently.
Looks like it is s drop in the bucket, there are 55,000 houses in at risk of
flooding areas. Looks like it has been happening for many moons.
Amazing the power of lack of memory, optomisim, and greed.
Certainly there is much to answer for from those that denied that
Climate Change would affect us, The extent of the change has however
been greater than scientists would have predicted when many of these >>>houses developed, and it is clear now that our stormwater systems are >>>inadequate; Watercare has been doing a lot of good work, but they need
a much larger budget. Three Waters offers the possibility of
GOvernment sharing both the responsibility and the funding - National >>>want it to all stay with Local Councils - how much will Auckland Rates >>>have to increase if Nationl gets in at the next election?
What is it that leads you to believe that if local councils cannot
fund water asset maintenance that a rates increase is required?
- it could be by Council rates
(based on property values) or increases in water charges - to a
certain extent that would be up to Auckland. Initial capital may be by >borrowing (and also bear in mind that local authority issued stock is
likely to be say 0.25% more expensive), increases to rates are likely
to be needed to fund repayment of borrowing.
How else would the work
be funded if National were to be elected in November?
IAnd National's policy (almost its only policy) is to reduce teh top
could equally postulate on how much tax rates will rise to fund Water >>Entities doing the same development. The money has to come from
somewhere - either increased taxes or increased rates.
tax rate.
The differenceWhich sounds just like Watercare - what is the difference, Crash?
is that local bodies own and fund existing water assets and are run by >>those elected to do so by ratepayers. Water entities are new,
forcibly acquire existing water assets, and are run entirely by
appointed directors.
There are water asset management and operation issues in some parts of
NZ. Labour have legislated a nationwide one-size-fits-all solution >>(well-run and resourced water assets taken from the local bodies that
have no issues) with other totally undesirable and undemocratic
governance issues.
There will be fewer Water organisations, enabling a deeper strength of >expertise, greater cooperation between different areas, so a sharing
of expertise and possibly some equipment, but not one-size fits all
by any means - different locations have different water issues with
different solutions; but based around delivery of common standards,
using common science (hydrology, engineering etc). In addition there
will be government funding to ensure that areas with better current
current systems do not get penalised by having to fund less effective
current systems in other areas. At the end of the day of course
ongoing work will need tobe funded equitably over all of New Zealand.
Do you have a better alternative?
On 11 Feb 2023 20:32:09 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Cite? I am unaware of any such claim.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/131196837/for-sale-new-warm-and-dry-homes-the-catch-theyre-in-a-flood-plain-and-the-flood-is-coming-sooner-than-you-think
We have had the discussion of the proposed subdivision in a flod prone are a >>recently.
Looks like it is s drop in the bucket, there are 55,000 houses in at risk of >>flooding areas. Looks like it has been happening for many moons.
Amazing the power of lack of memory, optomisim, and greed.
Certainly there is much to answer for from those that denied that
Climate Change would affect us,
The extent of the change has howeverDoes it. Pray explain how national funding will be any less than the total of local funding.
been greater than scientists would have predicted when many of these
houses developed, and it is clear now that our stormwater systems are >inadequate; Watercare has been doing a lot of good work, but they need
a much larger budget. Three Waters offers the possibility of
GOvernment sharing both the responsibility and the funding
- NationalNo more than at present when calculated per capita.
want it to all stay with Local Councils - how much will Auckland Rates
have to increase if Nationl gets in at the next election?
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:There is a lot that is broken however - hard to separate a system into different bits . . .
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 13:09:31 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:I don't know about Crash, but I do.
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 12:44:22 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:I was using rates as a generic term - it could be by Council rates
On 11 Feb 2023 20:32:09 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/131196837/for-sale-new-warm-and-dry-homes-the-catch-theyre-in-a-flood-plain-and-the-flood-is-coming-sooner-than-you-think
We have had the discussion of the proposed subdivision in a flod prone are a
recently.
Looks like it is s drop in the bucket, there are 55,000 houses in at risk of
flooding areas. Looks like it has been happening for many moons.
Amazing the power of lack of memory, optomisim, and greed.
Certainly there is much to answer for from those that denied that >>>>Climate Change would affect us, The extent of the change has however >>>>been greater than scientists would have predicted when many of these >>>>houses developed, and it is clear now that our stormwater systems are >>>>inadequate; Watercare has been doing a lot of good work, but they need >>>>a much larger budget. Three Waters offers the possibility of
GOvernment sharing both the responsibility and the funding - National >>>>want it to all stay with Local Councils - how much will Auckland Rates >>>>have to increase if Nationl gets in at the next election?
What is it that leads you to believe that if local councils cannot
fund water asset maintenance that a rates increase is required?
(based on property values) or increases in water charges - to a
certain extent that would be up to Auckland. Initial capital may be by >>borrowing (and also bear in mind that local authority issued stock is >>likely to be say 0.25% more expensive), increases to rates are likely
to be needed to fund repayment of borrowing. How else would the work
be funded if National were to be elected in November?
IAnd National's policy (almost its only policy) is to reduce teh top
could equally postulate on how much tax rates will rise to fund Water >>>Entities doing the same development. The money has to come from >>>somewhere - either increased taxes or increased rates.
tax rate.
The differenceWhich sounds just like Watercare - what is the difference, Crash?
is that local bodies own and fund existing water assets and are run by >>>those elected to do so by ratepayers. Water entities are new,
forcibly acquire existing water assets, and are run entirely by
appointed directors.
There are water asset management and operation issues in some parts of >>>NZ. Labour have legislated a nationwide one-size-fits-all solution >>>(well-run and resourced water assets taken from the local bodies that >>>have no issues) with other totally undesirable and undemocratic >>>governance issues.
There will be fewer Water organisations, enabling a deeper strength of >>expertise, greater cooperation between different areas, so a sharing
of expertise and possibly some equipment, but not one-size fits all
by any means - different locations have different water issues with >>different solutions; but based around delivery of common standards,
using common science (hydrology, engineering etc). In addition there
will be government funding to ensure that areas with better current
current systems do not get penalised by having to fund less effective >>current systems in other areas. At the end of the day of course
ongoing work will need tobe funded equitably over all of New Zealand.
Do you have a better alternative?
1. Don't fix something that is not broken.
2. Don't remove democratic authority from local electors.Why not? It was done for electricity generation and distribution, and
3/5 waters is all about political power, it is not actually about water at its >root.No, it is about supply and disposal to standards set by government.
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 01:41:35 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo there is not, you have never provided a significant list.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:There is a lot that is broken however - hard to separate a system into >different bits . . .
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 13:09:31 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:I don't know about Crash, but I do.
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 12:44:22 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:I was using rates as a generic term - it could be by Council rates
On 11 Feb 2023 20:32:09 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/131196837/for-sale-new-warm-and-dry-homes-the-catch-theyre-in-a-flood-plain-and-the-flood-is-coming-sooner-than-you-think
We have had the discussion of the proposed subdivision in a flod prone >>>>>>are a
recently.
Looks like it is s drop in the bucket, there are 55,000 houses in at risk >>>>>>of
flooding areas. Looks like it has been happening for many moons.
Amazing the power of lack of memory, optomisim, and greed.
Certainly there is much to answer for from those that denied that >>>>>Climate Change would affect us, The extent of the change has however >>>>>been greater than scientists would have predicted when many of these >>>>>houses developed, and it is clear now that our stormwater systems are >>>>>inadequate; Watercare has been doing a lot of good work, but they need >>>>>a much larger budget. Three Waters offers the possibility of >>>>>GOvernment sharing both the responsibility and the funding - National >>>>>want it to all stay with Local Councils - how much will Auckland Rates >>>>>have to increase if Nationl gets in at the next election?
What is it that leads you to believe that if local councils cannot
fund water asset maintenance that a rates increase is required?
(based on property values) or increases in water charges - to a
certain extent that would be up to Auckland. Initial capital may be by >>>borrowing (and also bear in mind that local authority issued stock is >>>likely to be say 0.25% more expensive), increases to rates are likely
to be needed to fund repayment of borrowing. How else would the work
be funded if National were to be elected in November?
IAnd National's policy (almost its only policy) is to reduce teh top
could equally postulate on how much tax rates will rise to fund Water >>>>Entities doing the same development. The money has to come from >>>>somewhere - either increased taxes or increased rates.
tax rate.
The differenceWhich sounds just like Watercare - what is the difference, Crash?
is that local bodies own and fund existing water assets and are run by >>>>those elected to do so by ratepayers. Water entities are new,
forcibly acquire existing water assets, and are run entirely by >>>>appointed directors.
There are water asset management and operation issues in some parts of >>>>NZ. Labour have legislated a nationwide one-size-fits-all solution >>>>(well-run and resourced water assets taken from the local bodies that >>>>have no issues) with other totally undesirable and undemocratic >>>>governance issues.
There will be fewer Water organisations, enabling a deeper strength of >>>expertise, greater cooperation between different areas, so a sharing
of expertise and possibly some equipment, but not one-size fits all
by any means - different locations have different water issues with >>>different solutions; but based around delivery of common standards,
using common science (hydrology, engineering etc). In addition there
will be government funding to ensure that areas with better current >>>current systems do not get penalised by having to fund less effective >>>current systems in other areas. At the end of the day of course
ongoing work will need tobe funded equitably over all of New Zealand.
Do you have a better alternative?
1. Don't fix something that is not broken.
Don't tell lies. That was nothing like the same.2. Don't remove democratic authority from local electors.Why not? It was done for electricity generation and distribution, and
worked well for a long time.
Bullshit - it is about political power and the stealthy removal of democratic rights by a small minority.3/5 waters is all about political power, it is not actually about water at >>itsNo, it is about supply and disposal to standards set by government.
root.
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 01:41:35 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:There is a lot that is broken however - hard to separate a system into different bits . . .
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 13:09:31 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:I don't know about Crash, but I do.
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 12:44:22 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:I was using rates as a generic term - it could be by Council rates
On 11 Feb 2023 20:32:09 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/131196837/for-sale-new-warm-and-dry-homes-the-catch-theyre-in-a-flood-plain-and-the-flood-is-coming-sooner-than-you-think
We have had the discussion of the proposed subdivision in a flod prone are a
recently.
Looks like it is s drop in the bucket, there are 55,000 houses in at risk of
flooding areas. Looks like it has been happening for many moons.
Amazing the power of lack of memory, optomisim, and greed.
Certainly there is much to answer for from those that denied that >>>>Climate Change would affect us, The extent of the change has however >>>>been greater than scientists would have predicted when many of these >>>>houses developed, and it is clear now that our stormwater systems are >>>>inadequate; Watercare has been doing a lot of good work, but they need >>>>a much larger budget. Three Waters offers the possibility of >>>>GOvernment sharing both the responsibility and the funding - National >>>>want it to all stay with Local Councils - how much will Auckland Rates >>>>have to increase if Nationl gets in at the next election?
What is it that leads you to believe that if local councils cannot
fund water asset maintenance that a rates increase is required?
(based on property values) or increases in water charges - to a
certain extent that would be up to Auckland. Initial capital may be by >>borrowing (and also bear in mind that local authority issued stock is >>likely to be say 0.25% more expensive), increases to rates are likely
to be needed to fund repayment of borrowing. How else would the work
be funded if National were to be elected in November?
IAnd National's policy (almost its only policy) is to reduce teh top
could equally postulate on how much tax rates will rise to fund Water >>>Entities doing the same development. The money has to come from >>>somewhere - either increased taxes or increased rates.
tax rate.
The differenceWhich sounds just like Watercare - what is the difference, Crash?
is that local bodies own and fund existing water assets and are run by >>>those elected to do so by ratepayers. Water entities are new,
forcibly acquire existing water assets, and are run entirely by >>>appointed directors.
There are water asset management and operation issues in some parts of >>>NZ. Labour have legislated a nationwide one-size-fits-all solution >>>(well-run and resourced water assets taken from the local bodies that >>>have no issues) with other totally undesirable and undemocratic >>>governance issues.
There will be fewer Water organisations, enabling a deeper strength of >>expertise, greater cooperation between different areas, so a sharing
of expertise and possibly some equipment, but not one-size fits all
by any means - different locations have different water issues with >>different solutions; but based around delivery of common standards,
using common science (hydrology, engineering etc). In addition there
will be government funding to ensure that areas with better current >>current systems do not get penalised by having to fund less effective >>current systems in other areas. At the end of the day of course
ongoing work will need tobe funded equitably over all of New Zealand.
Do you have a better alternative?
1. Don't fix something that is not broken.
2. Don't remove democratic authority from local electors.Why not? It was done for electricity generation and distribution, and
worked well for a long time.
It's about political control Rich! Why not privatize the infrastructure like they did with electricity.3/5 waters is all about political power, it is not actually about water at itsNo, it is about supply and disposal to standards set by government.
root.
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 01:41:35 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:There is a lot that is broken however - hard to separate a system into >different bits . . .
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 13:09:31 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:I don't know about Crash, but I do.
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 12:44:22 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:I was using rates as a generic term - it could be by Council rates
On 11 Feb 2023 20:32:09 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/131196837/for-sale-new-warm-and-dry-homes-the-catch-theyre-in-a-flood-plain-and-the-flood-is-coming-sooner-than-you-think
We have had the discussion of the proposed subdivision in a flod prone are a
recently.
Looks like it is s drop in the bucket, there are 55,000 houses in at risk of
flooding areas. Looks like it has been happening for many moons.
Amazing the power of lack of memory, optomisim, and greed.
Certainly there is much to answer for from those that denied that >>>>>Climate Change would affect us, The extent of the change has however >>>>>been greater than scientists would have predicted when many of these >>>>>houses developed, and it is clear now that our stormwater systems are >>>>>inadequate; Watercare has been doing a lot of good work, but they need >>>>>a much larger budget. Three Waters offers the possibility of >>>>>GOvernment sharing both the responsibility and the funding - National >>>>>want it to all stay with Local Councils - how much will Auckland Rates >>>>>have to increase if Nationl gets in at the next election?
What is it that leads you to believe that if local councils cannot
fund water asset maintenance that a rates increase is required?
(based on property values) or increases in water charges - to a
certain extent that would be up to Auckland. Initial capital may be by >>>borrowing (and also bear in mind that local authority issued stock is >>>likely to be say 0.25% more expensive), increases to rates are likely
to be needed to fund repayment of borrowing. How else would the work
be funded if National were to be elected in November?
IAnd National's policy (almost its only policy) is to reduce teh top
could equally postulate on how much tax rates will rise to fund Water >>>>Entities doing the same development. The money has to come from >>>>somewhere - either increased taxes or increased rates.
tax rate.
The differenceWhich sounds just like Watercare - what is the difference, Crash?
is that local bodies own and fund existing water assets and are run by >>>>those elected to do so by ratepayers. Water entities are new,
forcibly acquire existing water assets, and are run entirely by >>>>appointed directors.
There are water asset management and operation issues in some parts of >>>>NZ. Labour have legislated a nationwide one-size-fits-all solution >>>>(well-run and resourced water assets taken from the local bodies that >>>>have no issues) with other totally undesirable and undemocratic >>>>governance issues.
There will be fewer Water organisations, enabling a deeper strength of >>>expertise, greater cooperation between different areas, so a sharing
of expertise and possibly some equipment, but not one-size fits all
by any means - different locations have different water issues with >>>different solutions; but based around delivery of common standards,
using common science (hydrology, engineering etc). In addition there
will be government funding to ensure that areas with better current >>>current systems do not get penalised by having to fund less effective >>>current systems in other areas. At the end of the day of course
ongoing work will need tobe funded equitably over all of New Zealand.
Do you have a better alternative?
1. Don't fix something that is not broken.
2. Don't remove democratic authority from local electors.Why not? It was done for electricity generation and distribution, and
worked well for a long time.
3/5 waters is all about political power, it is not actually about water at itsNo, it is about supply and disposal to standards set by government.
root.
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 22:12:09 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 01:41:35 -0000 (UTC), TonyRich are you serious? How can you equate the change from an
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:There is a lot that is broken however - hard to separate a system into >>different bits . . .
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 13:09:31 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:I don't know about Crash, but I do.
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 12:44:22 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:I was using rates as a generic term - it could be by Council rates >>>>(based on property values) or increases in water charges - to a
On 11 Feb 2023 20:32:09 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/131196837/for-sale-new-warm-and-dry-homes-the-catch-theyre-in-a-flood-plain-and-the-flood-is-coming-sooner-than-you-think
We have had the discussion of the proposed subdivision in a flod prone are a
recently.
Looks like it is s drop in the bucket, there are 55,000 houses in at risk of
flooding areas. Looks like it has been happening for many moons.
Amazing the power of lack of memory, optomisim, and greed.
Certainly there is much to answer for from those that denied that >>>>>>Climate Change would affect us, The extent of the change has however >>>>>>been greater than scientists would have predicted when many of these >>>>>>houses developed, and it is clear now that our stormwater systems are >>>>>>inadequate; Watercare has been doing a lot of good work, but they need >>>>>>a much larger budget. Three Waters offers the possibility of >>>>>>GOvernment sharing both the responsibility and the funding - National >>>>>>want it to all stay with Local Councils - how much will Auckland Rates >>>>>>have to increase if Nationl gets in at the next election?
What is it that leads you to believe that if local councils cannot >>>>>fund water asset maintenance that a rates increase is required?
certain extent that would be up to Auckland. Initial capital may be by >>>>borrowing (and also bear in mind that local authority issued stock is >>>>likely to be say 0.25% more expensive), increases to rates are likely >>>>to be needed to fund repayment of borrowing. How else would the work
be funded if National were to be elected in November?
IAnd National's policy (almost its only policy) is to reduce teh top
could equally postulate on how much tax rates will rise to fund Water >>>>>Entities doing the same development. The money has to come from >>>>>somewhere - either increased taxes or increased rates.
tax rate.
The differenceWhich sounds just like Watercare - what is the difference, Crash?
is that local bodies own and fund existing water assets and are run by >>>>>those elected to do so by ratepayers. Water entities are new, >>>>>forcibly acquire existing water assets, and are run entirely by >>>>>appointed directors.
There are water asset management and operation issues in some parts of >>>>>NZ. Labour have legislated a nationwide one-size-fits-all solution >>>>>(well-run and resourced water assets taken from the local bodies that >>>>>have no issues) with other totally undesirable and undemocratic >>>>>governance issues.
There will be fewer Water organisations, enabling a deeper strength of >>>>expertise, greater cooperation between different areas, so a sharing
of expertise and possibly some equipment, but not one-size fits all
by any means - different locations have different water issues with >>>>different solutions; but based around delivery of common standards, >>>>using common science (hydrology, engineering etc). In addition there >>>>will be government funding to ensure that areas with better current >>>>current systems do not get penalised by having to fund less effective >>>>current systems in other areas. At the end of the day of course
ongoing work will need tobe funded equitably over all of New Zealand. >>>>Do you have a better alternative?
1. Don't fix something that is not broken.
2. Don't remove democratic authority from local electors.Why not? It was done for electricity generation and distribution, and >>worked well for a long time.
Electricity department to Govern met-owned SOEs (hint both are run by >Government appointed people) with the Water reforms (currently run by
elected local bodies, to be run by unelected directors and Maori Iwi)?
Any comparison is absurd and shows your support of Water reformsOne of the early posts in this thread said "there are 55,000 houses in
legislation is reaching new levels of irrationality.
3/5 waters is all about political power, it is not actually about water at itsNo, it is about supply and disposal to standards set by government.
root.
Supply and disposal to standards set by government do not require the
Water reforms currently enacted. Said standards are being implemented
now and the majority of existing local authorities either exceed, meet
or nearly meet them.
The Water reforms legislation introducesI am glad you agree that centralisation will provide some benefits - I
centralisation (not a bad thing in principle) and co-governance
(totally replacing elected local body control with unelected and >racially-biased boards of directors).
Rich, this is another example of your trend to increasingly irrational >justifications of the Water reforms.
On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 11:43:06 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 22:12:09 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
The Generating companies are 49% owned by private shareholders - theyOn Sun, 12 Feb 2023 01:41:35 -0000 (UTC), TonyRich are you serious? How can you equate the change from an
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:There is a lot that is broken however - hard to separate a system into >>different bits . . .
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 13:09:31 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:I don't know about Crash, but I do.
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 12:44:22 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:I was using rates as a generic term - it could be by Council rates >>>>(based on property values) or increases in water charges - to a >>>>certain extent that would be up to Auckland. Initial capital may be by >>>>borrowing (and also bear in mind that local authority issued stock is >>>>likely to be say 0.25% more expensive), increases to rates are likely >>>>to be needed to fund repayment of borrowing. How else would the work >>>>be funded if National were to be elected in November?
On 11 Feb 2023 20:32:09 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/131196837/for-sale-new-warm-and-dry-homes-the-catch-theyre-in-a-flood-plain-and-the-flood-is-coming-sooner-than-you-think
We have had the discussion of the proposed subdivision in a flod prone are a
recently.
Looks like it is s drop in the bucket, there are 55,000 houses in at risk of
flooding areas. Looks like it has been happening for many moons. >>>>>>>
Amazing the power of lack of memory, optomisim, and greed.
Certainly there is much to answer for from those that denied that >>>>>>Climate Change would affect us, The extent of the change has however >>>>>>been greater than scientists would have predicted when many of these >>>>>>houses developed, and it is clear now that our stormwater systems are >>>>>>inadequate; Watercare has been doing a lot of good work, but they need >>>>>>a much larger budget. Three Waters offers the possibility of >>>>>>GOvernment sharing both the responsibility and the funding - National >>>>>>want it to all stay with Local Councils - how much will Auckland Rates >>>>>>have to increase if Nationl gets in at the next election?
What is it that leads you to believe that if local councils cannot >>>>>fund water asset maintenance that a rates increase is required?
IAnd National's policy (almost its only policy) is to reduce teh top >>>>tax rate.
could equally postulate on how much tax rates will rise to fund Water >>>>>Entities doing the same development. The money has to come from >>>>>somewhere - either increased taxes or increased rates.
The differenceWhich sounds just like Watercare - what is the difference, Crash?
is that local bodies own and fund existing water assets and are run by >>>>>those elected to do so by ratepayers. Water entities are new, >>>>>forcibly acquire existing water assets, and are run entirely by >>>>>appointed directors.
There are water asset management and operation issues in some parts of >>>>>NZ. Labour have legislated a nationwide one-size-fits-all solution >>>>>(well-run and resourced water assets taken from the local bodies that >>>>>have no issues) with other totally undesirable and undemocratic >>>>>governance issues.
There will be fewer Water organisations, enabling a deeper strength of >>>>expertise, greater cooperation between different areas, so a sharing >>>>of expertise and possibly some equipment, but not one-size fits all >>>>by any means - different locations have different water issues with >>>>different solutions; but based around delivery of common standards, >>>>using common science (hydrology, engineering etc). In addition there >>>>will be government funding to ensure that areas with better current >>>>current systems do not get penalised by having to fund less effective >>>>current systems in other areas. At the end of the day of course >>>>ongoing work will need tobe funded equitably over all of New Zealand. >>>>Do you have a better alternative?
1. Don't fix something that is not broken.
2. Don't remove democratic authority from local electors.Why not? It was done for electricity generation and distribution, and >>worked well for a long time.
Electricity department to Govern met-owned SOEs (hint both are run by >Government appointed people) with the Water reforms (currently run by >elected local bodies, to be run by unelected directors and Maori Iwi)?
are run to maximise return to shareholders. Yes that are co-managed -
with Directors representing share investors, not the people of New
Zealand. That is co-management National style . . .
Any comparison is absurd and shows your support of Water reforms >legislation is reaching new levels of irrationality.
3/5 waters is all about political power, it is not actually about water at itsNo, it is about supply and disposal to standards set by government.
root.
Supply and disposal to standards set by government do not require the >Water reforms currently enacted. Said standards are being implementedOne of the early posts in this thread said "there are 55,000 houses in
now and the majority of existing local authorities either exceed, meet
or nearly meet them.
at risk of flooding areas. Looks like it has been happening for many
moons."
We know that many rivers are unfit for swimming in, let alone drinking
any of the water - there are warnings that gods may die for many
rivers. Water in small Canterbury towns is causing illness in infants
from excessive nitrates from cattle farming. Water quality in Havelock
North is not yet meeting standards consistently - remember those that
died while Lawrence Yule was mayor? Quantity of water is an issue in
some regions - they have trucks to supply water during the dry season.
Many areas have large amounts of sewage water mixing with stormwater -
in Auckland fixing that is estimated to cost millions, and little work
has been done so far. Wellington suffers from vry old underground
pipes that burst more eften than anyone would like; Christchurch had a
large amount of new underground services but is still having problems
in some areas.
You can bury your head in the sand as much as you like, but there is a
lot of work to do to meet acceptable standards for water suppply,
quality, and disposal.
The Water reforms legislation introducesI am glad you agree that centralisation will provide some benefits - I
centralisation (not a bad thing in principle) and co-governance
(totally replacing elected local body control with unelected and >racially-biased boards of directors).
see them as also providing a consistent standard for all communities
(the equal opportunity principle), and a greater flexibility to meet different needs with greater shared expertise and resources. The
structures should also avoid the need for the problems of the
FOreshore and Seabed legislation - my view is that once agreed,
arrnagments should be recognised by the Waitangi Tribunal as being a
full and final settlement in relation to most water rights under the
Treaty.
Rich, this is another example of your trend to increasingly irrational >justifications of the Water reforms.They are more rational than the Bradford reforms of electricity - I do
think there should have been a higher percentage than 50% to restrict
any future government from privatising water resources; sadly National
voted against that, but the percentage could have been lower than 75%.
There is therefore a greater risk than there should have been in
electing a government that may wish to continue with privatisation to
pay off supporters; that may well hurt National and ACT at the next election.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 11:43:06 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:That is not co-governance and you appear to agree because you used the word >co-management by any definition. So finally you agree that co-management is >not co-governance. Whew, that took a while.
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 22:12:09 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 01:41:35 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Rich are you serious? How can you equate the change from an
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:There is a lot that is broken however - hard to separate a system into >>>>different bits . . .
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 13:09:31 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>wrote:I don't know about Crash, but I do.
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 12:44:22 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>wrote:I was using rates as a generic term - it could be by Council rates >>>>>>(based on property values) or increases in water charges - to a >>>>>>certain extent that would be up to Auckland. Initial capital may be by >>>>>>borrowing (and also bear in mind that local authority issued stock is >>>>>>likely to be say 0.25% more expensive), increases to rates are likely >>>>>>to be needed to fund repayment of borrowing. How else would the work >>>>>>be funded if National were to be elected in November?
On 11 Feb 2023 20:32:09 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/131196837/for-sale-new-warm-and-dry-homes-the-catch-theyre-in-a-flood-plain-and-the-flood-is-coming-sooner-than-you-think
We have had the discussion of the proposed subdivision in a flod prone >>>>>>>>>are a
recently.
Looks like it is s drop in the bucket, there are 55,000 houses in at >>>>>>>>>risk of
flooding areas. Looks like it has been happening for many moons. >>>>>>>>>
Amazing the power of lack of memory, optomisim, and greed.
Certainly there is much to answer for from those that denied that >>>>>>>>Climate Change would affect us, The extent of the change has however >>>>>>>>been greater than scientists would have predicted when many of these >>>>>>>>houses developed, and it is clear now that our stormwater systems are >>>>>>>>inadequate; Watercare has been doing a lot of good work, but they need >>>>>>>>a much larger budget. Three Waters offers the possibility of >>>>>>>>GOvernment sharing both the responsibility and the funding - National >>>>>>>>want it to all stay with Local Councils - how much will Auckland Rates >>>>>>>>have to increase if Nationl gets in at the next election?
What is it that leads you to believe that if local councils cannot >>>>>>>fund water asset maintenance that a rates increase is required?
IAnd National's policy (almost its only policy) is to reduce teh top >>>>>>tax rate.
could equally postulate on how much tax rates will rise to fund Water >>>>>>>Entities doing the same development. The money has to come from >>>>>>>somewhere - either increased taxes or increased rates.
The differenceWhich sounds just like Watercare - what is the difference, Crash?
is that local bodies own and fund existing water assets and are run by >>>>>>>those elected to do so by ratepayers. Water entities are new, >>>>>>>forcibly acquire existing water assets, and are run entirely by >>>>>>>appointed directors.
There are water asset management and operation issues in some parts of >>>>>>>NZ. Labour have legislated a nationwide one-size-fits-all solution >>>>>>>(well-run and resourced water assets taken from the local bodies that >>>>>>>have no issues) with other totally undesirable and undemocratic >>>>>>>governance issues.
There will be fewer Water organisations, enabling a deeper strength of >>>>>>expertise, greater cooperation between different areas, so a sharing >>>>>>of expertise and possibly some equipment, but not one-size fits all >>>>>>by any means - different locations have different water issues with >>>>>>different solutions; but based around delivery of common standards, >>>>>>using common science (hydrology, engineering etc). In addition there >>>>>>will be government funding to ensure that areas with better current >>>>>>current systems do not get penalised by having to fund less effective >>>>>>current systems in other areas. At the end of the day of course >>>>>>ongoing work will need tobe funded equitably over all of New Zealand. >>>>>>Do you have a better alternative?
1. Don't fix something that is not broken.
2. Don't remove democratic authority from local electors.Why not? It was done for electricity generation and distribution, and >>>>worked well for a long time.
Electricity department to Govern met-owned SOEs (hint both are run by >>>Government appointed people) with the Water reforms (currently run by >>>elected local bodies, to be run by unelected directors and Maori Iwi)?
The Generating companies are 49% owned by private shareholders - they
are run to maximise return to shareholders. Yes that are co-managed -
with Directors representing share investors, not the people of New
Zealand. That is co-management National style . . .
You have provided no detail of any of the above and neither has any of our >ministers and until you and they do it is just scotch mist.
One of the early posts in this thread said "there are 55,000 houses in
Any comparison is absurd and shows your support of Water reforms >>>legislation is reaching new levels of irrationality.
3/5 waters is all about political power, it is not actually about water at >>>>>itsNo, it is about supply and disposal to standards set by government.
root.
Supply and disposal to standards set by government do not require the >>>Water reforms currently enacted. Said standards are being implemented >>>now and the majority of existing local authorities either exceed, meet
or nearly meet them.
at risk of flooding areas. Looks like it has been happening for many >>moons."
We know that many rivers are unfit for swimming in, let alone drinking
any of the water - there are warnings that gods may die for many
rivers. Water in small Canterbury towns is causing illness in infants
from excessive nitrates from cattle farming. Water quality in Havelock >>North is not yet meeting standards consistently - remember those that
died while Lawrence Yule was mayor? Quantity of water is an issue in
some regions - they have trucks to supply water during the dry season.
Many areas have large amounts of sewage water mixing with stormwater -
in Auckland fixing that is estimated to cost millions, and little work
has been done so far. Wellington suffers from vry old underground
pipes that burst more eften than anyone would like; Christchurch had a >>large amount of new underground services but is still having problems
in some areas.
Not-proven and not even demonstrated. Exatly how much work is needed? Detail >please.
You can bury your head in the sand as much as you like, but there is a
lot of work to do to meet acceptable standards for water suppply,
quality, and disposal.
The treaty is silent about water and you have never shown otherwise.
The Water reforms legislation introducesI am glad you agree that centralisation will provide some benefits - I
centralisation (not a bad thing in principle) and co-governance
(totally replacing elected local body control with unelected and >>>racially-biased boards of directors).
see them as also providing a consistent standard for all communities
(the equal opportunity principle), and a greater flexibility to meet >>different needs with greater shared expertise and resources. The >>structures should also avoid the need for the problems of the
FOreshore and Seabed legislation - my view is that once agreed,
arrnagments should be recognised by the Waitangi Tribunal as being a
full and final settlement in relation to most water rights under the >>Treaty.
Electricity is not co-governed and it is nothing to do with 3.5 waters or he >puapua or power grabs by a minority.
Rich, this is another example of your trend to increasingly irrational >>>justifications of the Water reforms.
They are more rational than the Bradford reforms of electricity - I do >>think there should have been a higher percentage than 50% to restrict
any future government from privatising water resources; sadly National >>voted against that, but the percentage could have been lower than 75%. >>There is therefore a greater risk than there should have been in
electing a government that may wish to continue with privatisation to
pay off supporters; that may well hurt National and ACT at the next >>election.
On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 11:43:06 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>That is not co-governance and you appear to agree because you used the word co-management by any definition. So finally you agree that co-management is not co-governance. Whew, that took a while.
wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 22:12:09 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 01:41:35 -0000 (UTC), TonyRich are you serious? How can you equate the change from an
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:There is a lot that is broken however - hard to separate a system into >>>different bits . . .
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 13:09:31 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:I don't know about Crash, but I do.
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 12:44:22 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:I was using rates as a generic term - it could be by Council rates >>>>>(based on property values) or increases in water charges - to a >>>>>certain extent that would be up to Auckland. Initial capital may be by >>>>>borrowing (and also bear in mind that local authority issued stock is >>>>>likely to be say 0.25% more expensive), increases to rates are likely >>>>>to be needed to fund repayment of borrowing. How else would the work >>>>>be funded if National were to be elected in November?
On 11 Feb 2023 20:32:09 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/131196837/for-sale-new-warm-and-dry-homes-the-catch-theyre-in-a-flood-plain-and-the-flood-is-coming-sooner-than-you-think
We have had the discussion of the proposed subdivision in a flod prone >>>>>>>>are a
recently.
Looks like it is s drop in the bucket, there are 55,000 houses in at >>>>>>>>risk of
flooding areas. Looks like it has been happening for many moons. >>>>>>>>
Amazing the power of lack of memory, optomisim, and greed.
Certainly there is much to answer for from those that denied that >>>>>>>Climate Change would affect us, The extent of the change has however >>>>>>>been greater than scientists would have predicted when many of these >>>>>>>houses developed, and it is clear now that our stormwater systems are >>>>>>>inadequate; Watercare has been doing a lot of good work, but they need >>>>>>>a much larger budget. Three Waters offers the possibility of >>>>>>>GOvernment sharing both the responsibility and the funding - National >>>>>>>want it to all stay with Local Councils - how much will Auckland Rates >>>>>>>have to increase if Nationl gets in at the next election?
What is it that leads you to believe that if local councils cannot >>>>>>fund water asset maintenance that a rates increase is required?
IAnd National's policy (almost its only policy) is to reduce teh top >>>>>tax rate.
could equally postulate on how much tax rates will rise to fund Water >>>>>>Entities doing the same development. The money has to come from >>>>>>somewhere - either increased taxes or increased rates.
The differenceWhich sounds just like Watercare - what is the difference, Crash?
is that local bodies own and fund existing water assets and are run by >>>>>>those elected to do so by ratepayers. Water entities are new, >>>>>>forcibly acquire existing water assets, and are run entirely by >>>>>>appointed directors.
There are water asset management and operation issues in some parts of >>>>>>NZ. Labour have legislated a nationwide one-size-fits-all solution >>>>>>(well-run and resourced water assets taken from the local bodies that >>>>>>have no issues) with other totally undesirable and undemocratic >>>>>>governance issues.
There will be fewer Water organisations, enabling a deeper strength of >>>>>expertise, greater cooperation between different areas, so a sharing >>>>>of expertise and possibly some equipment, but not one-size fits all >>>>>by any means - different locations have different water issues with >>>>>different solutions; but based around delivery of common standards, >>>>>using common science (hydrology, engineering etc). In addition there >>>>>will be government funding to ensure that areas with better current >>>>>current systems do not get penalised by having to fund less effective >>>>>current systems in other areas. At the end of the day of course >>>>>ongoing work will need tobe funded equitably over all of New Zealand. >>>>>Do you have a better alternative?
1. Don't fix something that is not broken.
2. Don't remove democratic authority from local electors.Why not? It was done for electricity generation and distribution, and >>>worked well for a long time.
Electricity department to Govern met-owned SOEs (hint both are run by >>Government appointed people) with the Water reforms (currently run by >>elected local bodies, to be run by unelected directors and Maori Iwi)?
The Generating companies are 49% owned by private shareholders - they
are run to maximise return to shareholders. Yes that are co-managed -
with Directors representing share investors, not the people of New
Zealand. That is co-management National style . . .
You have provided no detail of any of the above and neither has any of our ministers and until you and they do it is just scotch mist.One of the early posts in this thread said "there are 55,000 houses in
Any comparison is absurd and shows your support of Water reforms >>legislation is reaching new levels of irrationality.
3/5 waters is all about political power, it is not actually about water at >>>>itsNo, it is about supply and disposal to standards set by government.
root.
Supply and disposal to standards set by government do not require the
Water reforms currently enacted. Said standards are being implemented
now and the majority of existing local authorities either exceed, meet
or nearly meet them.
at risk of flooding areas. Looks like it has been happening for many
moons."
We know that many rivers are unfit for swimming in, let alone drinking
any of the water - there are warnings that gods may die for many
rivers. Water in small Canterbury towns is causing illness in infants
from excessive nitrates from cattle farming. Water quality in Havelock
North is not yet meeting standards consistently - remember those that
died while Lawrence Yule was mayor? Quantity of water is an issue in
some regions - they have trucks to supply water during the dry season.
Many areas have large amounts of sewage water mixing with stormwater -
in Auckland fixing that is estimated to cost millions, and little work
has been done so far. Wellington suffers from vry old underground
pipes that burst more eften than anyone would like; Christchurch had a
large amount of new underground services but is still having problems
in some areas.
You can bury your head in the sand as much as you like, but there is aNot-proven and not even demonstrated. Exatly how much work is needed? Detail please.
lot of work to do to meet acceptable standards for water suppply,
quality, and disposal.
The treaty is silent about water and you have never shown otherwise.The Water reforms legislation introducesI am glad you agree that centralisation will provide some benefits - I
centralisation (not a bad thing in principle) and co-governance
(totally replacing elected local body control with unelected and >>racially-biased boards of directors).
see them as also providing a consistent standard for all communities
(the equal opportunity principle), and a greater flexibility to meet >different needs with greater shared expertise and resources. The
structures should also avoid the need for the problems of the
FOreshore and Seabed legislation - my view is that once agreed,
arrnagments should be recognised by the Waitangi Tribunal as being a
full and final settlement in relation to most water rights under the
Treaty.
Electricity is not co-governed and it is nothing to do with 3.5 waters or he puapua or power grabs by a minority.
Rich, this is another example of your trend to increasingly irrational >>justifications of the Water reforms.
They are more rational than the Bradford reforms of electricity - I do
think there should have been a higher percentage than 50% to restrict
any future government from privatising water resources; sadly National
voted against that, but the percentage could have been lower than 75%.
There is therefore a greater risk than there should have been in
electing a government that may wish to continue with privatisation to
pay off supporters; that may well hurt National and ACT at the next
election.
On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 11:43:06 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 22:12:09 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 01:41:35 -0000 (UTC), TonyRich are you serious? How can you equate the change from an
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:There is a lot that is broken however - hard to separate a system into >>>different bits . . .
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 13:09:31 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>wrote:I don't know about Crash, but I do.
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 12:44:22 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>wrote:I was using rates as a generic term - it could be by Council rates >>>>>(based on property values) or increases in water charges - to a >>>>>certain extent that would be up to Auckland. Initial capital may be by >>>>>borrowing (and also bear in mind that local authority issued stock is >>>>>likely to be say 0.25% more expensive), increases to rates are likely >>>>>to be needed to fund repayment of borrowing. How else would the work >>>>>be funded if National were to be elected in November?
On 11 Feb 2023 20:32:09 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/131196837/for-sale-new-warm-and-dry-homes-the-catch-theyre-in-a-flood-plain-and-the-flood-is-coming-sooner-than-you-think
We have had the discussion of the proposed subdivision in a flod prone are a
recently.
Looks like it is s drop in the bucket, there are 55,000 houses in at risk of
flooding areas. Looks like it has been happening for many moons. >>>>>>>>
Amazing the power of lack of memory, optomisim, and greed.
Certainly there is much to answer for from those that denied that >>>>>>>Climate Change would affect us, The extent of the change has however >>>>>>>been greater than scientists would have predicted when many of these >>>>>>>houses developed, and it is clear now that our stormwater systems are >>>>>>>inadequate; Watercare has been doing a lot of good work, but they need >>>>>>>a much larger budget. Three Waters offers the possibility of >>>>>>>GOvernment sharing both the responsibility and the funding - National >>>>>>>want it to all stay with Local Councils - how much will Auckland Rates >>>>>>>have to increase if Nationl gets in at the next election?
What is it that leads you to believe that if local councils cannot >>>>>>fund water asset maintenance that a rates increase is required?
IAnd National's policy (almost its only policy) is to reduce teh top >>>>>tax rate.
could equally postulate on how much tax rates will rise to fund Water >>>>>>Entities doing the same development. The money has to come from >>>>>>somewhere - either increased taxes or increased rates.
The differenceWhich sounds just like Watercare - what is the difference, Crash?
is that local bodies own and fund existing water assets and are run by >>>>>>those elected to do so by ratepayers. Water entities are new, >>>>>>forcibly acquire existing water assets, and are run entirely by >>>>>>appointed directors.
There are water asset management and operation issues in some parts of >>>>>>NZ. Labour have legislated a nationwide one-size-fits-all solution >>>>>>(well-run and resourced water assets taken from the local bodies that >>>>>>have no issues) with other totally undesirable and undemocratic >>>>>>governance issues.
There will be fewer Water organisations, enabling a deeper strength of >>>>>expertise, greater cooperation between different areas, so a sharing >>>>>of expertise and possibly some equipment, but not one-size fits all >>>>>by any means - different locations have different water issues with >>>>>different solutions; but based around delivery of common standards, >>>>>using common science (hydrology, engineering etc). In addition there >>>>>will be government funding to ensure that areas with better current >>>>>current systems do not get penalised by having to fund less effective >>>>>current systems in other areas. At the end of the day of course >>>>>ongoing work will need tobe funded equitably over all of New Zealand. >>>>>Do you have a better alternative?
1. Don't fix something that is not broken.
2. Don't remove democratic authority from local electors.Why not? It was done for electricity generation and distribution, and >>>worked well for a long time.
Electricity department to Govern met-owned SOEs (hint both are run by >>Government appointed people) with the Water reforms (currently run by >>elected local bodies, to be run by unelected directors and Maori Iwi)?
The Generating companies are 49% owned by private shareholders - they
are run to maximise return to shareholders. Yes that are co-managed -
with Directors representing share investors, not the people of New
Zealand. That is co-management National style . . .
One of the early posts in this thread said "there are 55,000 houses in
Any comparison is absurd and shows your support of Water reforms >>legislation is reaching new levels of irrationality.
3/5 waters is all about political power, it is not actually about water at itsNo, it is about supply and disposal to standards set by government.
root.
Supply and disposal to standards set by government do not require the
Water reforms currently enacted. Said standards are being implemented
now and the majority of existing local authorities either exceed, meet
or nearly meet them.
at risk of flooding areas. Looks like it has been happening for many
moons."
We know that many rivers are unfit for swimming in, let alone drinking
any of the water - there are warnings that gods may die for many
rivers. Water in small Canterbury towns is causing illness in infants
from excessive nitrates from cattle farming. Water quality in Havelock
North is not yet meeting standards consistently - remember those that
died while Lawrence Yule was mayor? Quantity of water is an issue in
some regions - they have trucks to supply water during the dry season.
Many areas have large amounts of sewage water mixing with stormwater -
in Auckland fixing that is estimated to cost millions, and little work
has been done so far. Wellington suffers from vry old underground
pipes that burst more eften than anyone would like; Christchurch had a
large amount of new underground services but is still having problems
in some areas.
You can bury your head in the sand as much as you like, but there is a
lot of work to do to meet acceptable standards for water suppply,
quality, and disposal.
The Water reforms legislation introducesI am glad you agree that centralisation will provide some benefits - I
centralisation (not a bad thing in principle) and co-governance
(totally replacing elected local body control with unelected and >>racially-biased boards of directors).
see them as also providing a consistent standard for all communities
(the equal opportunity principle), and a greater flexibility to meet >different needs with greater shared expertise and resources. The
structures should also avoid the need for the problems of the
FOreshore and Seabed legislation - my view is that once agreed,
arrnagments should be recognised by the Waitangi Tribunal as being a
full and final settlement in relation to most water rights under the
Treaty.
Rich, this is another example of your trend to increasingly irrational >>justifications of the Water reforms.
They are more rational than the Bradford reforms of electricity - I do
think there should have been a higher percentage than 50% to restrict
any future government from privatising water resources; sadly National
voted against that, but the percentage could have been lower than 75%.
There is therefore a greater risk than there should have been in
electing a government that may wish to continue with privatisation to
pay off supporters; that may well hurt National and ACT at the next
election.
On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 02:31:35 -0000 (UTC), TonyNot by me you lying prick, not by me. You really do need a brain transplant - a small undernourished rat could be the provider.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 11:43:06 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:That is not co-governance and you appear to agree because you used the word >>co-management by any definition. So finally you agree that co-management is >>not co-governance. Whew, that took a while.
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 22:12:09 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 01:41:35 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Rich are you serious? How can you equate the change from an >>>>Electricity department to Govern met-owned SOEs (hint both are run by >>>>Government appointed people) with the Water reforms (currently run by >>>>elected local bodies, to be run by unelected directors and Maori Iwi)?
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:There is a lot that is broken however - hard to separate a system into >>>>>different bits . . .
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 13:09:31 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>wrote:I don't know about Crash, but I do.
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 12:44:22 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>wrote:And National's policy (almost its only policy) is to reduce teh top >>>>>>>tax rate.
On 11 Feb 2023 20:32:09 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/131196837/for-sale-new-warm-and-dry-homes-the-catch-theyre-in-a-flood-plain-and-the-flood-is-coming-sooner-than-you-think
We have had the discussion of the proposed subdivision in a flod >>>>>>>>>>prone
are a
recently.
Looks like it is s drop in the bucket, there are 55,000 houses in at >>>>>>>>>>risk of
flooding areas. Looks like it has been happening for many moons. >>>>>>>>>>
Amazing the power of lack of memory, optomisim, and greed.
Certainly there is much to answer for from those that denied that >>>>>>>>>Climate Change would affect us, The extent of the change has however >>>>>>>>>been greater than scientists would have predicted when many of these >>>>>>>>>houses developed, and it is clear now that our stormwater systems are >>>>>>>>>inadequate; Watercare has been doing a lot of good work, but they need >>>>>>>>>a much larger budget. Three Waters offers the possibility of >>>>>>>>>GOvernment sharing both the responsibility and the funding - National >>>>>>>>>want it to all stay with Local Councils - how much will Auckland Rates >>>>>>>>>have to increase if Nationl gets in at the next election?
What is it that leads you to believe that if local councils cannot >>>>>>>>fund water asset maintenance that a rates increase is required? >>>>>>>I was using rates as a generic term - it could be by Council rates >>>>>>>(based on property values) or increases in water charges - to a >>>>>>>certain extent that would be up to Auckland. Initial capital may be by >>>>>>>borrowing (and also bear in mind that local authority issued stock is >>>>>>>likely to be say 0.25% more expensive), increases to rates are likely >>>>>>>to be needed to fund repayment of borrowing. How else would the work >>>>>>>be funded if National were to be elected in November?
I
could equally postulate on how much tax rates will rise to fund Water >>>>>>>>Entities doing the same development. The money has to come from >>>>>>>>somewhere - either increased taxes or increased rates.
The differenceWhich sounds just like Watercare - what is the difference, Crash? >>>>>>>
is that local bodies own and fund existing water assets and are run by >>>>>>>>those elected to do so by ratepayers. Water entities are new, >>>>>>>>forcibly acquire existing water assets, and are run entirely by >>>>>>>>appointed directors.
There are water asset management and operation issues in some parts of >>>>>>>>NZ. Labour have legislated a nationwide one-size-fits-all solution >>>>>>>>(well-run and resourced water assets taken from the local bodies that >>>>>>>>have no issues) with other totally undesirable and undemocratic >>>>>>>>governance issues.
There will be fewer Water organisations, enabling a deeper strength of >>>>>>>expertise, greater cooperation between different areas, so a sharing >>>>>>>of expertise and possibly some equipment, but not one-size fits all >>>>>>>by any means - different locations have different water issues with >>>>>>>different solutions; but based around delivery of common standards, >>>>>>>using common science (hydrology, engineering etc). In addition there >>>>>>>will be government funding to ensure that areas with better current >>>>>>>current systems do not get penalised by having to fund less effective >>>>>>>current systems in other areas. At the end of the day of course >>>>>>>ongoing work will need tobe funded equitably over all of New Zealand. >>>>>>>Do you have a better alternative?
1. Don't fix something that is not broken.
2. Don't remove democratic authority from local electors.Why not? It was done for electricity generation and distribution, and >>>>>worked well for a long time.
The Generating companies are 49% owned by private shareholders - they
are run to maximise return to shareholders. Yes that are co-managed - >>>with Directors representing share investors, not the people of New >>>Zealand. That is co-management National style . . .
You have provided no detail of any of the above and neither has any of our >>ministers and until you and they do it is just scotch mist.
One of the early posts in this thread said "there are 55,000 houses in
Any comparison is absurd and shows your support of Water reforms >>>>legislation is reaching new levels of irrationality.
3/5 waters is all about political power, it is not actually about water >>>>>>atNo, it is about supply and disposal to standards set by government.
its
root.
Supply and disposal to standards set by government do not require the >>>>Water reforms currently enacted. Said standards are being implemented >>>>now and the majority of existing local authorities either exceed, meet >>>>or nearly meet them.
at risk of flooding areas. Looks like it has been happening for many >>>moons."
We know that many rivers are unfit for swimming in, let alone drinking >>>any of the water - there are warnings that gods may die for many
rivers. Water in small Canterbury towns is causing illness in infants >>>from excessive nitrates from cattle farming. Water quality in Havelock >>>North is not yet meeting standards consistently - remember those that >>>died while Lawrence Yule was mayor? Quantity of water is an issue in >>>some regions - they have trucks to supply water during the dry season. >>>Many areas have large amounts of sewage water mixing with stormwater -
in Auckland fixing that is estimated to cost millions, and little work >>>has been done so far. Wellington suffers from vry old underground
pipes that burst more eften than anyone would like; Christchurch had a >>>large amount of new underground services but is still having problems
in some areas.
Not-proven and not even demonstrated. Exatly how much work is needed? Detail >>please.
You can bury your head in the sand as much as you like, but there is a >>>lot of work to do to meet acceptable standards for water suppply, >>>quality, and disposal.
The treaty is silent about water and you have never shown otherwise.
The Water reforms legislation introducesI am glad you agree that centralisation will provide some benefits - I >>>see them as also providing a consistent standard for all communities
centralisation (not a bad thing in principle) and co-governance >>>>(totally replacing elected local body control with unelected and >>>>racially-biased boards of directors).
(the equal opportunity principle), and a greater flexibility to meet >>>different needs with greater shared expertise and resources. The >>>structures should also avoid the need for the problems of the
FOreshore and Seabed legislation - my view is that once agreed, >>>arrnagments should be recognised by the Waitangi Tribunal as being a
full and final settlement in relation to most water rights under the >>>Treaty.
Electricity is not co-governed and it is nothing to do with 3.5 waters or he >>puapua or power grabs by a minority.
Rich, this is another example of your trend to increasingly irrational >>>>justifications of the Water reforms.
They are more rational than the Bradford reforms of electricity - I do >>>think there should have been a higher percentage than 50% to restrict
any future government from privatising water resources; sadly National >>>voted against that, but the percentage could have been lower than 75%. >>>There is therefore a greater risk than there should have been in
electing a government that may wish to continue with privatisation to
pay off supporters; that may well hurt National and ACT at the next >>>election.
The two words are used interchangeably by you and by others Tony,
butI never mentioned sovereignty, why do you think that is pertinent? Oh, I see, it isn't - just another brain fart.
niether represent sovereignity - but National's changes to the
electricity market certainly ended up with an unwanted focus on
profits for shareholders.
It is a little bit away from a subdivision on flood-prone land though.Which is entirely off topic.
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Sorry Tony. But for once in this thread Rich is actually ON topic! I'm surprised as you but the thread is about 55,000 houses built on flood plains in Auckland during Phil Goofs excuse for a mayor:)
On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 02:31:35 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 11:43:06 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:That is not co-governance and you appear to agree because you used the word >>co-management by any definition. So finally you agree that co-management is >>not co-governance. Whew, that took a while.
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 22:12:09 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>>>wrote:The Generating companies are 49% owned by private shareholders - they >>>are run to maximise return to shareholders. Yes that are co-managed - >>>with Directors representing share investors, not the people of New >>>Zealand. That is co-management National style . . .
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 01:41:35 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Rich are you serious? How can you equate the change from an >>>>Electricity department to Govern met-owned SOEs (hint both are run by >>>>Government appointed people) with the Water reforms (currently run by >>>>elected local bodies, to be run by unelected directors and Maori Iwi)? >>>
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:There is a lot that is broken however - hard to separate a system into >>>>>different bits . . .
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 13:09:31 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>wrote:I don't know about Crash, but I do.
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 12:44:22 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>>wrote:And National's policy (almost its only policy) is to reduce teh top >>>>>>>tax rate.
On 11 Feb 2023 20:32:09 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/131196837/for-sale-new-warm-and-dry-homes-the-catch-theyre-in-a-flood-plain-and-the-flood-is-coming-sooner-than-you-think
Certainly there is much to answer for from those that denied that >>>>>>>>>Climate Change would affect us, The extent of the change has however >>>>>>>>>been greater than scientists would have predicted when many of these >>>>>>>>>houses developed, and it is clear now that our stormwater systems are
We have had the discussion of the proposed subdivision in a flod >>>>>>>>>>prone
are a
recently.
Looks like it is s drop in the bucket, there are 55,000 houses in at
risk of
flooding areas. Looks like it has been happening for many moons. >>>>>>>>>>
Amazing the power of lack of memory, optomisim, and greed. >>>>>>>>>
inadequate; Watercare has been doing a lot of good work, but they need
a much larger budget. Three Waters offers the possibility of >>>>>>>>>GOvernment sharing both the responsibility and the funding - National
want it to all stay with Local Councils - how much will Auckland Rates
have to increase if Nationl gets in at the next election?
What is it that leads you to believe that if local councils cannot >>>>>>>>fund water asset maintenance that a rates increase is required? >>>>>>>I was using rates as a generic term - it could be by Council rates >>>>>>>(based on property values) or increases in water charges - to a >>>>>>>certain extent that would be up to Auckland. Initial capital may be by >>>>>>>borrowing (and also bear in mind that local authority issued stock is >>>>>>>likely to be say 0.25% more expensive), increases to rates are likely >>>>>>>to be needed to fund repayment of borrowing. How else would the work >>>>>>>be funded if National were to be elected in November?
I
could equally postulate on how much tax rates will rise to fund Water >>>>>>>>Entities doing the same development. The money has to come from >>>>>>>>somewhere - either increased taxes or increased rates.
The differenceWhich sounds just like Watercare - what is the difference, Crash? >>>>>>>
is that local bodies own and fund existing water assets and are run by
those elected to do so by ratepayers. Water entities are new, >>>>>>>>forcibly acquire existing water assets, and are run entirely by >>>>>>>>appointed directors.
There are water asset management and operation issues in some parts of
NZ. Labour have legislated a nationwide one-size-fits-all solution >>>>>>>>(well-run and resourced water assets taken from the local bodies that >>>>>>>>have no issues) with other totally undesirable and undemocratic >>>>>>>>governance issues.
There will be fewer Water organisations, enabling a deeper strength of >>>>>>>expertise, greater cooperation between different areas, so a sharing >>>>>>>of expertise and possibly some equipment, but not one-size fits all >>>>>>>by any means - different locations have different water issues with >>>>>>>different solutions; but based around delivery of common standards, >>>>>>>using common science (hydrology, engineering etc). In addition there >>>>>>>will be government funding to ensure that areas with better current >>>>>>>current systems do not get penalised by having to fund less effective >>>>>>>current systems in other areas. At the end of the day of course >>>>>>>ongoing work will need tobe funded equitably over all of New Zealand. >>>>>>>Do you have a better alternative?
1. Don't fix something that is not broken.
2. Don't remove democratic authority from local electors.Why not? It was done for electricity generation and distribution, and >>>>>worked well for a long time.
You have provided no detail of any of the above and neither has any of our >>ministers and until you and they do it is just scotch mist.
One of the early posts in this thread said "there are 55,000 houses in >>>at risk of flooding areas. Looks like it has been happening for many >>>moons."
Any comparison is absurd and shows your support of Water reforms >>>>legislation is reaching new levels of irrationality.
3/5 waters is all about political power, it is not actually about water >>>>>>atNo, it is about supply and disposal to standards set by government.
its
root.
Supply and disposal to standards set by government do not require the >>>>Water reforms currently enacted. Said standards are being implemented >>>>now and the majority of existing local authorities either exceed, meet >>>>or nearly meet them.
We know that many rivers are unfit for swimming in, let alone drinking >>>any of the water - there are warnings that gods may die for many >>>rivers. Water in small Canterbury towns is causing illness in infants >>>from excessive nitrates from cattle farming. Water quality in Havelock >>>North is not yet meeting standards consistently - remember those that >>>died while Lawrence Yule was mayor? Quantity of water is an issue in >>>some regions - they have trucks to supply water during the dry season. >>>Many areas have large amounts of sewage water mixing with stormwater - >>>in Auckland fixing that is estimated to cost millions, and little work >>>has been done so far. Wellington suffers from vry old underground
pipes that burst more eften than anyone would like; Christchurch had a >>>large amount of new underground services but is still having problems >>>in some areas.
Not-proven and not even demonstrated. Exatly how much work is needed? Detail
You can bury your head in the sand as much as you like, but there is a >>>lot of work to do to meet acceptable standards for water suppply, >>>quality, and disposal.
please.
The treaty is silent about water and you have never shown otherwise.
The Water reforms legislation introducesI am glad you agree that centralisation will provide some benefits - I >>>see them as also providing a consistent standard for all communities >>>(the equal opportunity principle), and a greater flexibility to meet >>>different needs with greater shared expertise and resources. The >>>structures should also avoid the need for the problems of the
centralisation (not a bad thing in principle) and co-governance >>>>(totally replacing elected local body control with unelected and >>>>racially-biased boards of directors).
FOreshore and Seabed legislation - my view is that once agreed, >>>arrnagments should be recognised by the Waitangi Tribunal as being a >>>full and final settlement in relation to most water rights under the >>>Treaty.
Electricity is not co-governed and it is nothing to do with 3.5 waters or he
Rich, this is another example of your trend to increasingly irrational >>>>justifications of the Water reforms.
They are more rational than the Bradford reforms of electricity - I do >>>think there should have been a higher percentage than 50% to restrict >>>any future government from privatising water resources; sadly National >>>voted against that, but the percentage could have been lower than 75%. >>>There is therefore a greater risk than there should have been in >>>electing a government that may wish to continue with privatisation to >>>pay off supporters; that may well hurt National and ACT at the next >>>election.
puapua or power grabs by a minority.
The two words are used interchangeably by you and by others Tony,Not by me you lying prick, not by me. You really do need a brain transplant - a
small undernourished rat could be the provider.
butI never mentioned sovereignty, why do you think that is pertinent? Oh, I see, it isn't - just another brain fart.
niether represent sovereignity - but National's changes to the
electricity market certainly ended up with an unwanted focus on
profits for shareholders.
As for profit, your government have been coining it for the past 5 years and seem entirely happy to have done so - otherwise they would have done something
about their majority shareholdings - would they not? Eh?
It is a little bit away from a subdivision on flood-prone land though.Which is entirely off topic.
On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 5:13:57 PM UTC+13, Tony wrote:Yup, it is theoretically on topic but Rich took it off topic more than once. He cannot expect us to follow his idiotic excuse for logic.
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Sorry Tony. But for once in this thread Rich is actually ON topic! I'm >surprised as you but the thread is about 55,000 houses built on flood plains in
On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 02:31:35 -0000 (UTC), TonyNot by me you lying prick, not by me. You really do need a brain transplant >>- a
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 11:43:06 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 22:12:09 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 01:41:35 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 13:09:31 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >> >>>>>>>wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 12:44:22 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >> >>>>>>>>wrote:
On 11 Feb 2023 20:32:09 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
That is not co-governance and you appear to agree because you used theThe Generating companies are 49% owned by private shareholders - theyRich are you serious? How can you equate the change from anThere is a lot that is broken however - hard to separate a system into >> >>>>>different bits . . .I don't know about Crash, but I do.I was using rates as a generic term - it could be by Council rateshttps://www.stuff.co.nz/national/131196837/for-sale-new-warm-and-dry-homes-the-catch-theyre-in-a-flood-plain-and-the-flood-is-coming-sooner-than-you-think
We have had the discussion of the proposed subdivision in a flod >> >>>>>>>>>>prone
are a
recently.
Looks like it is s drop in the bucket, there are 55,000 houses in >> >>>>>>>>>>at
risk of
flooding areas. Looks like it has been happening for many moons. >> >>>>>>>>>>
Amazing the power of lack of memory, optomisim, and greed.
Certainly there is much to answer for from those that denied that >> >>>>>>>>>Climate Change would affect us, The extent of the change has
however
been greater than scientists would have predicted when many of
these
houses developed, and it is clear now that our stormwater systems >> >>>>>>>>>are
inadequate; Watercare has been doing a lot of good work, but they >> >>>>>>>>>need
a much larger budget. Three Waters offers the possibility of
GOvernment sharing both the responsibility and the funding -
National
want it to all stay with Local Councils - how much will Auckland
Rates
have to increase if Nationl gets in at the next election?
What is it that leads you to believe that if local councils cannot >> >>>>>>>>fund water asset maintenance that a rates increase is required?
(based on property values) or increases in water charges - to a
certain extent that would be up to Auckland. Initial capital may be >> >>>>>>>by
borrowing (and also bear in mind that local authority issued stock is >> >>>>>>>likely to be say 0.25% more expensive), increases to rates are likely >> >>>>>>>to be needed to fund repayment of borrowing. How else would the work >> >>>>>>>be funded if National were to be elected in November?
IAnd National's policy (almost its only policy) is to reduce teh top >> >>>>>>>tax rate.
could equally postulate on how much tax rates will rise to fund
Water
Entities doing the same development. The money has to come from
somewhere - either increased taxes or increased rates.
The differenceWhich sounds just like Watercare - what is the difference, Crash?
is that local bodies own and fund existing water assets and are run >> >>>>>>>>by
those elected to do so by ratepayers. Water entities are new,
forcibly acquire existing water assets, and are run entirely by
appointed directors.
There are water asset management and operation issues in some parts >> >>>>>>>>of
NZ. Labour have legislated a nationwide one-size-fits-all solution >> >>>>>>>>(well-run and resourced water assets taken from the local bodies
that
have no issues) with other totally undesirable and undemocratic
governance issues.
There will be fewer Water organisations, enabling a deeper strength >> >>>>>>>of
expertise, greater cooperation between different areas, so a sharing >> >>>>>>>of expertise and possibly some equipment, but not one-size fits all >> >>>>>>>by any means - different locations have different water issues with >> >>>>>>>different solutions; but based around delivery of common standards, >> >>>>>>>using common science (hydrology, engineering etc). In addition there >> >>>>>>>will be government funding to ensure that areas with better current >> >>>>>>>current systems do not get penalised by having to fund less effective >> >>>>>>>current systems in other areas. At the end of the day of course
ongoing work will need tobe funded equitably over all of New Zealand. >> >>>>>>>Do you have a better alternative?
1. Don't fix something that is not broken.
2. Don't remove democratic authority from local electors.Why not? It was done for electricity generation and distribution, and >> >>>>>worked well for a long time.
Electricity department to Govern met-owned SOEs (hint both are run by
Government appointed people) with the Water reforms (currently run by
elected local bodies, to be run by unelected directors and Maori Iwi)? >> >>>
are run to maximise return to shareholders. Yes that are co-managed -
with Directors representing share investors, not the people of New
Zealand. That is co-management National style . . .
word
co-management by any definition. So finally you agree that co-management >> >>is
not co-governance. Whew, that took a while.
You have provided no detail of any of the above and neither has any of our >> >>ministers and until you and they do it is just scotch mist.
One of the early posts in this thread said "there are 55,000 houses in
Any comparison is absurd and shows your support of Water reforms
legislation is reaching new levels of irrationality.
3/5 waters is all about political power, it is not actually aboutNo, it is about supply and disposal to standards set by government.
water
at
its
root.
Supply and disposal to standards set by government do not require the
Water reforms currently enacted. Said standards are being implemented
now and the majority of existing local authorities either exceed, meet >> >>>>or nearly meet them.
at risk of flooding areas. Looks like it has been happening for many
moons."
We know that many rivers are unfit for swimming in, let alone drinking
any of the water - there are warnings that gods may die for many
rivers. Water in small Canterbury towns is causing illness in infants
from excessive nitrates from cattle farming. Water quality in Havelock
North is not yet meeting standards consistently - remember those that
died while Lawrence Yule was mayor? Quantity of water is an issue in
some regions - they have trucks to supply water during the dry season.
Many areas have large amounts of sewage water mixing with stormwater -
in Auckland fixing that is estimated to cost millions, and little work
has been done so far. Wellington suffers from vry old underground
pipes that burst more eften than anyone would like; Christchurch had a
large amount of new underground services but is still having problems
in some areas.
Not-proven and not even demonstrated. Exatly how much work is needed?
You can bury your head in the sand as much as you like, but there is a
lot of work to do to meet acceptable standards for water suppply,
quality, and disposal.
Detail
please.
The treaty is silent about water and you have never shown otherwise.
The Water reforms legislation introducesI am glad you agree that centralisation will provide some benefits - I
centralisation (not a bad thing in principle) and co-governance
(totally replacing elected local body control with unelected and
racially-biased boards of directors).
see them as also providing a consistent standard for all communities
(the equal opportunity principle), and a greater flexibility to meet
different needs with greater shared expertise and resources. The
structures should also avoid the need for the problems of the
FOreshore and Seabed legislation - my view is that once agreed,
arrnagments should be recognised by the Waitangi Tribunal as being a
full and final settlement in relation to most water rights under the
Treaty.
Electricity is not co-governed and it is nothing to do with 3.5 waters or >> >>he
Rich, this is another example of your trend to increasingly irrational >> >>>>justifications of the Water reforms.
They are more rational than the Bradford reforms of electricity - I do
think there should have been a higher percentage than 50% to restrict
any future government from privatising water resources; sadly National
voted against that, but the percentage could have been lower than 75%.
There is therefore a greater risk than there should have been in
electing a government that may wish to continue with privatisation to
pay off supporters; that may well hurt National and ACT at the next
election.
puapua or power grabs by a minority.
The two words are used interchangeably by you and by others Tony,
small undernourished rat could be the provider.
butI never mentioned sovereignty, why do you think that is pertinent? Oh, I >>see,
niether represent sovereignity - but National's changes to the
electricity market certainly ended up with an unwanted focus on
profits for shareholders.
it isn't - just another brain fart.
As for profit, your government have been coining it for the past 5 years and >> seem entirely happy to have done so - otherwise they would have done >>something
about their majority shareholdings - would they not? Eh?
Which is entirely off topic.
It is a little bit away from a subdivision on flood-prone land though.
Auckland during Phil Goofs excuse for a mayor:)
John Bowes <bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:As Gordon said: Stupid is as stupid does. Though I'm pretty sure stupid is better than Rich is ever liable to be :)
On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 5:13:57 PM UTC+13, Tony wrote:Yup, it is theoretically on topic but Rich took it off topic more than once. He
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Sorry Tony. But for once in this thread Rich is actually ON topic! I'm >surprised as you but the thread is about 55,000 houses built on flood plains in
On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 02:31:35 -0000 (UTC), TonyNot by me you lying prick, not by me. You really do need a brain transplant
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 11:43:06 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >> >>>wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 22:12:09 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 01:41:35 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 13:09:31 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 12:44:22 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 11 Feb 2023 20:32:09 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>
That is not co-governance and you appear to agree because you used the >> >>wordThe Generating companies are 49% owned by private shareholders - they >> >>>are run to maximise return to shareholders. Yes that are co-managed - >> >>>with Directors representing share investors, not the people of NewRich are you serious? How can you equate the change from anThere is a lot that is broken however - hard to separate a system intoI don't know about Crash, but I do.I was using rates as a generic term - it could be by Council rates >> >>>>>>>(based on property values) or increases in water charges - to ahttps://www.stuff.co.nz/national/131196837/for-sale-new-warm-and-dry-homes-the-catch-theyre-in-a-flood-plain-and-the-flood-is-coming-sooner-than-you-think
We have had the discussion of the proposed subdivision in a flod >> >>>>>>>>>>prone
are a
recently.
Looks like it is s drop in the bucket, there are 55,000 houses in
at
risk of
flooding areas. Looks like it has been happening for many moons. >> >>>>>>>>>>
Amazing the power of lack of memory, optomisim, and greed.
Certainly there is much to answer for from those that denied that >> >>>>>>>>>Climate Change would affect us, The extent of the change has
however
been greater than scientists would have predicted when many of
these
houses developed, and it is clear now that our stormwater systems >> >>>>>>>>>are
inadequate; Watercare has been doing a lot of good work, but they >> >>>>>>>>>need
a much larger budget. Three Waters offers the possibility of
GOvernment sharing both the responsibility and the funding -
National
want it to all stay with Local Councils - how much will Auckland >> >>>>>>>>>Rates
have to increase if Nationl gets in at the next election?
What is it that leads you to believe that if local councils cannot >> >>>>>>>>fund water asset maintenance that a rates increase is required?
certain extent that would be up to Auckland. Initial capital may be >> >>>>>>>by
borrowing (and also bear in mind that local authority issued stock is
likely to be say 0.25% more expensive), increases to rates are likely
to be needed to fund repayment of borrowing. How else would the work
be funded if National were to be elected in November?
IAnd National's policy (almost its only policy) is to reduce teh top >> >>>>>>>tax rate.
could equally postulate on how much tax rates will rise to fund
Water
Entities doing the same development. The money has to come from
somewhere - either increased taxes or increased rates.
The differenceWhich sounds just like Watercare - what is the difference, Crash? >> >>>>>>>
is that local bodies own and fund existing water assets and are run
by
those elected to do so by ratepayers. Water entities are new,
forcibly acquire existing water assets, and are run entirely by
appointed directors.
There are water asset management and operation issues in some parts
of
NZ. Labour have legislated a nationwide one-size-fits-all solution >> >>>>>>>>(well-run and resourced water assets taken from the local bodies >> >>>>>>>>that
have no issues) with other totally undesirable and undemocratic
governance issues.
There will be fewer Water organisations, enabling a deeper strength >> >>>>>>>of
expertise, greater cooperation between different areas, so a sharing
of expertise and possibly some equipment, but not one-size fits all >> >>>>>>>by any means - different locations have different water issues with >> >>>>>>>different solutions; but based around delivery of common standards, >> >>>>>>>using common science (hydrology, engineering etc). In addition there
will be government funding to ensure that areas with better current >> >>>>>>>current systems do not get penalised by having to fund less effective
current systems in other areas. At the end of the day of course
ongoing work will need tobe funded equitably over all of New Zealand.
Do you have a better alternative?
1. Don't fix something that is not broken.
different bits . . .
2. Don't remove democratic authority from local electors.Why not? It was done for electricity generation and distribution, and >> >>>>>worked well for a long time.
Electricity department to Govern met-owned SOEs (hint both are run by >> >>>>Government appointed people) with the Water reforms (currently run by >> >>>>elected local bodies, to be run by unelected directors and Maori Iwi)? >> >>>
Zealand. That is co-management National style . . .
co-management by any definition. So finally you agree that co-management >> >>is
not co-governance. Whew, that took a while.
You have provided no detail of any of the above and neither has any of our
One of the early posts in this thread said "there are 55,000 houses in >> >>>at risk of flooding areas. Looks like it has been happening for many
Any comparison is absurd and shows your support of Water reforms
legislation is reaching new levels of irrationality.
Supply and disposal to standards set by government do not require the >> >>>>Water reforms currently enacted. Said standards are being implemented >> >>>>now and the majority of existing local authorities either exceed, meet >> >>>>or nearly meet them.3/5 waters is all about political power, it is not actually aboutNo, it is about supply and disposal to standards set by government. >> >>>>
water
at
its
root.
moons."
We know that many rivers are unfit for swimming in, let alone drinking >> >>>any of the water - there are warnings that gods may die for many
rivers. Water in small Canterbury towns is causing illness in infants >> >>>from excessive nitrates from cattle farming. Water quality in Havelock >> >>>North is not yet meeting standards consistently - remember those that >> >>>died while Lawrence Yule was mayor? Quantity of water is an issue in
some regions - they have trucks to supply water during the dry season. >> >>>Many areas have large amounts of sewage water mixing with stormwater - >> >>>in Auckland fixing that is estimated to cost millions, and little work >> >>>has been done so far. Wellington suffers from vry old underground
pipes that burst more eften than anyone would like; Christchurch had a >> >>>large amount of new underground services but is still having problems >> >>>in some areas.
ministers and until you and they do it is just scotch mist.
Not-proven and not even demonstrated. Exatly how much work is needed?
You can bury your head in the sand as much as you like, but there is a >> >>>lot of work to do to meet acceptable standards for water suppply,
quality, and disposal.
Detail
please.
The treaty is silent about water and you have never shown otherwise.
The Water reforms legislation introducesI am glad you agree that centralisation will provide some benefits - I >> >>>see them as also providing a consistent standard for all communities
centralisation (not a bad thing in principle) and co-governance
(totally replacing elected local body control with unelected and
racially-biased boards of directors).
(the equal opportunity principle), and a greater flexibility to meet
different needs with greater shared expertise and resources. The
structures should also avoid the need for the problems of the
FOreshore and Seabed legislation - my view is that once agreed,
arrnagments should be recognised by the Waitangi Tribunal as being a
full and final settlement in relation to most water rights under the
Treaty.
Electricity is not co-governed and it is nothing to do with 3.5 waters or
Rich, this is another example of your trend to increasingly irrational >> >>>>justifications of the Water reforms.
They are more rational than the Bradford reforms of electricity - I do >> >>>think there should have been a higher percentage than 50% to restrict >> >>>any future government from privatising water resources; sadly National >> >>>voted against that, but the percentage could have been lower than 75%. >> >>>There is therefore a greater risk than there should have been in
electing a government that may wish to continue with privatisation to >> >>>pay off supporters; that may well hurt National and ACT at the next
election.
he
puapua or power grabs by a minority.
The two words are used interchangeably by you and by others Tony,
- a
small undernourished rat could be the provider.
butI never mentioned sovereignty, why do you think that is pertinent? Oh, I >>see,
niether represent sovereignity - but National's changes to the
electricity market certainly ended up with an unwanted focus on
profits for shareholders.
it isn't - just another brain fart.
As for profit, your government have been coining it for the past 5 years and
seem entirely happy to have done so - otherwise they would have done >>something
about their majority shareholdings - would they not? Eh?
Which is entirely off topic.
It is a little bit away from a subdivision on flood-prone land though.
Auckland during Phil Goofs excuse for a mayor:)
cannot expect us to follow his idiotic excuse for logic.
On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 5:13:57 PM UTC+13, Tony wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Sorry Tony. But for once in this thread Rich is actually ON topic! I'm surprised as you but the thread is about 55,000 houses built on flood plains in Auckland during Phil Goofs excuse for a mayor:)
On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 02:31:35 -0000 (UTC), TonyNot by me you lying prick, not by me. You really do need a brain transplant - a
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 11:43:06 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>That is not co-governance and you appear to agree because you used the word
wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 22:12:09 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>The Generating companies are 49% owned by private shareholders - they
wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 01:41:35 -0000 (UTC), TonyRich are you serious? How can you equate the change from an
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:There is a lot that is broken however - hard to separate a system into >> >>>>>different bits . . .
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 13:09:31 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >> >>>>>>>wrote:I don't know about Crash, but I do.
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 12:44:22 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >> >>>>>>>>wrote:I was using rates as a generic term - it could be by Council rates
On 11 Feb 2023 20:32:09 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/131196837/for-sale-new-warm-and-dry-homes-the-catch-theyre-in-a-flood-plain-and-the-flood-is-coming-sooner-than-you-think
We have had the discussion of the proposed subdivision in a flod >> >>>>>>>>>>prone
are a
recently.
Looks like it is s drop in the bucket, there are 55,000 houses in at
risk of
flooding areas. Looks like it has been happening for many moons. >> >>>>>>>>>>
Amazing the power of lack of memory, optomisim, and greed.
Certainly there is much to answer for from those that denied that >> >>>>>>>>>Climate Change would affect us, The extent of the change has however
been greater than scientists would have predicted when many of these
houses developed, and it is clear now that our stormwater systems are
inadequate; Watercare has been doing a lot of good work, but they need
a much larger budget. Three Waters offers the possibility of
GOvernment sharing both the responsibility and the funding - National
want it to all stay with Local Councils - how much will Auckland Rates
have to increase if Nationl gets in at the next election?
What is it that leads you to believe that if local councils cannot >> >>>>>>>>fund water asset maintenance that a rates increase is required?
(based on property values) or increases in water charges - to a
certain extent that would be up to Auckland. Initial capital may be by
borrowing (and also bear in mind that local authority issued stock is >> >>>>>>>likely to be say 0.25% more expensive), increases to rates are likely >> >>>>>>>to be needed to fund repayment of borrowing. How else would the work >> >>>>>>>be funded if National were to be elected in November?
IAnd National's policy (almost its only policy) is to reduce teh top >> >>>>>>>tax rate.
could equally postulate on how much tax rates will rise to fund Water
Entities doing the same development. The money has to come from
somewhere - either increased taxes or increased rates.
The differenceWhich sounds just like Watercare - what is the difference, Crash?
is that local bodies own and fund existing water assets and are run by
those elected to do so by ratepayers. Water entities are new,
forcibly acquire existing water assets, and are run entirely by
appointed directors.
There are water asset management and operation issues in some parts of
NZ. Labour have legislated a nationwide one-size-fits-all solution >> >>>>>>>>(well-run and resourced water assets taken from the local bodies that
have no issues) with other totally undesirable and undemocratic
governance issues.
There will be fewer Water organisations, enabling a deeper strength of
expertise, greater cooperation between different areas, so a sharing >> >>>>>>>of expertise and possibly some equipment, but not one-size fits all >> >>>>>>>by any means - different locations have different water issues with >> >>>>>>>different solutions; but based around delivery of common standards, >> >>>>>>>using common science (hydrology, engineering etc). In addition there >> >>>>>>>will be government funding to ensure that areas with better current >> >>>>>>>current systems do not get penalised by having to fund less effective >> >>>>>>>current systems in other areas. At the end of the day of course
ongoing work will need tobe funded equitably over all of New Zealand. >> >>>>>>>Do you have a better alternative?
1. Don't fix something that is not broken.
2. Don't remove democratic authority from local electors.Why not? It was done for electricity generation and distribution, and >> >>>>>worked well for a long time.
Electricity department to Govern met-owned SOEs (hint both are run by
Government appointed people) with the Water reforms (currently run by
elected local bodies, to be run by unelected directors and Maori Iwi)? >> >>>
are run to maximise return to shareholders. Yes that are co-managed -
with Directors representing share investors, not the people of New
Zealand. That is co-management National style . . .
co-management by any definition. So finally you agree that co-management is
not co-governance. Whew, that took a while.
You have provided no detail of any of the above and neither has any of our >> >>ministers and until you and they do it is just scotch mist.
One of the early posts in this thread said "there are 55,000 houses in
Any comparison is absurd and shows your support of Water reforms
legislation is reaching new levels of irrationality.
3/5 waters is all about political power, it is not actually about waterNo, it is about supply and disposal to standards set by government.
at
its
root.
Supply and disposal to standards set by government do not require the
Water reforms currently enacted. Said standards are being implemented
now and the majority of existing local authorities either exceed, meet >> >>>>or nearly meet them.
at risk of flooding areas. Looks like it has been happening for many
moons."
We know that many rivers are unfit for swimming in, let alone drinking
any of the water - there are warnings that gods may die for many
rivers. Water in small Canterbury towns is causing illness in infants
from excessive nitrates from cattle farming. Water quality in Havelock
North is not yet meeting standards consistently - remember those that
died while Lawrence Yule was mayor? Quantity of water is an issue in
some regions - they have trucks to supply water during the dry season.
Many areas have large amounts of sewage water mixing with stormwater -
in Auckland fixing that is estimated to cost millions, and little work
has been done so far. Wellington suffers from vry old underground
pipes that burst more eften than anyone would like; Christchurch had a
large amount of new underground services but is still having problems
in some areas.
Not-proven and not even demonstrated. Exatly how much work is needed? Detail
You can bury your head in the sand as much as you like, but there is a
lot of work to do to meet acceptable standards for water suppply,
quality, and disposal.
please.
The treaty is silent about water and you have never shown otherwise.
The Water reforms legislation introducesI am glad you agree that centralisation will provide some benefits - I
centralisation (not a bad thing in principle) and co-governance
(totally replacing elected local body control with unelected and
racially-biased boards of directors).
see them as also providing a consistent standard for all communities
(the equal opportunity principle), and a greater flexibility to meet
different needs with greater shared expertise and resources. The
structures should also avoid the need for the problems of the
FOreshore and Seabed legislation - my view is that once agreed,
arrnagments should be recognised by the Waitangi Tribunal as being a
full and final settlement in relation to most water rights under the
Treaty.
Electricity is not co-governed and it is nothing to do with 3.5 waters or he
Rich, this is another example of your trend to increasingly irrational >> >>>>justifications of the Water reforms.
They are more rational than the Bradford reforms of electricity - I do
think there should have been a higher percentage than 50% to restrict
any future government from privatising water resources; sadly National
voted against that, but the percentage could have been lower than 75%.
There is therefore a greater risk than there should have been in
electing a government that may wish to continue with privatisation to
pay off supporters; that may well hurt National and ACT at the next
election.
puapua or power grabs by a minority.
The two words are used interchangeably by you and by others Tony,
small undernourished rat could be the provider.
butI never mentioned sovereignty, why do you think that is pertinent? Oh, I see,
niether represent sovereignity - but National's changes to the
electricity market certainly ended up with an unwanted focus on
profits for shareholders.
it isn't - just another brain fart.
As for profit, your government have been coining it for the past 5 years and >> seem entirely happy to have done so - otherwise they would have done something
about their majority shareholdings - would they not? Eh?
Which is entirely off topic.
It is a little bit away from a subdivision on flood-prone land though.
On 2023-02-13, John Bowes <bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 5:13:57 PM UTC+13, Tony wrote:I'm lost. The topic was about the 55,000 homes built in flood plans in Auckland. Sovereignity, National selling 49% of the electricty supply, and the words co-goverance and co-management which has very little to do with the stupidity of of people, in this case building houses in flood prone land.
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Sorry Tony. But for once in this thread Rich is actually ON topic! I'm surprised as you but the thread is about 55,000 houses built on flood plains
On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 02:31:35 -0000 (UTC), TonyNot by me you lying prick, not by me. You really do need a brain transplant - a
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 11:43:06 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >> >>>wrote:That is not co-governance and you appear to agree because you used the word
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 22:12:09 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >> >>>>wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 01:41:35 -0000 (UTC), TonyRich are you serious? How can you equate the change from an
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:There is a lot that is broken however - hard to separate a system into
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 13:09:31 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>I don't know about Crash, but I do.
wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 12:44:22 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>certain extent that would be up to Auckland. Initial capital may be by
wrote:
On 11 Feb 2023 20:32:09 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/131196837/for-sale-new-warm-and-dry-homes-the-catch-theyre-in-a-flood-plain-and-the-flood-is-coming-sooner-than-you-think
We have had the discussion of the proposed subdivision in a flod
prone
are a
recently.
Looks like it is s drop in the bucket, there are 55,000 houses in at
risk of
flooding areas. Looks like it has been happening for many moons.
Amazing the power of lack of memory, optomisim, and greed.
Certainly there is much to answer for from those that denied that
Climate Change would affect us, The extent of the change has however
been greater than scientists would have predicted when many of these
houses developed, and it is clear now that our stormwater systems are
inadequate; Watercare has been doing a lot of good work, but they need
a much larger budget. Three Waters offers the possibility of
GOvernment sharing both the responsibility and the funding - National
want it to all stay with Local Councils - how much will Auckland Rates
have to increase if Nationl gets in at the next election?
What is it that leads you to believe that if local councils cannot
fund water asset maintenance that a rates increase is required? >> >>>>>>>I was using rates as a generic term - it could be by Council rates >> >>>>>>>(based on property values) or increases in water charges - to a
borrowing (and also bear in mind that local authority issued stock is
likely to be say 0.25% more expensive), increases to rates are likely
to be needed to fund repayment of borrowing. How else would the work
be funded if National were to be elected in November?
IAnd National's policy (almost its only policy) is to reduce teh top
could equally postulate on how much tax rates will rise to fund Water
Entities doing the same development. The money has to come from >> >>>>>>>>somewhere - either increased taxes or increased rates.
tax rate.
The differenceWhich sounds just like Watercare - what is the difference, Crash? >> >>>>>>>
is that local bodies own and fund existing water assets and are run by
those elected to do so by ratepayers. Water entities are new,
forcibly acquire existing water assets, and are run entirely by >> >>>>>>>>appointed directors.
There are water asset management and operation issues in some parts of
NZ. Labour have legislated a nationwide one-size-fits-all solution
(well-run and resourced water assets taken from the local bodies that
have no issues) with other totally undesirable and undemocratic >> >>>>>>>>governance issues.
There will be fewer Water organisations, enabling a deeper strength of
expertise, greater cooperation between different areas, so a sharing
of expertise and possibly some equipment, but not one-size fits all
by any means - different locations have different water issues with
different solutions; but based around delivery of common standards,
using common science (hydrology, engineering etc). In addition there
will be government funding to ensure that areas with better current
current systems do not get penalised by having to fund less effective
current systems in other areas. At the end of the day of course
ongoing work will need tobe funded equitably over all of New Zealand.
Do you have a better alternative?
1. Don't fix something that is not broken.
different bits . . .
2. Don't remove democratic authority from local electors.Why not? It was done for electricity generation and distribution, and
worked well for a long time.
Electricity department to Govern met-owned SOEs (hint both are run by >> >>>>Government appointed people) with the Water reforms (currently run by >> >>>>elected local bodies, to be run by unelected directors and Maori Iwi)?
The Generating companies are 49% owned by private shareholders - they >> >>>are run to maximise return to shareholders. Yes that are co-managed - >> >>>with Directors representing share investors, not the people of New
Zealand. That is co-management National style . . .
co-management by any definition. So finally you agree that co-management is
not co-governance. Whew, that took a while.
You have provided no detail of any of the above and neither has any of our
One of the early posts in this thread said "there are 55,000 houses in >> >>>at risk of flooding areas. Looks like it has been happening for many >> >>>moons."
Any comparison is absurd and shows your support of Water reforms
legislation is reaching new levels of irrationality.
Supply and disposal to standards set by government do not require the >> >>>>Water reforms currently enacted. Said standards are being implemented >> >>>>now and the majority of existing local authorities either exceed, meet3/5 waters is all about political power, it is not actually about waterNo, it is about supply and disposal to standards set by government. >> >>>>
at
its
root.
or nearly meet them.
We know that many rivers are unfit for swimming in, let alone drinking >> >>>any of the water - there are warnings that gods may die for many
rivers. Water in small Canterbury towns is causing illness in infants >> >>>from excessive nitrates from cattle farming. Water quality in Havelock >> >>>North is not yet meeting standards consistently - remember those that >> >>>died while Lawrence Yule was mayor? Quantity of water is an issue in >> >>>some regions - they have trucks to supply water during the dry season. >> >>>Many areas have large amounts of sewage water mixing with stormwater - >> >>>in Auckland fixing that is estimated to cost millions, and little work >> >>>has been done so far. Wellington suffers from vry old underground
pipes that burst more eften than anyone would like; Christchurch had a >> >>>large amount of new underground services but is still having problems >> >>>in some areas.
ministers and until you and they do it is just scotch mist.
Not-proven and not even demonstrated. Exatly how much work is needed? Detail
You can bury your head in the sand as much as you like, but there is a >> >>>lot of work to do to meet acceptable standards for water suppply,
quality, and disposal.
please.
The treaty is silent about water and you have never shown otherwise.
The Water reforms legislation introducesI am glad you agree that centralisation will provide some benefits - I >> >>>see them as also providing a consistent standard for all communities >> >>>(the equal opportunity principle), and a greater flexibility to meet >> >>>different needs with greater shared expertise and resources. The
centralisation (not a bad thing in principle) and co-governance
(totally replacing elected local body control with unelected and
racially-biased boards of directors).
structures should also avoid the need for the problems of the
FOreshore and Seabed legislation - my view is that once agreed,
arrnagments should be recognised by the Waitangi Tribunal as being a >> >>>full and final settlement in relation to most water rights under the >> >>>Treaty.
Electricity is not co-governed and it is nothing to do with 3.5 waters or he
Rich, this is another example of your trend to increasingly irrational
justifications of the Water reforms.
They are more rational than the Bradford reforms of electricity - I do >> >>>think there should have been a higher percentage than 50% to restrict >> >>>any future government from privatising water resources; sadly National >> >>>voted against that, but the percentage could have been lower than 75%. >> >>>There is therefore a greater risk than there should have been in
electing a government that may wish to continue with privatisation to >> >>>pay off supporters; that may well hurt National and ACT at the next
election.
puapua or power grabs by a minority.
The two words are used interchangeably by you and by others Tony,
small undernourished rat could be the provider.
butI never mentioned sovereignty, why do you think that is pertinent? Oh, I see,
niether represent sovereignity - but National's changes to the
electricity market certainly ended up with an unwanted focus on
profits for shareholders.
it isn't - just another brain fart.
As for profit, your government have been coining it for the past 5 years and
seem entirely happy to have done so - otherwise they would have done something
about their majority shareholdings - would they not? Eh?
It is a little bit away from a subdivision on flood-prone land though. >> Which is entirely off topic.
in Auckland during Phil Goofs excuse for a mayor:)
On 2023-02-13, John Bowes <bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 5:13:57 PM UTC+13, Tony wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Sorry Tony. But for once in this thread Rich is actually ON topic! I'm
On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 02:31:35 -0000 (UTC), TonyNot by me you lying prick, not by me. You really do need a brain transplant - a
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 11:43:06 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >>> >>>wrote:That is not co-governance and you appear to agree because you used the word
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 22:12:09 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>The Generating companies are 49% owned by private shareholders - they >>> >>>are run to maximise return to shareholders. Yes that are co-managed - >>> >>>with Directors representing share investors, not the people of New
wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 01:41:35 -0000 (UTC), TonyRich are you serious? How can you equate the change from an
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:There is a lot that is broken however - hard to separate a system into >>> >>>>>different bits . . .
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 13:09:31 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>I don't know about Crash, but I do.
wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 12:44:22 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>> >>>>>>>>wrote:I was using rates as a generic term - it could be by Council rates >>> >>>>>>>(based on property values) or increases in water charges - to a
On 11 Feb 2023 20:32:09 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>> >>>>>>>>>
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/131196837/for-sale-new-warm-and-dry-homes-the-catch-theyre-in-a-flood-plain-and-the-flood-is-coming-sooner-than-you-think
We have had the discussion of the proposed subdivision in a flod >>> >>>>>>>>>>prone
are a
recently.
Looks like it is s drop in the bucket, there are 55,000 houses in at
risk of
flooding areas. Looks like it has been happening for many moons. >>> >>>>>>>>>>
Amazing the power of lack of memory, optomisim, and greed.
Certainly there is much to answer for from those that denied that >>> >>>>>>>>>Climate Change would affect us, The extent of the change has however
been greater than scientists would have predicted when many of these
houses developed, and it is clear now that our stormwater systems are
inadequate; Watercare has been doing a lot of good work, but they need
a much larger budget. Three Waters offers the possibility of
GOvernment sharing both the responsibility and the funding - National
want it to all stay with Local Councils - how much will Auckland Rates
have to increase if Nationl gets in at the next election?
What is it that leads you to believe that if local councils cannot >>> >>>>>>>>fund water asset maintenance that a rates increase is required?
certain extent that would be up to Auckland. Initial capital may be by
borrowing (and also bear in mind that local authority issued stock is
likely to be say 0.25% more expensive), increases to rates are likely
to be needed to fund repayment of borrowing. How else would the work >>> >>>>>>>be funded if National were to be elected in November?
IAnd National's policy (almost its only policy) is to reduce teh top >>> >>>>>>>tax rate.
could equally postulate on how much tax rates will rise to fund Water
Entities doing the same development. The money has to come from
somewhere - either increased taxes or increased rates.
The differenceWhich sounds just like Watercare - what is the difference, Crash? >>> >>>>>>>
is that local bodies own and fund existing water assets and are run by
those elected to do so by ratepayers. Water entities are new,
forcibly acquire existing water assets, and are run entirely by
appointed directors.
There are water asset management and operation issues in some parts of
NZ. Labour have legislated a nationwide one-size-fits-all solution >>> >>>>>>>>(well-run and resourced water assets taken from the local bodies that
have no issues) with other totally undesirable and undemocratic
governance issues.
There will be fewer Water organisations, enabling a deeper strength of
expertise, greater cooperation between different areas, so a sharing >>> >>>>>>>of expertise and possibly some equipment, but not one-size fits all >>> >>>>>>>by any means - different locations have different water issues with >>> >>>>>>>different solutions; but based around delivery of common standards, >>> >>>>>>>using common science (hydrology, engineering etc). In addition there >>> >>>>>>>will be government funding to ensure that areas with better current >>> >>>>>>>current systems do not get penalised by having to fund less effective
current systems in other areas. At the end of the day of course
ongoing work will need tobe funded equitably over all of New Zealand.
Do you have a better alternative?
1. Don't fix something that is not broken.
2. Don't remove democratic authority from local electors.Why not? It was done for electricity generation and distribution, and >>> >>>>>worked well for a long time.
Electricity department to Govern met-owned SOEs (hint both are run by >>> >>>>Government appointed people) with the Water reforms (currently run by >>> >>>>elected local bodies, to be run by unelected directors and Maori Iwi)? >>> >>>
Zealand. That is co-management National style . . .
co-management by any definition. So finally you agree that co-management is
not co-governance. Whew, that took a while.
You have provided no detail of any of the above and neither has any of our
One of the early posts in this thread said "there are 55,000 houses in >>> >>>at risk of flooding areas. Looks like it has been happening for many
Any comparison is absurd and shows your support of Water reforms
legislation is reaching new levels of irrationality.
Supply and disposal to standards set by government do not require the >>> >>>>Water reforms currently enacted. Said standards are being implemented >>> >>>>now and the majority of existing local authorities either exceed, meet >>> >>>>or nearly meet them.3/5 waters is all about political power, it is not actually about waterNo, it is about supply and disposal to standards set by government. >>> >>>>
at
its
root.
moons."
We know that many rivers are unfit for swimming in, let alone drinking >>> >>>any of the water - there are warnings that gods may die for many
rivers. Water in small Canterbury towns is causing illness in infants >>> >>>from excessive nitrates from cattle farming. Water quality in Havelock >>> >>>North is not yet meeting standards consistently - remember those that >>> >>>died while Lawrence Yule was mayor? Quantity of water is an issue in
some regions - they have trucks to supply water during the dry season. >>> >>>Many areas have large amounts of sewage water mixing with stormwater - >>> >>>in Auckland fixing that is estimated to cost millions, and little work >>> >>>has been done so far. Wellington suffers from vry old underground
pipes that burst more eften than anyone would like; Christchurch had a >>> >>>large amount of new underground services but is still having problems >>> >>>in some areas.
ministers and until you and they do it is just scotch mist.
Not-proven and not even demonstrated. Exatly how much work is needed? Detail
You can bury your head in the sand as much as you like, but there is a >>> >>>lot of work to do to meet acceptable standards for water suppply,
quality, and disposal.
please.
The treaty is silent about water and you have never shown otherwise.
The Water reforms legislation introducesI am glad you agree that centralisation will provide some benefits - I >>> >>>see them as also providing a consistent standard for all communities
centralisation (not a bad thing in principle) and co-governance
(totally replacing elected local body control with unelected and
racially-biased boards of directors).
(the equal opportunity principle), and a greater flexibility to meet
different needs with greater shared expertise and resources. The
structures should also avoid the need for the problems of the
FOreshore and Seabed legislation - my view is that once agreed,
arrnagments should be recognised by the Waitangi Tribunal as being a
full and final settlement in relation to most water rights under the
Treaty.
Electricity is not co-governed and it is nothing to do with 3.5 waters or he
Rich, this is another example of your trend to increasingly irrational >>> >>>>justifications of the Water reforms.
They are more rational than the Bradford reforms of electricity - I do >>> >>>think there should have been a higher percentage than 50% to restrict >>> >>>any future government from privatising water resources; sadly National >>> >>>voted against that, but the percentage could have been lower than 75%. >>> >>>There is therefore a greater risk than there should have been in
electing a government that may wish to continue with privatisation to >>> >>>pay off supporters; that may well hurt National and ACT at the next
election.
puapua or power grabs by a minority.
The two words are used interchangeably by you and by others Tony,
small undernourished rat could be the provider.
butI never mentioned sovereignty, why do you think that is pertinent? Oh, I see,
niether represent sovereignity - but National's changes to the
electricity market certainly ended up with an unwanted focus on
profits for shareholders.
it isn't - just another brain fart.
As for profit, your government have been coining it for the past 5 years and
seem entirely happy to have done so - otherwise they would have done something
about their majority shareholdings - would they not? Eh?
Which is entirely off topic.
It is a little bit away from a subdivision on flood-prone land though.
surprised as you but the thread is about 55,000 houses built on flood plains >> in Auckland during Phil Goofs excuse for a mayor:)
I'm lost. The topic was about the 55,000 homes built in flood plans in >Auckland. Sovereignity, National selling 49% of the electricty supply, and >the words co-goverance and co-management which has very little to do with
the stupidity of of people, in this case building houses in flood prone land.
On 13 Feb 2023 06:31:14 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:As usual you keep pushing stupid to the limits Rich:)
On 2023-02-13, John Bowes <bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 5:13:57 PM UTC+13, Tony wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Sorry Tony. But for once in this thread Rich is actually ON topic! I'm
On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 02:31:35 -0000 (UTC), TonyNot by me you lying prick, not by me. You really do need a brain transplant - a
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 11:43:06 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >>> >>>wrote:That is not co-governance and you appear to agree because you used the word
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 22:12:09 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>> >>>>wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 01:41:35 -0000 (UTC), TonyRich are you serious? How can you equate the change from an
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:There is a lot that is broken however - hard to separate a system into
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 13:09:31 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>I don't know about Crash, but I do.
wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 12:44:22 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>(based on property values) or increases in water charges - to a >>> >>>>>>>certain extent that would be up to Auckland. Initial capital may be by
wrote:
On 11 Feb 2023 20:32:09 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>> >>>>>>>>>
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/131196837/for-sale-new-warm-and-dry-homes-the-catch-theyre-in-a-flood-plain-and-the-flood-is-coming-sooner-than-you-think
We have had the discussion of the proposed subdivision in a flod
prone
are a
recently.
Looks like it is s drop in the bucket, there are 55,000 houses in at
risk of
flooding areas. Looks like it has been happening for many moons.
Amazing the power of lack of memory, optomisim, and greed.
Certainly there is much to answer for from those that denied that
Climate Change would affect us, The extent of the change has however
been greater than scientists would have predicted when many of these
houses developed, and it is clear now that our stormwater systems are
inadequate; Watercare has been doing a lot of good work, but they need
a much larger budget. Three Waters offers the possibility of >>> >>>>>>>>>GOvernment sharing both the responsibility and the funding - National
want it to all stay with Local Councils - how much will Auckland Rates
have to increase if Nationl gets in at the next election?
What is it that leads you to believe that if local councils cannot
fund water asset maintenance that a rates increase is required? >>> >>>>>>>I was using rates as a generic term - it could be by Council rates
borrowing (and also bear in mind that local authority issued stock is
likely to be say 0.25% more expensive), increases to rates are likely
to be needed to fund repayment of borrowing. How else would the work
be funded if National were to be elected in November?
IAnd National's policy (almost its only policy) is to reduce teh top
could equally postulate on how much tax rates will rise to fund Water
Entities doing the same development. The money has to come from >>> >>>>>>>>somewhere - either increased taxes or increased rates.
tax rate.
The differenceWhich sounds just like Watercare - what is the difference, Crash? >>> >>>>>>>
is that local bodies own and fund existing water assets and are run by
those elected to do so by ratepayers. Water entities are new, >>> >>>>>>>>forcibly acquire existing water assets, and are run entirely by >>> >>>>>>>>appointed directors.
There are water asset management and operation issues in some parts of
NZ. Labour have legislated a nationwide one-size-fits-all solution
(well-run and resourced water assets taken from the local bodies that
have no issues) with other totally undesirable and undemocratic >>> >>>>>>>>governance issues.
There will be fewer Water organisations, enabling a deeper strength of
expertise, greater cooperation between different areas, so a sharing
of expertise and possibly some equipment, but not one-size fits all
by any means - different locations have different water issues with
different solutions; but based around delivery of common standards,
using common science (hydrology, engineering etc). In addition there
will be government funding to ensure that areas with better current
current systems do not get penalised by having to fund less effective
current systems in other areas. At the end of the day of course >>> >>>>>>>ongoing work will need tobe funded equitably over all of New Zealand.
Do you have a better alternative?
1. Don't fix something that is not broken.
different bits . . .
2. Don't remove democratic authority from local electors.Why not? It was done for electricity generation and distribution, and
worked well for a long time.
Electricity department to Govern met-owned SOEs (hint both are run by
Government appointed people) with the Water reforms (currently run by
elected local bodies, to be run by unelected directors and Maori Iwi)?
The Generating companies are 49% owned by private shareholders - they >>> >>>are run to maximise return to shareholders. Yes that are co-managed - >>> >>>with Directors representing share investors, not the people of New >>> >>>Zealand. That is co-management National style . . .
co-management by any definition. So finally you agree that co-management is
not co-governance. Whew, that took a while.
You have provided no detail of any of the above and neither has any of our
One of the early posts in this thread said "there are 55,000 houses in
Any comparison is absurd and shows your support of Water reforms
legislation is reaching new levels of irrationality.
Supply and disposal to standards set by government do not require the3/5 waters is all about political power, it is not actually about waterNo, it is about supply and disposal to standards set by government. >>> >>>>
at
its
root.
Water reforms currently enacted. Said standards are being implemented
now and the majority of existing local authorities either exceed, meet
or nearly meet them.
at risk of flooding areas. Looks like it has been happening for many >>> >>>moons."
We know that many rivers are unfit for swimming in, let alone drinking
any of the water - there are warnings that gods may die for many
rivers. Water in small Canterbury towns is causing illness in infants >>> >>>from excessive nitrates from cattle farming. Water quality in Havelock
North is not yet meeting standards consistently - remember those that >>> >>>died while Lawrence Yule was mayor? Quantity of water is an issue in >>> >>>some regions - they have trucks to supply water during the dry season.
Many areas have large amounts of sewage water mixing with stormwater -
in Auckland fixing that is estimated to cost millions, and little work
has been done so far. Wellington suffers from vry old underground
pipes that burst more eften than anyone would like; Christchurch had a
large amount of new underground services but is still having problems >>> >>>in some areas.
ministers and until you and they do it is just scotch mist.
Not-proven and not even demonstrated. Exatly how much work is needed? Detail
You can bury your head in the sand as much as you like, but there is a
lot of work to do to meet acceptable standards for water suppply,
quality, and disposal.
please.
The treaty is silent about water and you have never shown otherwise. >>> >>>
The Water reforms legislation introducesI am glad you agree that centralisation will provide some benefits - I
centralisation (not a bad thing in principle) and co-governance
(totally replacing elected local body control with unelected and
racially-biased boards of directors).
see them as also providing a consistent standard for all communities >>> >>>(the equal opportunity principle), and a greater flexibility to meet >>> >>>different needs with greater shared expertise and resources. The
structures should also avoid the need for the problems of the
FOreshore and Seabed legislation - my view is that once agreed,
arrnagments should be recognised by the Waitangi Tribunal as being a >>> >>>full and final settlement in relation to most water rights under the >>> >>>Treaty.
Electricity is not co-governed and it is nothing to do with 3.5 waters or he
Rich, this is another example of your trend to increasingly irrational
justifications of the Water reforms.
They are more rational than the Bradford reforms of electricity - I do
think there should have been a higher percentage than 50% to restrict >>> >>>any future government from privatising water resources; sadly National
voted against that, but the percentage could have been lower than 75%.
There is therefore a greater risk than there should have been in
electing a government that may wish to continue with privatisation to >>> >>>pay off supporters; that may well hurt National and ACT at the next >>> >>>election.
puapua or power grabs by a minority.
The two words are used interchangeably by you and by others Tony,
small undernourished rat could be the provider.
butI never mentioned sovereignty, why do you think that is pertinent? Oh, I see,
niether represent sovereignity - but National's changes to the
electricity market certainly ended up with an unwanted focus on
profits for shareholders.
it isn't - just another brain fart.
As for profit, your government have been coining it for the past 5 years and
seem entirely happy to have done so - otherwise they would have done something
about their majority shareholdings - would they not? Eh?
It is a little bit away from a subdivision on flood-prone land though. >>> Which is entirely off topic.
surprised as you but the thread is about 55,000 houses built on flood plains
in Auckland during Phil Goofs excuse for a mayor:)
I'm lost. The topic was about the 55,000 homes built in flood plans in >Auckland. Sovereignity, National selling 49% of the electricty supply, and >the words co-goverance and co-management which has very little to do with >the stupidity of of people, in this case building houses in flood prone land.The Subject of the thread appeared to be saying that, knowing we have
a problem, we are stupid if we keep doing the same thing. The issue is
then what actions would indicate lower levels of stupidity. It is
clearly not about any particular mayors term of office - houses have
been built on marginal land / flood plains / hills prone to slippage
for a long time. Following a major flooding event, it is logical to
think about how to prevent such damage in future - and the most
obvious problem is that stormwater systems are not adequate. Some of
course claim that these exceptional events are unique and unlikely to
happen again - there may be flooding over the next few days to put
that attitude perspective, but it is clear that when houses are being flooded multiple times some things are not as good as they should be - giving a lie to those claiming that Watercare in Auckland was meeting
all requirements.
On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 9:51:01 PM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:only links to your continued pushing of a stupid and antidemocratic political agenda as usual!
On 13 Feb 2023 06:31:14 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:As usual you keep pushing stupid to the limits Rich:)
On 2023-02-13, John Bowes <bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:The Subject of the thread appeared to be saying that, knowing we have
On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 5:13:57 PM UTC+13, Tony wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Sorry Tony. But for once in this thread Rich is actually ON topic! I'm
On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 02:31:35 -0000 (UTC), TonyNot by me you lying prick, not by me. You really do need a brain transplant - a
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 11:43:06 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >> >>> >>>wrote:That is not co-governance and you appear to agree because you used the word
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 22:12:09 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >> >>> >>>>wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 01:41:35 -0000 (UTC), TonyRich are you serious? How can you equate the change from an
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:There is a lot that is broken however - hard to separate a system into
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 13:09:31 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>I don't know about Crash, but I do.
wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 12:44:22 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>(based on property values) or increases in water charges - to a >> >>> >>>>>>>certain extent that would be up to Auckland. Initial capital may be by
wrote:
On 11 Feb 2023 20:32:09 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/131196837/for-sale-new-warm-and-dry-homes-the-catch-theyre-in-a-flood-plain-and-the-flood-is-coming-sooner-than-you-think
We have had the discussion of the proposed subdivision in a flod
prone
are a
recently.
Looks like it is s drop in the bucket, there are 55,000 houses in at
risk of
flooding areas. Looks like it has been happening for many moons.
Amazing the power of lack of memory, optomisim, and greed.
Certainly there is much to answer for from those that denied that
Climate Change would affect us, The extent of the change has however
been greater than scientists would have predicted when many of these
houses developed, and it is clear now that our stormwater systems are
inadequate; Watercare has been doing a lot of good work, but they need
a much larger budget. Three Waters offers the possibility of
GOvernment sharing both the responsibility and the funding - National
want it to all stay with Local Councils - how much will Auckland Rates
have to increase if Nationl gets in at the next election?
What is it that leads you to believe that if local councils cannot
fund water asset maintenance that a rates increase is required? >> >>> >>>>>>>I was using rates as a generic term - it could be by Council rates
borrowing (and also bear in mind that local authority issued stock is
likely to be say 0.25% more expensive), increases to rates are likely
to be needed to fund repayment of borrowing. How else would the work
be funded if National were to be elected in November?
IAnd National's policy (almost its only policy) is to reduce teh top
could equally postulate on how much tax rates will rise to fund Water
Entities doing the same development. The money has to come from >> >>> >>>>>>>>somewhere - either increased taxes or increased rates.
tax rate.
The differenceWhich sounds just like Watercare - what is the difference, Crash? >> >>> >>>>>>>
is that local bodies own and fund existing water assets and are run by
those elected to do so by ratepayers. Water entities are new,
forcibly acquire existing water assets, and are run entirely by >> >>> >>>>>>>>appointed directors.
There are water asset management and operation issues in some parts of
NZ. Labour have legislated a nationwide one-size-fits-all solution
(well-run and resourced water assets taken from the local bodies that
have no issues) with other totally undesirable and undemocratic >> >>> >>>>>>>>governance issues.
There will be fewer Water organisations, enabling a deeper strength of
expertise, greater cooperation between different areas, so a sharing
of expertise and possibly some equipment, but not one-size fits all
by any means - different locations have different water issues with
different solutions; but based around delivery of common standards,
using common science (hydrology, engineering etc). In addition there
will be government funding to ensure that areas with better current
current systems do not get penalised by having to fund less effective
current systems in other areas. At the end of the day of course >> >>> >>>>>>>ongoing work will need tobe funded equitably over all of New Zealand.
Do you have a better alternative?
1. Don't fix something that is not broken.
different bits . . .
2. Don't remove democratic authority from local electors.Why not? It was done for electricity generation and distribution, and
worked well for a long time.
Electricity department to Govern met-owned SOEs (hint both are run by
Government appointed people) with the Water reforms (currently run by
elected local bodies, to be run by unelected directors and Maori Iwi)?
The Generating companies are 49% owned by private shareholders - they >> >>> >>>are run to maximise return to shareholders. Yes that are co-managed - >> >>> >>>with Directors representing share investors, not the people of New
Zealand. That is co-management National style . . .
co-management by any definition. So finally you agree that co-management is
not co-governance. Whew, that took a while.
You have provided no detail of any of the above and neither has any of our
One of the early posts in this thread said "there are 55,000 houses in
Any comparison is absurd and shows your support of Water reforms
legislation is reaching new levels of irrationality.
Supply and disposal to standards set by government do not require the3/5 waters is all about political power, it is not actually about waterNo, it is about supply and disposal to standards set by government. >> >>> >>>>
at
its
root.
Water reforms currently enacted. Said standards are being implemented
now and the majority of existing local authorities either exceed, meet
or nearly meet them.
at risk of flooding areas. Looks like it has been happening for many >> >>> >>>moons."
We know that many rivers are unfit for swimming in, let alone drinking
any of the water - there are warnings that gods may die for many
rivers. Water in small Canterbury towns is causing illness in infants >> >>> >>>from excessive nitrates from cattle farming. Water quality in Havelock
North is not yet meeting standards consistently - remember those that >> >>> >>>died while Lawrence Yule was mayor? Quantity of water is an issue in >> >>> >>>some regions - they have trucks to supply water during the dry season.
Many areas have large amounts of sewage water mixing with stormwater -
in Auckland fixing that is estimated to cost millions, and little work
has been done so far. Wellington suffers from vry old underground
pipes that burst more eften than anyone would like; Christchurch had a
large amount of new underground services but is still having problems >> >>> >>>in some areas.
ministers and until you and they do it is just scotch mist.
Not-proven and not even demonstrated. Exatly how much work is needed? Detail
You can bury your head in the sand as much as you like, but there is a
lot of work to do to meet acceptable standards for water suppply,
quality, and disposal.
please.
The treaty is silent about water and you have never shown otherwise. >> >>> >>>
The Water reforms legislation introducesI am glad you agree that centralisation will provide some benefits - I
centralisation (not a bad thing in principle) and co-governance
(totally replacing elected local body control with unelected and
racially-biased boards of directors).
see them as also providing a consistent standard for all communities >> >>> >>>(the equal opportunity principle), and a greater flexibility to meet >> >>> >>>different needs with greater shared expertise and resources. The
structures should also avoid the need for the problems of the
FOreshore and Seabed legislation - my view is that once agreed,
arrnagments should be recognised by the Waitangi Tribunal as being a >> >>> >>>full and final settlement in relation to most water rights under the >> >>> >>>Treaty.
Electricity is not co-governed and it is nothing to do with 3.5 waters or he
Rich, this is another example of your trend to increasingly irrational
justifications of the Water reforms.
They are more rational than the Bradford reforms of electricity - I do
think there should have been a higher percentage than 50% to restrict >> >>> >>>any future government from privatising water resources; sadly National
voted against that, but the percentage could have been lower than 75%.
There is therefore a greater risk than there should have been in
electing a government that may wish to continue with privatisation to >> >>> >>>pay off supporters; that may well hurt National and ACT at the next >> >>> >>>election.
puapua or power grabs by a minority.
The two words are used interchangeably by you and by others Tony,
small undernourished rat could be the provider.
butI never mentioned sovereignty, why do you think that is pertinent? Oh, I see,
niether represent sovereignity - but National's changes to the
electricity market certainly ended up with an unwanted focus on
profits for shareholders.
it isn't - just another brain fart.
As for profit, your government have been coining it for the past 5 years and
seem entirely happy to have done so - otherwise they would have done something
about their majority shareholdings - would they not? Eh?
It is a little bit away from a subdivision on flood-prone land though. >> >>> Which is entirely off topic.
surprised as you but the thread is about 55,000 houses built on flood plains
in Auckland during Phil Goofs excuse for a mayor:)
I'm lost. The topic was about the 55,000 homes built in flood plans in
Auckland. Sovereignity, National selling 49% of the electricty supply, and >> >the words co-goverance and co-management which has very little to do with >> >the stupidity of of people, in this case building houses in flood prone land.
a problem, we are stupid if we keep doing the same thing. The issue is
then what actions would indicate lower levels of stupidity. It is
clearly not about any particular mayors term of office - houses have
been built on marginal land / flood plains / hills prone to slippage
for a long time. Following a major flooding event, it is logical to
think about how to prevent such damage in future - and the most
obvious problem is that stormwater systems are not adequate. Some of
course claim that these exceptional events are unique and unlikely to
happen again - there may be flooding over the next few days to put
that attitude perspective, but it is clear that when houses are being
flooded multiple times some things are not as good as they should be -
giving a lie to those claiming that Watercare in Auckland was meeting
all requirements.
The thread obviously to all except the stupid is about councils giving permission to build on flood plains. Doesn't matter where or when it's something just asking for trouble at later dates. It has absolutely nothing to do with water care anywhere and
On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 02:05:25 -0800 (PST), John Bowesand only links to your continued pushing of a stupid and antidemocratic political agenda as usual!
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 9:51:01 PM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On 13 Feb 2023 06:31:14 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:As usual you keep pushing stupid to the limits Rich:)
On 2023-02-13, John Bowes <bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:The Subject of the thread appeared to be saying that, knowing we have
On Monday, February 13, 2023 at 5:13:57 PM UTC+13, Tony wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Sorry Tony. But for once in this thread Rich is actually ON topic! I'm >> >> surprised as you but the thread is about 55,000 houses built on flood plains
On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 02:31:35 -0000 (UTC), TonyNot by me you lying prick, not by me. You really do need a brain transplant - a
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 11:43:06 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>That is not co-governance and you appear to agree because you used the word
wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 22:12:09 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 01:41:35 -0000 (UTC), TonyRich are you serious? How can you equate the change from an
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:There is a lot that is broken however - hard to separate a system into
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 13:09:31 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>I don't know about Crash, but I do.
wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 12:44:22 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>I was using rates as a generic term - it could be by Council rates
wrote:
On 11 Feb 2023 20:32:09 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/131196837/for-sale-new-warm-and-dry-homes-the-catch-theyre-in-a-flood-plain-and-the-flood-is-coming-sooner-than-you-thinkCertainly there is much to answer for from those that denied that
We have had the discussion of the proposed subdivision in a flod
prone
are a
recently.
Looks like it is s drop in the bucket, there are 55,000 houses in at
risk of
flooding areas. Looks like it has been happening for many moons.
Amazing the power of lack of memory, optomisim, and greed. >> >>> >>>>>>>>>
Climate Change would affect us, The extent of the change has however
been greater than scientists would have predicted when many of these
houses developed, and it is clear now that our stormwater systems are
inadequate; Watercare has been doing a lot of good work, but they need
a much larger budget. Three Waters offers the possibility of >> >>> >>>>>>>>>GOvernment sharing both the responsibility and the funding - National
want it to all stay with Local Councils - how much will Auckland Rates
have to increase if Nationl gets in at the next election?
What is it that leads you to believe that if local councils cannot
fund water asset maintenance that a rates increase is required?
(based on property values) or increases in water charges - to a
certain extent that would be up to Auckland. Initial capital may be by
borrowing (and also bear in mind that local authority issued stock is
likely to be say 0.25% more expensive), increases to rates are likely
to be needed to fund repayment of borrowing. How else would the work
be funded if National were to be elected in November?
IAnd National's policy (almost its only policy) is to reduce teh top
could equally postulate on how much tax rates will rise to fund Water
Entities doing the same development. The money has to come from
somewhere - either increased taxes or increased rates.
tax rate.
The differenceWhich sounds just like Watercare - what is the difference, Crash?
is that local bodies own and fund existing water assets and are run by
those elected to do so by ratepayers. Water entities are new, >> >>> >>>>>>>>forcibly acquire existing water assets, and are run entirely by
appointed directors.
There are water asset management and operation issues in some parts of
NZ. Labour have legislated a nationwide one-size-fits-all solution
(well-run and resourced water assets taken from the local bodies that
have no issues) with other totally undesirable and undemocratic
governance issues.
There will be fewer Water organisations, enabling a deeper strength of
expertise, greater cooperation between different areas, so a sharing
of expertise and possibly some equipment, but not one-size fits all
by any means - different locations have different water issues with
different solutions; but based around delivery of common standards,
using common science (hydrology, engineering etc). In addition there
will be government funding to ensure that areas with better current
current systems do not get penalised by having to fund less effective
current systems in other areas. At the end of the day of course
ongoing work will need tobe funded equitably over all of New Zealand.
Do you have a better alternative?
1. Don't fix something that is not broken.
different bits . . .
2. Don't remove democratic authority from local electors.Why not? It was done for electricity generation and distribution, and
worked well for a long time.
Electricity department to Govern met-owned SOEs (hint both are run by
Government appointed people) with the Water reforms (currently run by
elected local bodies, to be run by unelected directors and Maori Iwi)?
The Generating companies are 49% owned by private shareholders - they
are run to maximise return to shareholders. Yes that are co-managed -
with Directors representing share investors, not the people of New >> >>> >>>Zealand. That is co-management National style . . .
co-management by any definition. So finally you agree that co-management is
not co-governance. Whew, that took a while.
You have provided no detail of any of the above and neither has any of our
One of the early posts in this thread said "there are 55,000 houses in
Any comparison is absurd and shows your support of Water reforms >> >>> >>>>legislation is reaching new levels of irrationality.
3/5 waters is all about political power, it is not actually about waterNo, it is about supply and disposal to standards set by government.
at
its
root.
Supply and disposal to standards set by government do not require the
Water reforms currently enacted. Said standards are being implemented
now and the majority of existing local authorities either exceed, meet
or nearly meet them.
at risk of flooding areas. Looks like it has been happening for many
moons."
We know that many rivers are unfit for swimming in, let alone drinking
any of the water - there are warnings that gods may die for many >> >>> >>>rivers. Water in small Canterbury towns is causing illness in infants
from excessive nitrates from cattle farming. Water quality in Havelock
North is not yet meeting standards consistently - remember those that
died while Lawrence Yule was mayor? Quantity of water is an issue in
some regions - they have trucks to supply water during the dry season.
Many areas have large amounts of sewage water mixing with stormwater -
in Auckland fixing that is estimated to cost millions, and little work
has been done so far. Wellington suffers from vry old underground >> >>> >>>pipes that burst more eften than anyone would like; Christchurch had a
large amount of new underground services but is still having problems
in some areas.
ministers and until you and they do it is just scotch mist.
Not-proven and not even demonstrated. Exatly how much work is needed? Detail
You can bury your head in the sand as much as you like, but there is a
lot of work to do to meet acceptable standards for water suppply, >> >>> >>>quality, and disposal.
please.
The treaty is silent about water and you have never shown otherwise.
The Water reforms legislation introducesI am glad you agree that centralisation will provide some benefits - I
centralisation (not a bad thing in principle) and co-governance >> >>> >>>>(totally replacing elected local body control with unelected and >> >>> >>>>racially-biased boards of directors).
see them as also providing a consistent standard for all communities
(the equal opportunity principle), and a greater flexibility to meet
different needs with greater shared expertise and resources. The >> >>> >>>structures should also avoid the need for the problems of the
FOreshore and Seabed legislation - my view is that once agreed,
arrnagments should be recognised by the Waitangi Tribunal as being a
full and final settlement in relation to most water rights under the
Treaty.
Electricity is not co-governed and it is nothing to do with 3.5 waters or he
Rich, this is another example of your trend to increasingly irrational
justifications of the Water reforms.
They are more rational than the Bradford reforms of electricity - I do
think there should have been a higher percentage than 50% to restrict
any future government from privatising water resources; sadly National
voted against that, but the percentage could have been lower than 75%.
There is therefore a greater risk than there should have been in >> >>> >>>electing a government that may wish to continue with privatisation to
pay off supporters; that may well hurt National and ACT at the next
election.
puapua or power grabs by a minority.
The two words are used interchangeably by you and by others Tony,
small undernourished rat could be the provider.
butI never mentioned sovereignty, why do you think that is pertinent? Oh, I see,
niether represent sovereignity - but National's changes to the
electricity market certainly ended up with an unwanted focus on
profits for shareholders.
it isn't - just another brain fart.
As for profit, your government have been coining it for the past 5 years and
seem entirely happy to have done so - otherwise they would have done something
about their majority shareholdings - would they not? Eh?
Which is entirely off topic.
It is a little bit away from a subdivision on flood-prone land though.
in Auckland during Phil Goofs excuse for a mayor:)
I'm lost. The topic was about the 55,000 homes built in flood plans in >> >Auckland. Sovereignity, National selling 49% of the electricty supply, and
the words co-goverance and co-management which has very little to do with
the stupidity of of people, in this case building houses in flood prone land.
a problem, we are stupid if we keep doing the same thing. The issue is
then what actions would indicate lower levels of stupidity. It is
clearly not about any particular mayors term of office - houses have
been built on marginal land / flood plains / hills prone to slippage
for a long time. Following a major flooding event, it is logical to
think about how to prevent such damage in future - and the most
obvious problem is that stormwater systems are not adequate. Some of
course claim that these exceptional events are unique and unlikely to
happen again - there may be flooding over the next few days to put
that attitude perspective, but it is clear that when houses are being
flooded multiple times some things are not as good as they should be -
giving a lie to those claiming that Watercare in Auckland was meeting
all requirements.
The thread obviously to all except the stupid is about councils giving permission to build on flood plains. Doesn't matter where or when it's something just asking for trouble at later dates. It has absolutely nothing to do with water care anywhere
Our unprecendented weather events of the last few days should haveSort of correct Rich. But if you want to talk about the current crisis start a new fucking thread! This one as Gordon has also pointed out is about the stupidity of Auckland council allowing 55,000 houses on a flood plain! The stupidity is only made
brought to you awareness that the current problems go a long way
beyond houses on a flood plain in Auckland - we have electricity out,
rivers and other flooding, many roads closed. You appear to believe
that the response, and longer term planning which is now needed, have nothing to do with water services. You don't appear to have any idea
of the work now needed, but don't worry, you are not alone -
opposition parties support the calling of a National Emergency; they
have no policies of their own but it is good that the government have
their support, don't you agree?
On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 11:43:06 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 22:12:09 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
The Generating companies are 49% owned by private shareholders - theyOn Sun, 12 Feb 2023 01:41:35 -0000 (UTC), TonyRich are you serious? How can you equate the change from an
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:There is a lot that is broken however - hard to separate a system into >>different bits . . .
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 13:09:31 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >>>>wrote:I don't know about Crash, but I do.
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 12:44:22 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:I was using rates as a generic term - it could be by Council rates >>>>(based on property values) or increases in water charges - to a >>>>certain extent that would be up to Auckland. Initial capital may be by >>>>borrowing (and also bear in mind that local authority issued stock is >>>>likely to be say 0.25% more expensive), increases to rates are likely >>>>to be needed to fund repayment of borrowing. How else would the work >>>>be funded if National were to be elected in November?
On 11 Feb 2023 20:32:09 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/131196837/for-sale-new-warm-and-dry-homes-the-catch-theyre-in-a-flood-plain-and-the-flood-is-coming-sooner-than-you-think
We have had the discussion of the proposed subdivision in a flod prone are a
recently.
Looks like it is s drop in the bucket, there are 55,000 houses in at risk of
flooding areas. Looks like it has been happening for many moons. >>>>>>>
Amazing the power of lack of memory, optomisim, and greed.
Certainly there is much to answer for from those that denied that >>>>>>Climate Change would affect us, The extent of the change has however >>>>>>been greater than scientists would have predicted when many of these >>>>>>houses developed, and it is clear now that our stormwater systems are >>>>>>inadequate; Watercare has been doing a lot of good work, but they need >>>>>>a much larger budget. Three Waters offers the possibility of >>>>>>GOvernment sharing both the responsibility and the funding - National >>>>>>want it to all stay with Local Councils - how much will Auckland Rates >>>>>>have to increase if Nationl gets in at the next election?
What is it that leads you to believe that if local councils cannot >>>>>fund water asset maintenance that a rates increase is required?
IAnd National's policy (almost its only policy) is to reduce teh top >>>>tax rate.
could equally postulate on how much tax rates will rise to fund Water >>>>>Entities doing the same development. The money has to come from >>>>>somewhere - either increased taxes or increased rates.
The differenceWhich sounds just like Watercare - what is the difference, Crash?
is that local bodies own and fund existing water assets and are run by >>>>>those elected to do so by ratepayers. Water entities are new, >>>>>forcibly acquire existing water assets, and are run entirely by >>>>>appointed directors.
There are water asset management and operation issues in some parts of >>>>>NZ. Labour have legislated a nationwide one-size-fits-all solution >>>>>(well-run and resourced water assets taken from the local bodies that >>>>>have no issues) with other totally undesirable and undemocratic >>>>>governance issues.
There will be fewer Water organisations, enabling a deeper strength of >>>>expertise, greater cooperation between different areas, so a sharing >>>>of expertise and possibly some equipment, but not one-size fits all >>>>by any means - different locations have different water issues with >>>>different solutions; but based around delivery of common standards, >>>>using common science (hydrology, engineering etc). In addition there >>>>will be government funding to ensure that areas with better current >>>>current systems do not get penalised by having to fund less effective >>>>current systems in other areas. At the end of the day of course >>>>ongoing work will need tobe funded equitably over all of New Zealand. >>>>Do you have a better alternative?
1. Don't fix something that is not broken.
2. Don't remove democratic authority from local electors.Why not? It was done for electricity generation and distribution, and >>worked well for a long time.
Electricity department to Govern met-owned SOEs (hint both are run by >Government appointed people) with the Water reforms (currently run by >elected local bodies, to be run by unelected directors and Maori Iwi)?
are run to maximise return to shareholders. Yes that are co-managed -
with Directors representing share investors, not the people of New
Zealand. That is co-management National style . . .
Any comparison is absurd and shows your support of Water reforms >legislation is reaching new levels of irrationality.
3/5 waters is all about political power, it is not actually about water at itsNo, it is about supply and disposal to standards set by government.
root.
Supply and disposal to standards set by government do not require the >Water reforms currently enacted. Said standards are being implementedOne of the early posts in this thread said "there are 55,000 houses in
now and the majority of existing local authorities either exceed, meet
or nearly meet them.
at risk of flooding areas. Looks like it has been happening for many
moons."
We know that many rivers are unfit for swimming in, let alone drinking
any of the water - there are warnings that gods may die for many
rivers. Water in small Canterbury towns is causing illness in infants
from excessive nitrates from cattle farming. Water quality in Havelock
North is not yet meeting standards consistently - remember those that
died while Lawrence Yule was mayor? Quantity of water is an issue in
some regions - they have trucks to supply water during the dry season.
Many areas have large amounts of sewage water mixing with stormwater -
in Auckland fixing that is estimated to cost millions, and little work
has been done so far. Wellington suffers from vry old underground
pipes that burst more eften than anyone would like; Christchurch had a
large amount of new underground services but is still having problems
in some areas.
You can bury your head in the sand as much as you like, but there is a
lot of work to do to meet acceptable standards for water suppply,
quality, and disposal.
The Water reforms legislation introducesI am glad you agree that centralisation will provide some benefits - I
centralisation (not a bad thing in principle) and co-governance
(totally replacing elected local body control with unelected and >racially-biased boards of directors).
see them as also providing a consistent standard for all communities
(the equal opportunity principle), and a greater flexibility to meet different needs with greater shared expertise and resources. The
structures should also avoid the need for the problems of the
FOreshore and Seabed legislation - my view is that once agreed,
arrnagments should be recognised by the Waitangi Tribunal as being a
full and final settlement in relation to most water rights under the
Treaty.
Rich, this is another example of your trend to increasingly irrational >justifications of the Water reforms.They are more rational than the Bradford reforms of electricity - I do
think there should have been a higher percentage than 50% to restrict
any future government from privatising water resources; sadly National
voted against that, but the percentage could have been lower than 75%.
There is therefore a greater risk than there should have been in
electing a government that may wish to continue with privatisation to
pay off supporters; that may well hurt National and ACT at the next election.
Yes he has said that so many times that he proabably believes it now. It is at best a gross simplification and in his case probably a downright lie.On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 11:43:06 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 22:12:09 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>The Generating companies are 49% owned by private shareholders - they
wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 01:41:35 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 13:09:31 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 12:44:22 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 11 Feb 2023 20:32:09 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
Rich are you serious? How can you equate the change from anThere is a lot that is broken however - hard to separate a system intoI don't know about Crash, but I do.I was using rates as a generic term - it could be by Council rateshttps://www.stuff.co.nz/national/131196837/for-sale-new-warm-and-dry-homes-the-catch-theyre-in-a-flood-plain-and-the-flood-is-coming-sooner-than-you-think
We have had the discussion of the proposed subdivision in a flod
prone are a
recently.
Looks like it is s drop in the bucket, there are 55,000 houses in at >> >>>>>>>risk of
flooding areas. Looks like it has been happening for many moons.
Amazing the power of lack of memory, optomisim, and greed.
Certainly there is much to answer for from those that denied that
Climate Change would affect us, The extent of the change has however >> >>>>>>been greater than scientists would have predicted when many of these >> >>>>>>houses developed, and it is clear now that our stormwater systems are >> >>>>>>inadequate; Watercare has been doing a lot of good work, but they need >> >>>>>>a much larger budget. Three Waters offers the possibility of
GOvernment sharing both the responsibility and the funding - National >> >>>>>>want it to all stay with Local Councils - how much will Auckland Rates >> >>>>>>have to increase if Nationl gets in at the next election?
What is it that leads you to believe that if local councils cannot
fund water asset maintenance that a rates increase is required?
(based on property values) or increases in water charges - to a
certain extent that would be up to Auckland. Initial capital may be by >> >>>>borrowing (and also bear in mind that local authority issued stock is
likely to be say 0.25% more expensive), increases to rates are likely
to be needed to fund repayment of borrowing. How else would the work
be funded if National were to be elected in November?
IAnd National's policy (almost its only policy) is to reduce teh top
could equally postulate on how much tax rates will rise to fund Water >> >>>>>Entities doing the same development. The money has to come from
somewhere - either increased taxes or increased rates.
tax rate.
The differenceWhich sounds just like Watercare - what is the difference, Crash?
is that local bodies own and fund existing water assets and are run by >> >>>>>those elected to do so by ratepayers. Water entities are new,
forcibly acquire existing water assets, and are run entirely by
appointed directors.
There are water asset management and operation issues in some parts of >> >>>>>NZ. Labour have legislated a nationwide one-size-fits-all solution
(well-run and resourced water assets taken from the local bodies that >> >>>>>have no issues) with other totally undesirable and undemocratic
governance issues.
There will be fewer Water organisations, enabling a deeper strength of >> >>>>expertise, greater cooperation between different areas, so a sharing
of expertise and possibly some equipment, but not one-size fits all
by any means - different locations have different water issues with
different solutions; but based around delivery of common standards,
using common science (hydrology, engineering etc). In addition there
will be government funding to ensure that areas with better current
current systems do not get penalised by having to fund less effective
current systems in other areas. At the end of the day of course
ongoing work will need tobe funded equitably over all of New Zealand.
Do you have a better alternative?
1. Don't fix something that is not broken.
different bits . . .
2. Don't remove democratic authority from local electors.Why not? It was done for electricity generation and distribution, and
worked well for a long time.
Electricity department to Govern met-owned SOEs (hint both are run by
Government appointed people) with the Water reforms (currently run by
elected local bodies, to be run by unelected directors and Maori Iwi)?
are run to maximise return to shareholders. Yes that are co-managed -
with Directors representing share investors, not the people of New
Zealand. That is co-management National style . . .
No, that is management by the board and nothing to do with co-management. Same >as any other public listed company. The shareholding minister has 51% so >appoints and directs the board. Your comment "run to maximise return to >shareholders" is as ignorant and flat out wrong as expected from a dickhead >like you.
One of the early posts in this thread said "there are 55,000 houses in
Any comparison is absurd and shows your support of Water reforms
legislation is reaching new levels of irrationality.
3/5 waters is all about political power, it is not actually about water >> >>>at itsNo, it is about supply and disposal to standards set by government.
root.
Supply and disposal to standards set by government do not require the
Water reforms currently enacted. Said standards are being implemented
now and the majority of existing local authorities either exceed, meet
or nearly meet them.
at risk of flooding areas. Looks like it has been happening for many
moons."
We know that many rivers are unfit for swimming in, let alone drinking
any of the water - there are warnings that gods may die for many
rivers. Water in small Canterbury towns is causing illness in infants
from excessive nitrates from cattle farming. Water quality in Havelock
North is not yet meeting standards consistently - remember those that
died while Lawrence Yule was mayor? Quantity of water is an issue in
some regions - they have trucks to supply water during the dry season.
Many areas have large amounts of sewage water mixing with stormwater -
in Auckland fixing that is estimated to cost millions, and little work
has been done so far. Wellington suffers from vry old underground
pipes that burst more eften than anyone would like; Christchurch had a
large amount of new underground services but is still having problems
in some areas.
You can bury your head in the sand as much as you like, but there is a
lot of work to do to meet acceptable standards for water suppply,
quality, and disposal.
The Water reforms legislation introducesI am glad you agree that centralisation will provide some benefits - I
centralisation (not a bad thing in principle) and co-governance
(totally replacing elected local body control with unelected and
racially-biased boards of directors).
see them as also providing a consistent standard for all communities
(the equal opportunity principle), and a greater flexibility to meet
different needs with greater shared expertise and resources. The
structures should also avoid the need for the problems of the
FOreshore and Seabed legislation - my view is that once agreed,
arrnagments should be recognised by the Waitangi Tribunal as being a
full and final settlement in relation to most water rights under the
Treaty.
They are more rational than the Bradford reforms of electricity - I do
Rich, this is another example of your trend to increasingly irrational
justifications of the Water reforms.
think there should have been a higher percentage than 50% to restrict
any future government from privatising water resources; sadly National
voted against that, but the percentage could have been lower than 75%.
There is therefore a greater risk than there should have been in
electing a government that may wish to continue with privatisation to
pay off supporters; that may well hurt National and ACT at the next
election.
JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, 13 February 2023 at 14:30:13 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
Yes he has said that so many times that he proabably believes it now. It is at >best a gross simplification and in his case probably a downright lie.On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 11:43:06 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 22:12:09 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>The Generating companies are 49% owned by private shareholders - they
wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 01:41:35 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 13:09:31 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >>> >>>>wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 12:44:22 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>> >>>>>wrote:
On 11 Feb 2023 20:32:09 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
Rich are you serious? How can you equate the change from anThere is a lot that is broken however - hard to separate a system into >>> >>different bits . . .I don't know about Crash, but I do.I was using rates as a generic term - it could be by Council rateshttps://www.stuff.co.nz/national/131196837/for-sale-new-warm-and-dry-homes-the-catch-theyre-in-a-flood-plain-and-the-flood-is-coming-sooner-than-you-think
We have had the discussion of the proposed subdivision in a flod
prone are a
recently.
Looks like it is s drop in the bucket, there are 55,000 houses in at >>> >>>>>>>risk of
flooding areas. Looks like it has been happening for many moons.
Amazing the power of lack of memory, optomisim, and greed.
Certainly there is much to answer for from those that denied that
Climate Change would affect us, The extent of the change has however >>> >>>>>>been greater than scientists would have predicted when many of these >>> >>>>>>houses developed, and it is clear now that our stormwater systems are >>> >>>>>>inadequate; Watercare has been doing a lot of good work, but they need
a much larger budget. Three Waters offers the possibility of
GOvernment sharing both the responsibility and the funding - National >>> >>>>>>want it to all stay with Local Councils - how much will Auckland Rates
have to increase if Nationl gets in at the next election?
What is it that leads you to believe that if local councils cannot
fund water asset maintenance that a rates increase is required?
(based on property values) or increases in water charges - to a
certain extent that would be up to Auckland. Initial capital may be by >>> >>>>borrowing (and also bear in mind that local authority issued stock is >>> >>>>likely to be say 0.25% more expensive), increases to rates are likely >>> >>>>to be needed to fund repayment of borrowing. How else would the work >>> >>>>be funded if National were to be elected in November?
IAnd National's policy (almost its only policy) is to reduce teh top
could equally postulate on how much tax rates will rise to fund Water >>> >>>>>Entities doing the same development. The money has to come from
somewhere - either increased taxes or increased rates.
tax rate.
The differenceWhich sounds just like Watercare - what is the difference, Crash?
is that local bodies own and fund existing water assets and are run by >>> >>>>>those elected to do so by ratepayers. Water entities are new,
forcibly acquire existing water assets, and are run entirely by
appointed directors.
There are water asset management and operation issues in some parts of >>> >>>>>NZ. Labour have legislated a nationwide one-size-fits-all solution
(well-run and resourced water assets taken from the local bodies that >>> >>>>>have no issues) with other totally undesirable and undemocratic
governance issues.
There will be fewer Water organisations, enabling a deeper strength of >>> >>>>expertise, greater cooperation between different areas, so a sharing >>> >>>>of expertise and possibly some equipment, but not one-size fits all
by any means - different locations have different water issues with
different solutions; but based around delivery of common standards,
using common science (hydrology, engineering etc). In addition there >>> >>>>will be government funding to ensure that areas with better current
current systems do not get penalised by having to fund less effective >>> >>>>current systems in other areas. At the end of the day of course
ongoing work will need tobe funded equitably over all of New Zealand. >>> >>>>Do you have a better alternative?
1. Don't fix something that is not broken.
2. Don't remove democratic authority from local electors.Why not? It was done for electricity generation and distribution, and
worked well for a long time.
Electricity department to Govern met-owned SOEs (hint both are run by
Government appointed people) with the Water reforms (currently run by
elected local bodies, to be run by unelected directors and Maori Iwi)?
are run to maximise return to shareholders. Yes that are co-managed -
with Directors representing share investors, not the people of New
Zealand. That is co-management National style . . .
No, that is management by the board and nothing to do with co-management. Same
as any other public listed company. The shareholding minister has 51% so >>appoints and directs the board. Your comment "run to maximise return to >>shareholders" is as ignorant and flat out wrong as expected from a dickhead >>like you.
One of the early posts in this thread said "there are 55,000 houses in
Any comparison is absurd and shows your support of Water reforms
legislation is reaching new levels of irrationality.
3/5 waters is all about political power, it is not actually about water >>> >>>at itsNo, it is about supply and disposal to standards set by government.
root.
Supply and disposal to standards set by government do not require the
Water reforms currently enacted. Said standards are being implemented
now and the majority of existing local authorities either exceed, meet
or nearly meet them.
at risk of flooding areas. Looks like it has been happening for many
moons."
We know that many rivers are unfit for swimming in, let alone drinking
any of the water - there are warnings that gods may die for many
rivers. Water in small Canterbury towns is causing illness in infants
from excessive nitrates from cattle farming. Water quality in Havelock
North is not yet meeting standards consistently - remember those that
died while Lawrence Yule was mayor? Quantity of water is an issue in
some regions - they have trucks to supply water during the dry season.
Many areas have large amounts of sewage water mixing with stormwater -
in Auckland fixing that is estimated to cost millions, and little work
has been done so far. Wellington suffers from vry old underground
pipes that burst more eften than anyone would like; Christchurch had a
large amount of new underground services but is still having problems
in some areas.
You can bury your head in the sand as much as you like, but there is a
lot of work to do to meet acceptable standards for water suppply,
quality, and disposal.
The Water reforms legislation introducesI am glad you agree that centralisation will provide some benefits - I
centralisation (not a bad thing in principle) and co-governance
(totally replacing elected local body control with unelected and
racially-biased boards of directors).
see them as also providing a consistent standard for all communities
(the equal opportunity principle), and a greater flexibility to meet
different needs with greater shared expertise and resources. The
structures should also avoid the need for the problems of the
FOreshore and Seabed legislation - my view is that once agreed,
arrnagments should be recognised by the Waitangi Tribunal as being a
full and final settlement in relation to most water rights under the
Treaty.
They are more rational than the Bradford reforms of electricity - I do
Rich, this is another example of your trend to increasingly irrational
justifications of the Water reforms.
think there should have been a higher percentage than 50% to restrict
any future government from privatising water resources; sadly National
voted against that, but the percentage could have been lower than 75%.
There is therefore a greater risk than there should have been in
electing a government that may wish to continue with privatisation to
pay off supporters; that may well hurt National and ACT at the next
election.
On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 03:01:05 -0000 (UTC), TonyMeaningless. You still don't understand what the job of a board of directors is.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, 13 February 2023 at 14:30:13 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
Yes he has said that so many times that he proabably believes it now. It is >>atOn Mon, 13 Feb 2023 11:43:06 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 22:12:09 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 01:41:35 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 13:09:31 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >>>> >>>>wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 12:44:22 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>>> >>>>>wrote:
On 11 Feb 2023 20:32:09 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
are run to maximise return to shareholders. Yes that are co-managed -Rich are you serious? How can you equate the change from anThere is a lot that is broken however - hard to separate a system into >>>> >>different bits . . .I don't know about Crash, but I do.I was using rates as a generic term - it could be by Council rates >>>> >>>>(based on property values) or increases in water charges - to ahttps://www.stuff.co.nz/national/131196837/for-sale-new-warm-and-dry-homes-the-catch-theyre-in-a-flood-plain-and-the-flood-is-coming-sooner-than-you-think
We have had the discussion of the proposed subdivision in a flod >>>> >>>>>>>prone are a
recently.
Looks like it is s drop in the bucket, there are 55,000 houses in >>>> >>>>>>>at
risk of
flooding areas. Looks like it has been happening for many moons. >>>> >>>>>>>
Amazing the power of lack of memory, optomisim, and greed.
Certainly there is much to answer for from those that denied that >>>> >>>>>>Climate Change would affect us, The extent of the change has however >>>> >>>>>>been greater than scientists would have predicted when many of these >>>> >>>>>>houses developed, and it is clear now that our stormwater systems >>>> >>>>>>are
inadequate; Watercare has been doing a lot of good work, but they >>>> >>>>>>need
a much larger budget. Three Waters offers the possibility of
GOvernment sharing both the responsibility and the funding -
National
want it to all stay with Local Councils - how much will Auckland >>>> >>>>>>Rates
have to increase if Nationl gets in at the next election?
What is it that leads you to believe that if local councils cannot >>>> >>>>>fund water asset maintenance that a rates increase is required?
certain extent that would be up to Auckland. Initial capital may be by >>>> >>>>borrowing (and also bear in mind that local authority issued stock is >>>> >>>>likely to be say 0.25% more expensive), increases to rates are likely >>>> >>>>to be needed to fund repayment of borrowing. How else would the work >>>> >>>>be funded if National were to be elected in November?
IAnd National's policy (almost its only policy) is to reduce teh top >>>> >>>>tax rate.
could equally postulate on how much tax rates will rise to fund Water >>>> >>>>>Entities doing the same development. The money has to come from
somewhere - either increased taxes or increased rates.
The differenceWhich sounds just like Watercare - what is the difference, Crash?
is that local bodies own and fund existing water assets and are run >>>> >>>>>by
those elected to do so by ratepayers. Water entities are new,
forcibly acquire existing water assets, and are run entirely by
appointed directors.
There are water asset management and operation issues in some parts >>>> >>>>>of
NZ. Labour have legislated a nationwide one-size-fits-all solution >>>> >>>>>(well-run and resourced water assets taken from the local bodies that >>>> >>>>>have no issues) with other totally undesirable and undemocratic
governance issues.
There will be fewer Water organisations, enabling a deeper strength of >>>> >>>>expertise, greater cooperation between different areas, so a sharing >>>> >>>>of expertise and possibly some equipment, but not one-size fits all >>>> >>>>by any means - different locations have different water issues with >>>> >>>>different solutions; but based around delivery of common standards, >>>> >>>>using common science (hydrology, engineering etc). In addition there >>>> >>>>will be government funding to ensure that areas with better current >>>> >>>>current systems do not get penalised by having to fund less effective >>>> >>>>current systems in other areas. At the end of the day of course
ongoing work will need tobe funded equitably over all of New Zealand. >>>> >>>>Do you have a better alternative?
1. Don't fix something that is not broken.
2. Don't remove democratic authority from local electors.Why not? It was done for electricity generation and distribution, and >>>> >>worked well for a long time.
Electricity department to Govern met-owned SOEs (hint both are run by >>>> >Government appointed people) with the Water reforms (currently run by >>>> >elected local bodies, to be run by unelected directors and Maori Iwi)? >>>> The Generating companies are 49% owned by private shareholders - they
with Directors representing share investors, not the people of New
Zealand. That is co-management National style . . .
No, that is management by the board and nothing to do with co-management. >>>Same
as any other public listed company. The shareholding minister has 51% so >>>appoints and directs the board. Your comment "run to maximise return to >>>shareholders" is as ignorant and flat out wrong as expected from a dickhead >>>like you.
best a gross simplification and in his case probably a downright lie.
There are not many companies in New Zealand that can declare dividends
higher than profits over recent times - can there be any doubt htat
they are being governed for maximum benefit to shareholders as a top >priority? They are required by law to look after the interests of
minority shareholders . . .
One of the early posts in this thread said "there are 55,000 houses in >>>> at risk of flooding areas. Looks like it has been happening for many
Any comparison is absurd and shows your support of Water reforms
legislation is reaching new levels of irrationality.
3/5 waters is all about political power, it is not actually about water >>>> >>>at itsNo, it is about supply and disposal to standards set by government.
root.
Supply and disposal to standards set by government do not require the >>>> >Water reforms currently enacted. Said standards are being implemented >>>> >now and the majority of existing local authorities either exceed, meet >>>> >or nearly meet them.
moons."
We know that many rivers are unfit for swimming in, let alone drinking >>>> any of the water - there are warnings that gods may die for many
rivers. Water in small Canterbury towns is causing illness in infants
from excessive nitrates from cattle farming. Water quality in Havelock >>>> North is not yet meeting standards consistently - remember those that
died while Lawrence Yule was mayor? Quantity of water is an issue in
some regions - they have trucks to supply water during the dry season. >>>> Many areas have large amounts of sewage water mixing with stormwater - >>>> in Auckland fixing that is estimated to cost millions, and little work >>>> has been done so far. Wellington suffers from vry old underground
pipes that burst more eften than anyone would like; Christchurch had a >>>> large amount of new underground services but is still having problems
in some areas.
You can bury your head in the sand as much as you like, but there is a >>>> lot of work to do to meet acceptable standards for water suppply,
quality, and disposal.
The Water reforms legislation introducesI am glad you agree that centralisation will provide some benefits - I >>>> see them as also providing a consistent standard for all communities
centralisation (not a bad thing in principle) and co-governance
(totally replacing elected local body control with unelected and
racially-biased boards of directors).
(the equal opportunity principle), and a greater flexibility to meet
different needs with greater shared expertise and resources. The
structures should also avoid the need for the problems of the
FOreshore and Seabed legislation - my view is that once agreed,
arrnagments should be recognised by the Waitangi Tribunal as being a
full and final settlement in relation to most water rights under the
Treaty.
They are more rational than the Bradford reforms of electricity - I do >>>> think there should have been a higher percentage than 50% to restrict
Rich, this is another example of your trend to increasingly irrational >>>> >justifications of the Water reforms.
any future government from privatising water resources; sadly National >>>> voted against that, but the percentage could have been lower than 75%. >>>> There is therefore a greater risk than there should have been in
electing a government that may wish to continue with privatisation to
pay off supporters; that may well hurt National and ACT at the next
election.
On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 20:07:24 -0000 (UTC), TonyI don't care. I did not raise the matter of dividends, you did.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 03:01:05 -0000 (UTC), TonyMeaningless. You still don't understand what the job of a board of directors >>is.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, 13 February 2023 at 14:30:13 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
Yes he has said that so many times that he proabably believes it now. It is >>>>atOn Mon, 13 Feb 2023 11:43:06 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 22:12:09 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>>>>> >wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 01:41:35 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 13:09:31 +1300, Crash
<nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 12:44:22 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>>>>> >>>>>wrote:
On 11 Feb 2023 20:32:09 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>
Rich are you serious? How can you equate the change from anThere is a lot that is broken however - hard to separate a system into >>>>>> >>different bits . . .I don't know about Crash, but I do.borrowing (and also bear in mind that local authority issued stock >>>>>> >>>>ishttps://www.stuff.co.nz/national/131196837/for-sale-new-warm-and-dry-homes-the-catch-theyre-in-a-flood-plain-and-the-flood-is-coming-sooner-than-you-think
We have had the discussion of the proposed subdivision in a flod >>>>>> >>>>>>>prone are a
recently.
Looks like it is s drop in the bucket, there are 55,000 houses in >>>>>> >>>>>>>at
risk of
flooding areas. Looks like it has been happening for many moons. >>>>>> >>>>>>>
Amazing the power of lack of memory, optomisim, and greed.
Certainly there is much to answer for from those that denied that >>>>>> >>>>>>Climate Change would affect us, The extent of the change has >>>>>> >>>>>>however
been greater than scientists would have predicted when many of >>>>>> >>>>>>these
houses developed, and it is clear now that our stormwater systems >>>>>> >>>>>>are
inadequate; Watercare has been doing a lot of good work, but they >>>>>> >>>>>>need
a much larger budget. Three Waters offers the possibility of >>>>>> >>>>>>GOvernment sharing both the responsibility and the funding - >>>>>> >>>>>>National
want it to all stay with Local Councils - how much will Auckland >>>>>> >>>>>>Rates
have to increase if Nationl gets in at the next election?
What is it that leads you to believe that if local councils cannot >>>>>> >>>>>fund water asset maintenance that a rates increase is required? >>>>>> >>>>I was using rates as a generic term - it could be by Council rates >>>>>> >>>>(based on property values) or increases in water charges - to a >>>>>> >>>>certain extent that would be up to Auckland. Initial capital may be >>>>>> >>>>by
likely to be say 0.25% more expensive), increases to rates are >>>>>> >>>>likely
to be needed to fund repayment of borrowing. How else would the work >>>>>> >>>>be funded if National were to be elected in November?
IAnd National's policy (almost its only policy) is to reduce teh top >>>>>> >>>>tax rate.
could equally postulate on how much tax rates will rise to fund >>>>>> >>>>>Water
Entities doing the same development. The money has to come from >>>>>> >>>>>somewhere - either increased taxes or increased rates.
The differenceWhich sounds just like Watercare - what is the difference, Crash? >>>>>> >>>>
is that local bodies own and fund existing water assets and are run >>>>>> >>>>>by
those elected to do so by ratepayers. Water entities are new, >>>>>> >>>>>forcibly acquire existing water assets, and are run entirely by >>>>>> >>>>>appointed directors.
There are water asset management and operation issues in some parts >>>>>> >>>>>of
NZ. Labour have legislated a nationwide one-size-fits-all solution >>>>>> >>>>>(well-run and resourced water assets taken from the local bodies >>>>>> >>>>>that
have no issues) with other totally undesirable and undemocratic >>>>>> >>>>>governance issues.
There will be fewer Water organisations, enabling a deeper strength >>>>>> >>>>of
expertise, greater cooperation between different areas, so a sharing >>>>>> >>>>of expertise and possibly some equipment, but not one-size fits all >>>>>> >>>>by any means - different locations have different water issues with >>>>>> >>>>different solutions; but based around delivery of common standards, >>>>>> >>>>using common science (hydrology, engineering etc). In addition there >>>>>> >>>>will be government funding to ensure that areas with better current >>>>>> >>>>current systems do not get penalised by having to fund less
effective
current systems in other areas. At the end of the day of course >>>>>> >>>>ongoing work will need tobe funded equitably over all of New
Zealand.
Do you have a better alternative?
1. Don't fix something that is not broken.
2. Don't remove democratic authority from local electors.Why not? It was done for electricity generation and distribution, and >>>>>> >>worked well for a long time.
Electricity department to Govern met-owned SOEs (hint both are run by >>>>>> >Government appointed people) with the Water reforms (currently run by >>>>>> >elected local bodies, to be run by unelected directors and Maori Iwi)? >>>>>> The Generating companies are 49% owned by private shareholders - they >>>>>> are run to maximise return to shareholders. Yes that are co-managed - >>>>>> with Directors representing share investors, not the people of New >>>>>> Zealand. That is co-management National style . . .
No, that is management by the board and nothing to do with co-management. >>>>>Same
as any other public listed company. The shareholding minister has 51% so >>>>>appoints and directs the board. Your comment "run to maximise return to >>>>>shareholders" is as ignorant and flat out wrong as expected from a >>>>>dickhead
like you.
best a gross simplification and in his case probably a downright lie.
There are not many companies in New Zealand that can declare dividends >>>higher than profits over recent times - can there be any doubt htat
they are being governed for maximum benefit to shareholders as a top >>>priority? They are required by law to look after the interests of >>>minority shareholders . . .
So who declared the high level of dividends Tony?
One of the early posts in this thread said "there are 55,000 houses in >>>>>> at risk of flooding areas. Looks like it has been happening for many >>>>>> moons."
Any comparison is absurd and shows your support of Water reforms
legislation is reaching new levels of irrationality.
Supply and disposal to standards set by government do not require the >>>>>> >Water reforms currently enacted. Said standards are being implemented >>>>>> >now and the majority of existing local authorities either exceed, meet >>>>>> >or nearly meet them.3/5 waters is all about political power, it is not actually about >>>>>> >>>waterNo, it is about supply and disposal to standards set by government. >>>>>> >
at its
root.
We know that many rivers are unfit for swimming in, let alone drinking >>>>>> any of the water - there are warnings that gods may die for many
rivers. Water in small Canterbury towns is causing illness in infants >>>>>> from excessive nitrates from cattle farming. Water quality in Havelock >>>>>> North is not yet meeting standards consistently - remember those that >>>>>> died while Lawrence Yule was mayor? Quantity of water is an issue in >>>>>> some regions - they have trucks to supply water during the dry season. >>>>>> Many areas have large amounts of sewage water mixing with stormwater - >>>>>> in Auckland fixing that is estimated to cost millions, and little work >>>>>> has been done so far. Wellington suffers from vry old underground
pipes that burst more eften than anyone would like; Christchurch had a >>>>>> large amount of new underground services but is still having problems >>>>>> in some areas.
You can bury your head in the sand as much as you like, but there is a >>>>>> lot of work to do to meet acceptable standards for water suppply,
quality, and disposal.
The Water reforms legislation introducesI am glad you agree that centralisation will provide some benefits - I >>>>>> see them as also providing a consistent standard for all communities >>>>>> (the equal opportunity principle), and a greater flexibility to meet >>>>>> different needs with greater shared expertise and resources. The
centralisation (not a bad thing in principle) and co-governance
(totally replacing elected local body control with unelected and
racially-biased boards of directors).
structures should also avoid the need for the problems of the
FOreshore and Seabed legislation - my view is that once agreed,
arrnagments should be recognised by the Waitangi Tribunal as being a >>>>>> full and final settlement in relation to most water rights under the >>>>>> Treaty.
They are more rational than the Bradford reforms of electricity - I do >>>>>> think there should have been a higher percentage than 50% to restrict >>>>>> any future government from privatising water resources; sadly National >>>>>> voted against that, but the percentage could have been lower than 75%. >>>>>> There is therefore a greater risk than there should have been in
Rich, this is another example of your trend to increasingly irrational >>>>>> >justifications of the Water reforms.
electing a government that may wish to continue with privatisation to >>>>>> pay off supporters; that may well hurt National and ACT at the next >>>>>> election.
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 03:01:05 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
JohnO <john...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, 13 February 2023 at 14:30:13 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
Yes he has said that so many times that he proabably believes it now. It is >>atOn Mon, 13 Feb 2023 11:43:06 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >>>> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 22:12:09 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>>> >wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 01:41:35 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 13:09:31 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 12:44:22 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>>> >>>>>wrote:
On 11 Feb 2023 20:32:09 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>
Zealand. That is co-management National style . . .Rich are you serious? How can you equate the change from anThere is a lot that is broken however - hard to separate a system into >>>> >>different bits . . .I don't know about Crash, but I do.certain extent that would be up to Auckland. Initial capital may be byhttps://www.stuff.co.nz/national/131196837/for-sale-new-warm-and-dry-homes-the-catch-theyre-in-a-flood-plain-and-the-flood-is-coming-sooner-than-you-think
We have had the discussion of the proposed subdivision in a flod >>>> >>>>>>>prone are a
recently.
Looks like it is s drop in the bucket, there are 55,000 houses in >>>> >>>>>>>at
risk of
flooding areas. Looks like it has been happening for many moons. >>>> >>>>>>>
Amazing the power of lack of memory, optomisim, and greed.
Certainly there is much to answer for from those that denied that >>>> >>>>>>Climate Change would affect us, The extent of the change has however
been greater than scientists would have predicted when many of these
houses developed, and it is clear now that our stormwater systems >>>> >>>>>>are
inadequate; Watercare has been doing a lot of good work, but they >>>> >>>>>>need
a much larger budget. Three Waters offers the possibility of
GOvernment sharing both the responsibility and the funding -
National
want it to all stay with Local Councils - how much will Auckland >>>> >>>>>>Rates
have to increase if Nationl gets in at the next election?
What is it that leads you to believe that if local councils cannot >>>> >>>>>fund water asset maintenance that a rates increase is required? >>>> >>>>I was using rates as a generic term - it could be by Council rates >>>> >>>>(based on property values) or increases in water charges - to a
borrowing (and also bear in mind that local authority issued stock is
likely to be say 0.25% more expensive), increases to rates are likely
to be needed to fund repayment of borrowing. How else would the work >>>> >>>>be funded if National were to be elected in November?
IAnd National's policy (almost its only policy) is to reduce teh top >>>> >>>>tax rate.
could equally postulate on how much tax rates will rise to fund Water
Entities doing the same development. The money has to come from >>>> >>>>>somewhere - either increased taxes or increased rates.
The differenceWhich sounds just like Watercare - what is the difference, Crash? >>>> >>>>
is that local bodies own and fund existing water assets and are run >>>> >>>>>by
those elected to do so by ratepayers. Water entities are new,
forcibly acquire existing water assets, and are run entirely by >>>> >>>>>appointed directors.
There are water asset management and operation issues in some parts >>>> >>>>>of
NZ. Labour have legislated a nationwide one-size-fits-all solution >>>> >>>>>(well-run and resourced water assets taken from the local bodies that
have no issues) with other totally undesirable and undemocratic >>>> >>>>>governance issues.
There will be fewer Water organisations, enabling a deeper strength of
expertise, greater cooperation between different areas, so a sharing >>>> >>>>of expertise and possibly some equipment, but not one-size fits all >>>> >>>>by any means - different locations have different water issues with >>>> >>>>different solutions; but based around delivery of common standards, >>>> >>>>using common science (hydrology, engineering etc). In addition there >>>> >>>>will be government funding to ensure that areas with better current >>>> >>>>current systems do not get penalised by having to fund less effective
current systems in other areas. At the end of the day of course
ongoing work will need tobe funded equitably over all of New Zealand.
Do you have a better alternative?
1. Don't fix something that is not broken.
2. Don't remove democratic authority from local electors.Why not? It was done for electricity generation and distribution, and >>>> >>worked well for a long time.
Electricity department to Govern met-owned SOEs (hint both are run by >>>> >Government appointed people) with the Water reforms (currently run by >>>> >elected local bodies, to be run by unelected directors and Maori Iwi)? >>>> The Generating companies are 49% owned by private shareholders - they >>>> are run to maximise return to shareholders. Yes that are co-managed - >>>> with Directors representing share investors, not the people of New
No, that is management by the board and nothing to do with co-management. >>>Same
as any other public listed company. The shareholding minister has 51% so >>>appoints and directs the board. Your comment "run to maximise return to >>>shareholders" is as ignorant and flat out wrong as expected from a dickhead
like you.
best a gross simplification and in his case probably a downright lie.
There are not many companies in New Zealand that can declare dividends >higher than profits over recent times - can there be any doubt htatMeaningless. You still don't understand what the job of a board of directors is.
they are being governed for maximum benefit to shareholders as a top >priority? They are required by law to look after the interests of
minority shareholders . . .
Does Rich understand anything?
One of the early posts in this thread said "there are 55,000 houses in >>>> at risk of flooding areas. Looks like it has been happening for many >>>> moons."
Any comparison is absurd and shows your support of Water reforms
legislation is reaching new levels of irrationality.
Supply and disposal to standards set by government do not require the >>>> >Water reforms currently enacted. Said standards are being implemented >>>> >now and the majority of existing local authorities either exceed, meet >>>> >or nearly meet them.3/5 waters is all about political power, it is not actually about waterNo, it is about supply and disposal to standards set by government. >>>> >
at its
root.
We know that many rivers are unfit for swimming in, let alone drinking >>>> any of the water - there are warnings that gods may die for many
rivers. Water in small Canterbury towns is causing illness in infants >>>> from excessive nitrates from cattle farming. Water quality in Havelock >>>> North is not yet meeting standards consistently - remember those that >>>> died while Lawrence Yule was mayor? Quantity of water is an issue in >>>> some regions - they have trucks to supply water during the dry season. >>>> Many areas have large amounts of sewage water mixing with stormwater - >>>> in Auckland fixing that is estimated to cost millions, and little work >>>> has been done so far. Wellington suffers from vry old underground
pipes that burst more eften than anyone would like; Christchurch had a >>>> large amount of new underground services but is still having problems >>>> in some areas.
You can bury your head in the sand as much as you like, but there is a >>>> lot of work to do to meet acceptable standards for water suppply,
quality, and disposal.
The Water reforms legislation introducesI am glad you agree that centralisation will provide some benefits - I >>>> see them as also providing a consistent standard for all communities >>>> (the equal opportunity principle), and a greater flexibility to meet >>>> different needs with greater shared expertise and resources. The
centralisation (not a bad thing in principle) and co-governance
(totally replacing elected local body control with unelected and
racially-biased boards of directors).
structures should also avoid the need for the problems of the
FOreshore and Seabed legislation - my view is that once agreed,
arrnagments should be recognised by the Waitangi Tribunal as being a >>>> full and final settlement in relation to most water rights under the >>>> Treaty.
They are more rational than the Bradford reforms of electricity - I do >>>> think there should have been a higher percentage than 50% to restrict >>>> any future government from privatising water resources; sadly National >>>> voted against that, but the percentage could have been lower than 75%. >>>> There is therefore a greater risk than there should have been in
Rich, this is another example of your trend to increasingly irrational >>>> >justifications of the Water reforms.
electing a government that may wish to continue with privatisation to >>>> pay off supporters; that may well hurt National and ACT at the next
election.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 03:01:05 -0000 (UTC), TonyMeaningless. You still don't understand what the job of a board of directors is.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, 13 February 2023 at 14:30:13 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
Yes he has said that so many times that he proabably believes it now. It is >>>atOn Mon, 13 Feb 2023 11:43:06 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >>>>> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 22:12:09 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>>>> >wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 01:41:35 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 13:09:31 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >>>>> >>>>wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 12:44:22 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>>>> >>>>>wrote:
On 11 Feb 2023 20:32:09 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>
Zealand. That is co-management National style . . .Rich are you serious? How can you equate the change from anThere is a lot that is broken however - hard to separate a system into >>>>> >>different bits . . .I don't know about Crash, but I do.certain extent that would be up to Auckland. Initial capital may be byhttps://www.stuff.co.nz/national/131196837/for-sale-new-warm-and-dry-homes-the-catch-theyre-in-a-flood-plain-and-the-flood-is-coming-sooner-than-you-think
We have had the discussion of the proposed subdivision in a flod >>>>> >>>>>>>prone are a
recently.
Looks like it is s drop in the bucket, there are 55,000 houses in >>>>> >>>>>>>at
risk of
flooding areas. Looks like it has been happening for many moons. >>>>> >>>>>>>
Amazing the power of lack of memory, optomisim, and greed.
Certainly there is much to answer for from those that denied that >>>>> >>>>>>Climate Change would affect us, The extent of the change has however
been greater than scientists would have predicted when many of these
houses developed, and it is clear now that our stormwater systems >>>>> >>>>>>are
inadequate; Watercare has been doing a lot of good work, but they >>>>> >>>>>>need
a much larger budget. Three Waters offers the possibility of
GOvernment sharing both the responsibility and the funding -
National
want it to all stay with Local Councils - how much will Auckland >>>>> >>>>>>Rates
have to increase if Nationl gets in at the next election?
What is it that leads you to believe that if local councils cannot >>>>> >>>>>fund water asset maintenance that a rates increase is required? >>>>> >>>>I was using rates as a generic term - it could be by Council rates >>>>> >>>>(based on property values) or increases in water charges - to a
borrowing (and also bear in mind that local authority issued stock is >>>>> >>>>likely to be say 0.25% more expensive), increases to rates are likely >>>>> >>>>to be needed to fund repayment of borrowing. How else would the work >>>>> >>>>be funded if National were to be elected in November?
IAnd National's policy (almost its only policy) is to reduce teh top >>>>> >>>>tax rate.
could equally postulate on how much tax rates will rise to fund Water
Entities doing the same development. The money has to come from >>>>> >>>>>somewhere - either increased taxes or increased rates.
The differenceWhich sounds just like Watercare - what is the difference, Crash? >>>>> >>>>
is that local bodies own and fund existing water assets and are run >>>>> >>>>>by
those elected to do so by ratepayers. Water entities are new,
forcibly acquire existing water assets, and are run entirely by >>>>> >>>>>appointed directors.
There are water asset management and operation issues in some parts >>>>> >>>>>of
NZ. Labour have legislated a nationwide one-size-fits-all solution >>>>> >>>>>(well-run and resourced water assets taken from the local bodies that
have no issues) with other totally undesirable and undemocratic >>>>> >>>>>governance issues.
There will be fewer Water organisations, enabling a deeper strength of
expertise, greater cooperation between different areas, so a sharing >>>>> >>>>of expertise and possibly some equipment, but not one-size fits all >>>>> >>>>by any means - different locations have different water issues with >>>>> >>>>different solutions; but based around delivery of common standards, >>>>> >>>>using common science (hydrology, engineering etc). In addition there >>>>> >>>>will be government funding to ensure that areas with better current >>>>> >>>>current systems do not get penalised by having to fund less effective >>>>> >>>>current systems in other areas. At the end of the day of course
ongoing work will need tobe funded equitably over all of New Zealand. >>>>> >>>>Do you have a better alternative?
1. Don't fix something that is not broken.
2. Don't remove democratic authority from local electors.Why not? It was done for electricity generation and distribution, and >>>>> >>worked well for a long time.
Electricity department to Govern met-owned SOEs (hint both are run by >>>>> >Government appointed people) with the Water reforms (currently run by >>>>> >elected local bodies, to be run by unelected directors and Maori Iwi)? >>>>> The Generating companies are 49% owned by private shareholders - they >>>>> are run to maximise return to shareholders. Yes that are co-managed - >>>>> with Directors representing share investors, not the people of New
No, that is management by the board and nothing to do with co-management. >>>>Same
as any other public listed company. The shareholding minister has 51% so >>>>appoints and directs the board. Your comment "run to maximise return to >>>>shareholders" is as ignorant and flat out wrong as expected from a dickhead >>>>like you.
best a gross simplification and in his case probably a downright lie.
There are not many companies in New Zealand that can declare dividends >>higher than profits over recent times - can there be any doubt htat
they are being governed for maximum benefit to shareholders as a top >>priority? They are required by law to look after the interests of
minority shareholders . . .
One of the early posts in this thread said "there are 55,000 houses in >>>>> at risk of flooding areas. Looks like it has been happening for many >>>>> moons."
Any comparison is absurd and shows your support of Water reforms
legislation is reaching new levels of irrationality.
Supply and disposal to standards set by government do not require the >>>>> >Water reforms currently enacted. Said standards are being implemented >>>>> >now and the majority of existing local authorities either exceed, meet >>>>> >or nearly meet them.3/5 waters is all about political power, it is not actually about waterNo, it is about supply and disposal to standards set by government. >>>>> >
at its
root.
We know that many rivers are unfit for swimming in, let alone drinking >>>>> any of the water - there are warnings that gods may die for many
rivers. Water in small Canterbury towns is causing illness in infants >>>>> from excessive nitrates from cattle farming. Water quality in Havelock >>>>> North is not yet meeting standards consistently - remember those that >>>>> died while Lawrence Yule was mayor? Quantity of water is an issue in >>>>> some regions - they have trucks to supply water during the dry season. >>>>> Many areas have large amounts of sewage water mixing with stormwater - >>>>> in Auckland fixing that is estimated to cost millions, and little work >>>>> has been done so far. Wellington suffers from vry old underground
pipes that burst more eften than anyone would like; Christchurch had a >>>>> large amount of new underground services but is still having problems >>>>> in some areas.
You can bury your head in the sand as much as you like, but there is a >>>>> lot of work to do to meet acceptable standards for water suppply,
quality, and disposal.
The Water reforms legislation introducesI am glad you agree that centralisation will provide some benefits - I >>>>> see them as also providing a consistent standard for all communities >>>>> (the equal opportunity principle), and a greater flexibility to meet >>>>> different needs with greater shared expertise and resources. The
centralisation (not a bad thing in principle) and co-governance
(totally replacing elected local body control with unelected and
racially-biased boards of directors).
structures should also avoid the need for the problems of the
FOreshore and Seabed legislation - my view is that once agreed,
arrnagments should be recognised by the Waitangi Tribunal as being a >>>>> full and final settlement in relation to most water rights under the >>>>> Treaty.
They are more rational than the Bradford reforms of electricity - I do >>>>> think there should have been a higher percentage than 50% to restrict >>>>> any future government from privatising water resources; sadly National >>>>> voted against that, but the percentage could have been lower than 75%. >>>>> There is therefore a greater risk than there should have been in
Rich, this is another example of your trend to increasingly irrational >>>>> >justifications of the Water reforms.
electing a government that may wish to continue with privatisation to >>>>> pay off supporters; that may well hurt National and ACT at the next
election.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Absolutely, Tony. I accept your apology for your your lack of
On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 20:07:24 -0000 (UTC), TonyI don't care. I did not raise the matter of dividends, you did.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 03:01:05 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Meaningless. You still don't understand what the job of a board of directors >>>is.
JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, 13 February 2023 at 14:30:13 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
Yes he has said that so many times that he proabably believes it now. It isOn Mon, 13 Feb 2023 11:43:06 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 22:12:09 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>>>>>> >wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 01:41:35 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 13:09:31 +1300, Crash
<nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 12:44:22 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 11 Feb 2023 20:32:09 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>
Rich are you serious? How can you equate the change from anThere is a lot that is broken however - hard to separate a system intoI don't know about Crash, but I do.borrowing (and also bear in mind that local authority issued stock >>>>>>> >>>>isCertainly there is much to answer for from those that denied that >>>>>>> >>>>>>Climate Change would affect us, The extent of the change has >>>>>>> >>>>>>howeverhttps://www.stuff.co.nz/national/131196837/for-sale-new-warm-and-dry-homes-the-catch-theyre-in-a-flood-plain-and-the-flood-is-coming-sooner-than-you-think
We have had the discussion of the proposed subdivision in a flod >>>>>>> >>>>>>>prone are a
recently.
Looks like it is s drop in the bucket, there are 55,000 houses in
at
risk of
flooding areas. Looks like it has been happening for many moons. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>
Amazing the power of lack of memory, optomisim, and greed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>
been greater than scientists would have predicted when many of >>>>>>> >>>>>>these
houses developed, and it is clear now that our stormwater systems >>>>>>> >>>>>>are
inadequate; Watercare has been doing a lot of good work, but they >>>>>>> >>>>>>need
a much larger budget. Three Waters offers the possibility of >>>>>>> >>>>>>GOvernment sharing both the responsibility and the funding - >>>>>>> >>>>>>National
want it to all stay with Local Councils - how much will Auckland >>>>>>> >>>>>>Rates
have to increase if Nationl gets in at the next election?
What is it that leads you to believe that if local councils cannot >>>>>>> >>>>>fund water asset maintenance that a rates increase is required? >>>>>>> >>>>I was using rates as a generic term - it could be by Council rates >>>>>>> >>>>(based on property values) or increases in water charges - to a >>>>>>> >>>>certain extent that would be up to Auckland. Initial capital may be >>>>>>> >>>>by
likely to be say 0.25% more expensive), increases to rates are >>>>>>> >>>>likely
to be needed to fund repayment of borrowing. How else would the work
be funded if National were to be elected in November?
IAnd National's policy (almost its only policy) is to reduce teh top >>>>>>> >>>>tax rate.
could equally postulate on how much tax rates will rise to fund >>>>>>> >>>>>Water
Entities doing the same development. The money has to come from >>>>>>> >>>>>somewhere - either increased taxes or increased rates.
The differenceWhich sounds just like Watercare - what is the difference, Crash? >>>>>>> >>>>
is that local bodies own and fund existing water assets and are run
by
those elected to do so by ratepayers. Water entities are new, >>>>>>> >>>>>forcibly acquire existing water assets, and are run entirely by >>>>>>> >>>>>appointed directors.
There are water asset management and operation issues in some parts
of
NZ. Labour have legislated a nationwide one-size-fits-all solution >>>>>>> >>>>>(well-run and resourced water assets taken from the local bodies >>>>>>> >>>>>that
have no issues) with other totally undesirable and undemocratic >>>>>>> >>>>>governance issues.
There will be fewer Water organisations, enabling a deeper strength >>>>>>> >>>>of
expertise, greater cooperation between different areas, so a sharing
of expertise and possibly some equipment, but not one-size fits all >>>>>>> >>>>by any means - different locations have different water issues with >>>>>>> >>>>different solutions; but based around delivery of common standards, >>>>>>> >>>>using common science (hydrology, engineering etc). In addition there
will be government funding to ensure that areas with better current >>>>>>> >>>>current systems do not get penalised by having to fund less
effective
current systems in other areas. At the end of the day of course >>>>>>> >>>>ongoing work will need tobe funded equitably over all of New >>>>>>> >>>>Zealand.
Do you have a better alternative?
1. Don't fix something that is not broken.
different bits . . .
2. Don't remove democratic authority from local electors.Why not? It was done for electricity generation and distribution, and >>>>>>> >>worked well for a long time.
Electricity department to Govern met-owned SOEs (hint both are run by >>>>>>> >Government appointed people) with the Water reforms (currently run by >>>>>>> >elected local bodies, to be run by unelected directors and Maori Iwi)? >>>>>>> The Generating companies are 49% owned by private shareholders - they >>>>>>> are run to maximise return to shareholders. Yes that are co-managed - >>>>>>> with Directors representing share investors, not the people of New >>>>>>> Zealand. That is co-management National style . . .
No, that is management by the board and nothing to do with co-management. >>>>>>Same
as any other public listed company. The shareholding minister has 51% so >>>>>>appoints and directs the board. Your comment "run to maximise return to >>>>>>shareholders" is as ignorant and flat out wrong as expected from a >>>>>>dickhead
like you.
at
best a gross simplification and in his case probably a downright lie.
There are not many companies in New Zealand that can declare dividends >>>>higher than profits over recent times - can there be any doubt htat >>>>they are being governed for maximum benefit to shareholders as a top >>>>priority? They are required by law to look after the interests of >>>>minority shareholders . . .
So who declared the high level of dividends Tony?
Can you ever keep to topic?
One of the early posts in this thread said "there are 55,000 houses in >>>>>>> at risk of flooding areas. Looks like it has been happening for many >>>>>>> moons."
Any comparison is absurd and shows your support of Water reforms >>>>>>> >legislation is reaching new levels of irrationality.
Supply and disposal to standards set by government do not require the >>>>>>> >Water reforms currently enacted. Said standards are being implemented >>>>>>> >now and the majority of existing local authorities either exceed, meet >>>>>>> >or nearly meet them.3/5 waters is all about political power, it is not actually about >>>>>>> >>>waterNo, it is about supply and disposal to standards set by government. >>>>>>> >
at its
root.
We know that many rivers are unfit for swimming in, let alone drinking >>>>>>> any of the water - there are warnings that gods may die for many >>>>>>> rivers. Water in small Canterbury towns is causing illness in infants >>>>>>> from excessive nitrates from cattle farming. Water quality in Havelock >>>>>>> North is not yet meeting standards consistently - remember those that >>>>>>> died while Lawrence Yule was mayor? Quantity of water is an issue in >>>>>>> some regions - they have trucks to supply water during the dry season. >>>>>>> Many areas have large amounts of sewage water mixing with stormwater - >>>>>>> in Auckland fixing that is estimated to cost millions, and little work >>>>>>> has been done so far. Wellington suffers from vry old underground >>>>>>> pipes that burst more eften than anyone would like; Christchurch had a >>>>>>> large amount of new underground services but is still having problems >>>>>>> in some areas.
You can bury your head in the sand as much as you like, but there is a >>>>>>> lot of work to do to meet acceptable standards for water suppply, >>>>>>> quality, and disposal.
The Water reforms legislation introducesI am glad you agree that centralisation will provide some benefits - I >>>>>>> see them as also providing a consistent standard for all communities >>>>>>> (the equal opportunity principle), and a greater flexibility to meet >>>>>>> different needs with greater shared expertise and resources. The >>>>>>> structures should also avoid the need for the problems of the
centralisation (not a bad thing in principle) and co-governance >>>>>>> >(totally replacing elected local body control with unelected and >>>>>>> >racially-biased boards of directors).
FOreshore and Seabed legislation - my view is that once agreed,
arrnagments should be recognised by the Waitangi Tribunal as being a >>>>>>> full and final settlement in relation to most water rights under the >>>>>>> Treaty.
They are more rational than the Bradford reforms of electricity - I do >>>>>>> think there should have been a higher percentage than 50% to restrict >>>>>>> any future government from privatising water resources; sadly National >>>>>>> voted against that, but the percentage could have been lower than 75%. >>>>>>> There is therefore a greater risk than there should have been in >>>>>>> electing a government that may wish to continue with privatisation to >>>>>>> pay off supporters; that may well hurt National and ACT at the next >>>>>>> election.
Rich, this is another example of your trend to increasingly irrational >>>>>>> >justifications of the Water reforms.
On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 20:55:52 -0000 (UTC), TonyYet again you talk nothing but shit Rich. Do you ever stop lying to support your own stupidity or does lying come so naturally to you that you think it's normal...
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Absolutely, Tony. I accept your apology for your your lack of
On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 20:07:24 -0000 (UTC), TonyI don't care. I did not raise the matter of dividends, you did.
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 03:01:05 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Meaningless. You still don't understand what the job of a board of directors
JohnO <john...@gmail.com> wrote:There are not many companies in New Zealand that can declare dividends >>>>higher than profits over recent times - can there be any doubt htat >>>>they are being governed for maximum benefit to shareholders as a top >>>>priority? They are required by law to look after the interests of >>>>minority shareholders . . .
On Monday, 13 February 2023 at 14:30:13 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
Yes he has said that so many times that he proabably believes it now. It isOn Mon, 13 Feb 2023 11:43:06 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 22:12:09 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>>>>>> >wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 01:41:35 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 13:09:31 +1300, Crash
<nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 12:44:22 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 11 Feb 2023 20:32:09 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>
The Generating companies are 49% owned by private shareholders - they >>>>>>> are run to maximise return to shareholders. Yes that are co-managed - >>>>>>> with Directors representing share investors, not the people of New >>>>>>> Zealand. That is co-management National style . . .Rich are you serious? How can you equate the change from anThere is a lot that is broken however - hard to separate a system intoI don't know about Crash, but I do.(based on property values) or increases in water charges - to a >>>>>>> >>>>certain extent that would be up to Auckland. Initial capital may beWhat is it that leads you to believe that if local councils cannotCertainly there is much to answer for from those that denied thathttps://www.stuff.co.nz/national/131196837/for-sale-new-warm-and-dry-homes-the-catch-theyre-in-a-flood-plain-and-the-flood-is-coming-sooner-than-you-think
We have had the discussion of the proposed subdivision in a flod
prone are a
recently.
Looks like it is s drop in the bucket, there are 55,000 houses in
at
risk of
flooding areas. Looks like it has been happening for many moons.
Amazing the power of lack of memory, optomisim, and greed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>
Climate Change would affect us, The extent of the change has >>>>>>> >>>>>>however
been greater than scientists would have predicted when many of >>>>>>> >>>>>>these
houses developed, and it is clear now that our stormwater systems
are
inadequate; Watercare has been doing a lot of good work, but they
need
a much larger budget. Three Waters offers the possibility of >>>>>>> >>>>>>GOvernment sharing both the responsibility and the funding - >>>>>>> >>>>>>National
want it to all stay with Local Councils - how much will Auckland
Rates
have to increase if Nationl gets in at the next election? >>>>>>> >>>>>
fund water asset maintenance that a rates increase is required? >>>>>>> >>>>I was using rates as a generic term - it could be by Council rates
by
borrowing (and also bear in mind that local authority issued stock
is
likely to be say 0.25% more expensive), increases to rates are >>>>>>> >>>>likely
to be needed to fund repayment of borrowing. How else would the work
be funded if National were to be elected in November?
IAnd National's policy (almost its only policy) is to reduce teh top
could equally postulate on how much tax rates will rise to fund >>>>>>> >>>>>Water
Entities doing the same development. The money has to come from >>>>>>> >>>>>somewhere - either increased taxes or increased rates.
tax rate.
The differenceWhich sounds just like Watercare - what is the difference, Crash? >>>>>>> >>>>
is that local bodies own and fund existing water assets and are run
by
those elected to do so by ratepayers. Water entities are new, >>>>>>> >>>>>forcibly acquire existing water assets, and are run entirely by >>>>>>> >>>>>appointed directors.
There are water asset management and operation issues in some parts
of
NZ. Labour have legislated a nationwide one-size-fits-all solution
(well-run and resourced water assets taken from the local bodies >>>>>>> >>>>>that
have no issues) with other totally undesirable and undemocratic >>>>>>> >>>>>governance issues.
There will be fewer Water organisations, enabling a deeper strength
of
expertise, greater cooperation between different areas, so a sharing
of expertise and possibly some equipment, but not one-size fits all
by any means - different locations have different water issues with
different solutions; but based around delivery of common standards,
using common science (hydrology, engineering etc). In addition there
will be government funding to ensure that areas with better current
current systems do not get penalised by having to fund less >>>>>>> >>>>effective
current systems in other areas. At the end of the day of course >>>>>>> >>>>ongoing work will need tobe funded equitably over all of New >>>>>>> >>>>Zealand.
Do you have a better alternative?
1. Don't fix something that is not broken.
different bits . . .
2. Don't remove democratic authority from local electors.Why not? It was done for electricity generation and distribution, and
worked well for a long time.
Electricity department to Govern met-owned SOEs (hint both are run by
Government appointed people) with the Water reforms (currently run by
elected local bodies, to be run by unelected directors and Maori Iwi)?
No, that is management by the board and nothing to do with co-management.
Same
as any other public listed company. The shareholding minister has 51% so
appoints and directs the board. Your comment "run to maximise return to >>>>>>shareholders" is as ignorant and flat out wrong as expected from a >>>>>>dickhead
like you.
at
best a gross simplification and in his case probably a downright lie. >>>>
is.
So who declared the high level of dividends Tony?
Can you ever keep to topic?
understanding; but I must say that you do epitomise the Subject of
this thread with every post; perhaps that has affected your
difficulties.
One of the early posts in this thread said "there are 55,000 houses in
Any comparison is absurd and shows your support of Water reforms >>>>>>> >legislation is reaching new levels of irrationality.
Supply and disposal to standards set by government do not require the3/5 waters is all about political power, it is not actually about >>>>>>> >>>waterNo, it is about supply and disposal to standards set by government. >>>>>>> >
at its
root.
Water reforms currently enacted. Said standards are being implemented
now and the majority of existing local authorities either exceed, meet
or nearly meet them.
at risk of flooding areas. Looks like it has been happening for many >>>>>>> moons."
We know that many rivers are unfit for swimming in, let alone drinking
any of the water - there are warnings that gods may die for many >>>>>>> rivers. Water in small Canterbury towns is causing illness in infants >>>>>>> from excessive nitrates from cattle farming. Water quality in Havelock
North is not yet meeting standards consistently - remember those that >>>>>>> died while Lawrence Yule was mayor? Quantity of water is an issue in >>>>>>> some regions - they have trucks to supply water during the dry season.
Many areas have large amounts of sewage water mixing with stormwater -
in Auckland fixing that is estimated to cost millions, and little work
has been done so far. Wellington suffers from vry old underground >>>>>>> pipes that burst more eften than anyone would like; Christchurch had a
large amount of new underground services but is still having problems >>>>>>> in some areas.
You can bury your head in the sand as much as you like, but there is a
lot of work to do to meet acceptable standards for water suppply, >>>>>>> quality, and disposal.
The Water reforms legislation introducesI am glad you agree that centralisation will provide some benefits - I
centralisation (not a bad thing in principle) and co-governance >>>>>>> >(totally replacing elected local body control with unelected and >>>>>>> >racially-biased boards of directors).
see them as also providing a consistent standard for all communities >>>>>>> (the equal opportunity principle), and a greater flexibility to meet >>>>>>> different needs with greater shared expertise and resources. The >>>>>>> structures should also avoid the need for the problems of the
FOreshore and Seabed legislation - my view is that once agreed, >>>>>>> arrnagments should be recognised by the Waitangi Tribunal as being a >>>>>>> full and final settlement in relation to most water rights under the >>>>>>> Treaty.
They are more rational than the Bradford reforms of electricity - I do
Rich, this is another example of your trend to increasingly irrational
justifications of the Water reforms.
think there should have been a higher percentage than 50% to restrict >>>>>>> any future government from privatising water resources; sadly National
voted against that, but the percentage could have been lower than 75%.
There is therefore a greater risk than there should have been in >>>>>>> electing a government that may wish to continue with privatisation to >>>>>>> pay off supporters; that may well hurt National and ACT at the next >>>>>>> election.
On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 20:55:52 -0000 (UTC), Tonysooner-than-you-think
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 20:07:24 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 03:01:05 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, 13 February 2023 at 14:30:13 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 11:43:06 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 22:12:09 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> >>>>>>>> >wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 01:41:35 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 13:09:31 +1300, Crash
<nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 12:44:22 +1300, Rich80105
<Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 11 Feb 2023 20:32:09 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/131196837/for-sale-new-warm-and-dry-homes-the-catch-theyre-in-a-flood-plain-and-the-flood-is-coming-
Perhaps you could actually keep on topic but I doubt it.Absolutely, Tony. I accept your apology for your your lack ofI don't care. I did not raise the matter of dividends, you did.Meaningless. You still don't understand what the job of a board of >>>>directorsThere are not many companies in New Zealand that can declare dividends >>>>>higher than profits over recent times - can there be any doubt htat >>>>>they are being governed for maximum benefit to shareholders as a top >>>>>priority? They are required by law to look after the interests of >>>>>minority shareholders . . .Yes he has said that so many times that he proabably believes it now. It >>>>>>isThe Generating companies are 49% owned by private shareholders - they >>>>>>>> are run to maximise return to shareholders. Yes that are co-managed - >>>>>>>> with Directors representing share investors, not the people of New >>>>>>>> Zealand. That is co-management National style . . .Rich are you serious? How can you equate the change from anThere is a lot that is broken however - hard to separate a system >>>>>>>> >>intoI don't know about Crash, but I do.byWhat is it that leads you to believe that if local councils >>>>>>>> >>>>>cannotCertainly there is much to answer for from those that denied >>>>>>>> >>>>>>that
We have had the discussion of the proposed subdivision in a >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>flod
prone are a
recently.
Looks like it is s drop in the bucket, there are 55,000 houses >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>in
at
risk of
flooding areas. Looks like it has been happening for many >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>moons.
Amazing the power of lack of memory, optomisim, and greed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>
Climate Change would affect us, The extent of the change has >>>>>>>> >>>>>>however
been greater than scientists would have predicted when many of >>>>>>>> >>>>>>these
houses developed, and it is clear now that our stormwater >>>>>>>> >>>>>>systems
are
inadequate; Watercare has been doing a lot of good work, but >>>>>>>> >>>>>>they
need
a much larger budget. Three Waters offers the possibility of >>>>>>>> >>>>>>GOvernment sharing both the responsibility and the funding - >>>>>>>> >>>>>>National
want it to all stay with Local Councils - how much will Auckland >>>>>>>> >>>>>>Rates
have to increase if Nationl gets in at the next election? >>>>>>>> >>>>>
fund water asset maintenance that a rates increase is required? >>>>>>>> >>>>I was using rates as a generic term - it could be by Council rates >>>>>>>> >>>>(based on property values) or increases in water charges - to a >>>>>>>> >>>>certain extent that would be up to Auckland. Initial capital may >>>>>>>> >>>>be
borrowing (and also bear in mind that local authority issued stock >>>>>>>> >>>>is
likely to be say 0.25% more expensive), increases to rates are >>>>>>>> >>>>likely
to be needed to fund repayment of borrowing. How else would the >>>>>>>> >>>>work
be funded if National were to be elected in November?
IAnd National's policy (almost its only policy) is to reduce teh >>>>>>>> >>>>top
could equally postulate on how much tax rates will rise to fund >>>>>>>> >>>>>Water
Entities doing the same development. The money has to come from >>>>>>>> >>>>>somewhere - either increased taxes or increased rates.
tax rate.
The differenceWhich sounds just like Watercare - what is the difference, Crash? >>>>>>>> >>>>
is that local bodies own and fund existing water assets and are >>>>>>>> >>>>>run
by
those elected to do so by ratepayers. Water entities are new, >>>>>>>> >>>>>forcibly acquire existing water assets, and are run entirely by >>>>>>>> >>>>>appointed directors.
There are water asset management and operation issues in some >>>>>>>> >>>>>parts
of
NZ. Labour have legislated a nationwide one-size-fits-all >>>>>>>> >>>>>solution
(well-run and resourced water assets taken from the local bodies >>>>>>>> >>>>>that
have no issues) with other totally undesirable and undemocratic >>>>>>>> >>>>>governance issues.
There will be fewer Water organisations, enabling a deeper >>>>>>>> >>>>strength
of
expertise, greater cooperation between different areas, so a >>>>>>>> >>>>sharing
of expertise and possibly some equipment, but not one-size fits >>>>>>>> >>>>all
by any means - different locations have different water issues >>>>>>>> >>>>with
different solutions; but based around delivery of common
standards,
using common science (hydrology, engineering etc). In addition >>>>>>>> >>>>there
will be government funding to ensure that areas with better >>>>>>>> >>>>current
current systems do not get penalised by having to fund less >>>>>>>> >>>>effective
current systems in other areas. At the end of the day of course >>>>>>>> >>>>ongoing work will need tobe funded equitably over all of New >>>>>>>> >>>>Zealand.
Do you have a better alternative?
1. Don't fix something that is not broken.
different bits . . .
2. Don't remove democratic authority from local electors.Why not? It was done for electricity generation and distribution, >>>>>>>> >>and
worked well for a long time.
Electricity department to Govern met-owned SOEs (hint both are run by >>>>>>>> >Government appointed people) with the Water reforms (currently run by >>>>>>>> >elected local bodies, to be run by unelected directors and Maori Iwi)?
No, that is management by the board and nothing to do with >>>>>>>co-management.
Same
as any other public listed company. The shareholding minister has 51% so >>>>>>>appoints and directs the board. Your comment "run to maximise return to >>>>>>>shareholders" is as ignorant and flat out wrong as expected from a >>>>>>>dickhead
like you.
at
best a gross simplification and in his case probably a downright lie. >>>>>
is.
So who declared the high level of dividends Tony?
Can you ever keep to topic?
understanding; but I must say that you do epitomise the Subject of
this thread with every post; perhaps that has affected your
difficulties.
One of the early posts in this thread said "there are 55,000 houses in >>>>>>>> at risk of flooding areas. Looks like it has been happening for many >>>>>>>> moons."
Any comparison is absurd and shows your support of Water reforms >>>>>>>> >legislation is reaching new levels of irrationality.
Supply and disposal to standards set by government do not require the >>>>>>>> >Water reforms currently enacted. Said standards are being implemented >>>>>>>> >now and the majority of existing local authorities either exceed, >>>>>>>> >meet3/5 waters is all about political power, it is not actually about >>>>>>>> >>>waterNo, it is about supply and disposal to standards set by government. >>>>>>>> >
at its
root.
or nearly meet them.
We know that many rivers are unfit for swimming in, let alone drinking >>>>>>>> any of the water - there are warnings that gods may die for many >>>>>>>> rivers. Water in small Canterbury towns is causing illness in infants >>>>>>>> from excessive nitrates from cattle farming. Water quality in Havelock >>>>>>>> North is not yet meeting standards consistently - remember those that >>>>>>>> died while Lawrence Yule was mayor? Quantity of water is an issue in >>>>>>>> some regions - they have trucks to supply water during the dry season. >>>>>>>> Many areas have large amounts of sewage water mixing with stormwater - >>>>>>>> in Auckland fixing that is estimated to cost millions, and little work >>>>>>>> has been done so far. Wellington suffers from vry old underground >>>>>>>> pipes that burst more eften than anyone would like; Christchurch had a >>>>>>>> large amount of new underground services but is still having problems >>>>>>>> in some areas.
You can bury your head in the sand as much as you like, but there is a >>>>>>>> lot of work to do to meet acceptable standards for water suppply, >>>>>>>> quality, and disposal.
The Water reforms legislation introducesI am glad you agree that centralisation will provide some benefits - I >>>>>>>> see them as also providing a consistent standard for all communities >>>>>>>> (the equal opportunity principle), and a greater flexibility to meet >>>>>>>> different needs with greater shared expertise and resources. The >>>>>>>> structures should also avoid the need for the problems of the
centralisation (not a bad thing in principle) and co-governance >>>>>>>> >(totally replacing elected local body control with unelected and >>>>>>>> >racially-biased boards of directors).
FOreshore and Seabed legislation - my view is that once agreed, >>>>>>>> arrnagments should be recognised by the Waitangi Tribunal as being a >>>>>>>> full and final settlement in relation to most water rights under the >>>>>>>> Treaty.
They are more rational than the Bradford reforms of electricity - I do >>>>>>>> think there should have been a higher percentage than 50% to restrict >>>>>>>> any future government from privatising water resources; sadly National >>>>>>>> voted against that, but the percentage could have been lower than 75%. >>>>>>>> There is therefore a greater risk than there should have been in >>>>>>>> electing a government that may wish to continue with privatisation to >>>>>>>> pay off supporters; that may well hurt National and ACT at the next >>>>>>>> election.
Rich, this is another example of your trend to increasingly
irrational
justifications of the Water reforms.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 103:54:05 |
| Calls: | 6,660 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,335,167 |