-
@dogmeat Can't really argue with any of that.
Yes developers should be paying for infrastructure. They did a greenfield development further down our road and the runoff from the road they created (due to poor drainage planning) created a canyon across the council road, it was almost impassable. The council has now sealed up to their road, which I am grateful for, to fix the issues the developers created.
Yes all of our roads should be NZTA not Auckland transport. They are part of our national economy. Couriers won't even come to our place as the road is so bad. They leave packages at the local petrol station.
I can kind of understand the CRL cost to council, as it isn't part of a national network as such, which the motorways are, and yes Skypath seems daft. Get on a bus for 5 minutes with your bike FFS.
Yes I have noticed urban roads are deteriorating too, our potholes are more like tank traps in places. There is "whinge" online thing at council for roads and they show up eventually to "fix" potholes, albeit temporarily because they are drainage related, you can't just fill them in. They come back.
-
@Snowy said in NZ Politics:
Yes developers should be paying for infrastructure.
dont they?
It is my understanding that they pay for the infrastructure in new developments, but the Council takes over the management/maintenance of it, surely not something again individual councils do differently?
-
@taniwharugby said in NZ Politics:
@Snowy said in NZ Politics:
Yes developers should be paying for infrastructure.
dont they?
It is my understanding that they pay for the infrastructure in new developments, but the Council takes over the management/maintenance of it, surely not something again individual councils do differently?
Some of I think. Depends on the development and how it connects to council owned.
-
@taniwharugby In Akl they pay a development levy but it is, apparently, nowhere near the true cost of providing the necessary infrastructure.
-
@dogmeat said in NZ Politics:
@taniwharugby In Akl they pay a development levy but it is, apparently, nowhere near the true cost of providing the necessary infrastructure.
... and brown field development is crazy expensive as well. Not only do you have the cost of upgrading existing infrastructure (eyewatering), but in NZ any 3+ level gets into massively expensive seismic design issues.
Bottom line is building is expensive here for lots of reasons
-
@dogmeat yeah I know they pay development contributions, which is based on how many extra people it adds to the community, more vehicle movements, contribution to public amenities etc, but in most cases I think they pay for the roading, drainage, connections etc, and then council maintain them.
Although on the larger developments, I think thats where they do al the infrastructure, but pay less on development contributions (been a while since I was at the Council)
-
-
-
All that time effort and money, the result is the same
-
More on Mallard
Hopefully he goes
-
@blackeyeagain said in NZ Politics:
More on Mallard
Hopefully he goes
Just saw the speech on parliament about this, what a scumbag.
-
@kirwan said in NZ Politics:
@blackeyeagain said in NZ Politics:
More on Mallard
Hopefully he goes
Just saw the speech on parliament about this, what a scumbag.
He's been a bully boy for years
-
What's the thinking on Christopher Luxon? Perhaps the next National Leader?
The quotes from his speech read pretty well.
-
@kiwimurph For what it's worth I understand he was a pretty divisive figure at AirNZ.
Certainly the least impressive of the Norris / Fyfe / Luxon triumvirate from my personal experience. All three claimed credit for turning Air NZ around!
-
@dogmeat said in NZ Politics:
@kiwimurph For what it's worth I understand he was a pretty divisive figure at AirNZ.
Certainly the least impressive of the Norris / Fyfe / Luxon triumvirate from my personal experience. All three claimed credit for turning Air NZ around!
Fyfe dealt with the aircraft crash in France, seemed to do a good job of casting a compassionate figure IIRC
NZ Politics