Politics 🗳️ NZ Politics

[Noitall]

Revealed: Waka Kotahi bought new unbranded hi-viz jackets for PM, entourage for highway re-opening

But Luxon was unaware.

www.newshub.co.nz

This seems weird, is there an unwillingness to wear Maori logos of government agencies?

 

[NZDoug]

Politics is a bit of a bore for me right now.
Whoever is in power, will hang themselves as they have the rope for the next 3.5 years.
I just hope the country is spared from natural disasters like COVID and Cyclone Gabrielle.
Don’t like the brown nosing to America, as they veto ceasefire in Palestine.

 

[defensivebomb]

Winston’s covid enquiry is going to open a HUGE can of worms. Justice might be served for blackmailing the country to do something against the bill of rights.

If you want to leave feedback on how covid was handled, this is the link:

Royal Commission of Inquiry into COVID-19 - Citizen Space

Find and participate in activities run by Royal Commission of Inquiry into COVID-19

haveyoursay.covid19lessons.royalcommission.nz

 

[Rick O’Shay]

Revealed: Waka Kotahi bought new unbranded hi-viz jackets for PM, entourage for highway re-opening

But Luxon was unaware.

www.newshub.co.nz

This seems weird, is there an unwillingness to wear Maori logos of government agencies?

I'm no fan of Humpty but that has to rank as the worst piece of journalism I've seen for months.

I wonder if the staff using the emojis in their emails will get a letter.

 

[John Nick]

Revealed: Waka Kotahi bought new unbranded hi-viz jackets for PM, entourage for highway re-opening

But Luxon was unaware.

www.newshub.co.nz

This seems weird, is there an unwillingness to wear Maori logos of government agencies?

Why was Humpty and his little buddy even there for the opening.
Not as though they were involved with the rebuild

 

[defensivebomb]

I'm no fan of Humpty but that has to rank as the worst piece of journalism I've seen for months.

I wonder if the staff using the emojis in their emails will get a letter.

Imagine going to studying journalism and writing that article. It is like a disparate collection of inconsequential facts, which then get published so reporters on the fly can challenge the PM for a soundbite on how $304.90 has been spent. The article would have cost ten times more than that to publish

 

[Noitall]

I'm no fan of Humpty but that has to rank as the worst piece of journalism I've seen for months.

I wonder if the staff using the emojis in their emails will get a letter.

Niwa defends purchasing four $172,000 high-end utes

Niwa says a wide range of vehicles were test-driven but Chevrolet was the best option.

www.newshub.co.nz

Only a small amount in that case, but for a party so outraged about spending there doesn’t seem to be a lot of smart spending with these government agencies. Hopefully he gets onto them about spending more wisely, could have brought perhaps 3 times the amount of hilux’s or rangers for the cost of these four silverados? Hilux would be a good option for lux luther . Like a greeting to himself.

 

[miket12]

Last week, I met with a potential new client who has purchased a lifestyle block in rural South Auckland. He's already sold his existing house in Papakura with a long-term settlement and wants to get the plans underway for a resource consent and building consent for a new dwelling and small scale industrial building to service horticultural equipment.

The problem isn't what he intends to do but what he's done with the sale of his existing property. His current property is just over 1,200m² on a corner block with one side being a major road. It has a 1960's timber clad house on piles so can be easily removed. The property will be able to take between 4-8 terraced townhouses (depending on the size of the dwellings). This is a great site for a developer because it's within walking distance of the TownCenter and train station.

And, of course, a developer has paid him a deposit and talked him into a long term settlement date of six months. My client thinks this is great as it will give him a chance to get his project in Ramarama underway.

The developer has done nothing illegal but he's the one who will benefit from the current owner still maintaining possession of the property within the next six months. The developer has paid him a deposit of 5% with balance due on settlement day. In return, the current owner gave him permission for the developer's surveyor and other consultants to enter the site.

All good, you may think but the developer doesn't have the holding costs of the entire project for the next six months while his team of consultants apply for the resource and building consents necessary for the project. Those holding costs are being met by the current owner who is still paying for the mortgage on the property.

The developer has already advertised the existing house For Sale for removal with the house being available in six months time. He's also getting ready to start advising the new dwellings for sale with construction starting in September (if the consents have been approved).

And while this is happening, the developer is paying holding costs of around $4,000 in interest over the next six months for the amount he's borrowed for the deposit while the owner is paying over $25,000* in interest on his mortgage while he's given the developer time to get ready to begin construction. TBH, he would have been better to settle straightaway, put the money in the bank from the sale and used the interest that would have given him to rent a house for the next six months but, instead, he's given the developer $35,000** extra in profit by delaying the settlement.

* The current mortgage on the property is just over $650,000.

** The property was purchased for just over $1,000,000. $1 mil x 7% for six months = $35,000 interest not paid in holding costs.

 

[Noitall]

Last week, I met with a potential new client who has purchased a lifestyle block in rural South Auckland. He's already sold his existing house in Papakura with a long-term settlement and wants to get the plans underway for a resource consent and building consent for a new dwelling and small scale industrial building to service horticultural equipment.

The problem isn't what he intends to do but what he's done with the sale of his existing property. His current property is just over 1,200m² on a corner block with one side being a major road. It has a 1960's timber clad house on piles so can be easily removed. The property will be able to take between 4-8 terraced townhouses (depending on the size of the dwellings). This is a great site for a developer because it's within walking distance of the TownCenter and train station.

And, of course, a developer has paid him a deposit and talked him into a long term settlement date of six months. My client thinks this is great as it will give him a chance to get his project in Ramarama underway.

The developer has done nothing illegal but he's the one who will benefit from the current owner still maintaining possession of the property within the next six months. The developer has paid him a deposit of 5% with balance due on settlement day. In return, the current owner gave him permission for the developer's surveyor and other consultants to enter the site.

All good, you may think but the developer doesn't have the holding costs of the entire project for the next six months while his team of consultants apply for the resource and building consents necessary for the project. Those holding costs are being met by the current owner who is still paying for the mortgage on the property.

The developer has already advertised the existing house For Sale for removal with the house being available in six months time. He's also getting ready to start advising the new dwellings for sale with construction starting in September (if the consents have been approved).

And while this is happening, the developer is paying holding costs of around $4,000 in interest over the next six months for the amount he's borrowed for the deposit while the owner is paying over $25,000* in interest on his mortgage while he's given the developer time to get ready to begin construction. TBH, he would have been better to settle straightaway, put the money in the bank from the sale and used the interest that would have given him to rent a house for the next six months but, instead, he's given the developer $35,000** extra in profit by delaying the settlement.

* The current mortgage on the property is just over $650,000.

** The property was purchased for just over $1,000,000. $1 mil x 7% for six months = $35,000 interest not paid in holding costs.

Let me know if he needs a painter once things get underway.

 

[dean]

Last week, I met with a potential new client who has purchased a lifestyle block in rural South Auckland. He's already sold his existing house in Papakura with a long-term settlement and wants to get the plans underway for a resource consent and building consent for a new dwelling and small scale industrial building to service horticultural equipment.

The problem isn't what he intends to do but what he's done with the sale of his existing property. His current property is just over 1,200m² on a corner block with one side being a major road. It has a 1960's timber clad house on piles so can be easily removed. The property will be able to take between 4-8 terraced townhouses (depending on the size of the dwellings). This is a great site for a developer because it's within walking distance of the TownCenter and train station.

And, of course, a developer has paid him a deposit and talked him into a long term settlement date of six months. My client thinks this is great as it will give him a chance to get his project in Ramarama underway.

The developer has done nothing illegal but he's the one who will benefit from the current owner still maintaining possession of the property within the next six months. The developer has paid him a deposit of 5% with balance due on settlement day. In return, the current owner gave him permission for the developer's surveyor and other consultants to enter the site.

All good, you may think but the developer doesn't have the holding costs of the entire project for the next six months while his team of consultants apply for the resource and building consents necessary for the project. Those holding costs are being met by the current owner who is still paying for the mortgage on the property.

The developer has already advertised the existing house For Sale for removal with the house being available in six months time. He's also getting ready to start advising the new dwellings for sale with construction starting in September (if the consents have been approved).

And while this is happening, the developer is paying holding costs of around $4,000 in interest over the next six months for the amount he's borrowed for the deposit while the owner is paying over $25,000* in interest on his mortgage while he's given the developer time to get ready to begin construction. TBH, he would have been better to settle straightaway, put the money in the bank from the sale and used the interest that would have given him to rent a house for the next six months but, instead, he's given the developer $35,000** extra in profit by delaying the settlement.

* The current mortgage on the property is just over $650,000.

** The property was purchased for just over $1,000,000. $1 mil x 7% for six months = $35,000 interest not paid in holding costs.

That is not an unusual contract.
Your client could have rejected the offer, he didn't, he was obviously happy with the terms.
He has six months still to live in the house or still have it rented for that period.
Or, he may have already calculated the holding costs ( if any) and capitalised that into the sale price.

 

[Rizzah]

Tide starts to turn on Nicola Willis over Cook Strait mega ferries

Opinion: Willis’ quest to find a Toyota Corolla version of mega ferries looks challenging.

www.nzherald.co.nz

 

[Rizzah]

Grant Robinson gone. Taking up vice chancellor position at Otago Uni.

 

[John Nick]

Grant Robinson gone. Taking up vice chancellor position at Otago Uni.

Yes. Been waiting for the Rats and Sinking ship remarks from the right

 

[Rizzah]

Yes. Been waiting for the Rats and Sinking ship remarks from the right

You mean Nicole and her ferries?

 

[John Nick]

You mean Nicole and her ferries?

Guess they are still checking their stocks and shares.

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

Last week, I met with a potential new client who has purchased a lifestyle block in rural South Auckland. He's already sold his existing house in Papakura with a long-term settlement and wants to get the plans underway for a resource consent and building consent for a new dwelling and small scale industrial building to service horticultural equipment.

The problem isn't what he intends to do but what he's done with the sale of his existing property. His current property is just over 1,200m² on a corner block with one side being a major road. It has a 1960's timber clad house on piles so can be easily removed. The property will be able to take between 4-8 terraced townhouses (depending on the size of the dwellings). This is a great site for a developer because it's within walking distance of the TownCenter and train station.

And, of course, a developer has paid him a deposit and talked him into a long term settlement date of six months. My client thinks this is great as it will give him a chance to get his project in Ramarama underway.

The developer has done nothing illegal but he's the one who will benefit from the current owner still maintaining possession of the property within the next six months. The developer has paid him a deposit of 5% with balance due on settlement day. In return, the current owner gave him permission for the developer's surveyor and other consultants to enter the site.

All good, you may think but the developer doesn't have the holding costs of the entire project for the next six months while his team of consultants apply for the resource and building consents necessary for the project. Those holding costs are being met by the current owner who is still paying for the mortgage on the property.

The developer has already advertised the existing house For Sale for removal with the house being available in six months time. He's also getting ready to start advising the new dwellings for sale with construction starting in September (if the consents have been approved).

And while this is happening, the developer is paying holding costs of around $4,000 in interest over the next six months for the amount he's borrowed for the deposit while the owner is paying over $25,000* in interest on his mortgage while he's given the developer time to get ready to begin construction. TBH, he would have been better to settle straightaway, put the money in the bank from the sale and used the interest that would have given him to rent a house for the next six months but, instead, he's given the developer $35,000** extra in profit by delaying the settlement.

* The current mortgage on the property is just over $650,000.

** The property was purchased for just over $1,000,000. $1 mil x 7% for six months = $35,000 interest not paid in holding costs.

The big thing is consents taking forever instead of only a few months meaning every developer is paying $10’s of thousand in extra holding costs which is passed onto the cost of new houses.

But that’s nothing really, auckland has increased their water connection charges by 25% to $25k per house just for a water meter.

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

Yes. Been waiting for the Rats and Sinking ship remarks from the right

Ironic that was the first thing you thought of while none of the right posters said a thing

Didn’t really like the bloke but good on him. The honourable thing to do at this part of the election cycle is for the old heads to clear out and make room for new blood. When you going chippy?

 

[John Nick]

Ironic that was the first thing you thought of while none of the right posters said a thing

Glad you caught up.

 

[Rick O’Shay]

Niwa defends purchasing four $172,000 high-end utes

Niwa says a wide range of vehicles were test-driven but Chevrolet was the best option.

www.newshub.co.nz

Only a small amount in that case, but for a party so outraged about spending there doesn’t seem to be a lot of smart spending with these government agencies. Hopefully he gets onto them about spending more wisely, could have brought perhaps 3 times the amount of hilux’s or rangers for the cost of these four silverados? Hilux would be a good option for lux luther . Like a greeting to himself.

Yup, way over the top. Any of the NZ utes wouldn't have the towing capacity they were looking for, but a N series Isuzu crewcab would fit the bill for under half the price.

I guess it's better to have a Silverado sitting in the drive than a truck.

 

[dean]

Yup, way over the top. Any of the NZ utes wouldn't have the towing capacity they were looking for, but a N series Isuzu crewcab would fit the bill for under half the price.

I guess it's better to have a Silverado sitting in the drive than a truck.

My hilux has a 3500kg towing capacity which covers most trailer boats to 8m. How big are the niwa boats the Silverado has to tow I wonder?