Deadly serious. Car culture in the US is driven by the Auto lobby. Thats why high speed trains can never get off the ground there. But in NZ all there is fucking Fulton Hogan and Downer.
Politics 🗳️ NZ Politics
- Thread starter wizard of Tauranga
- Start date
NZWarriors.com
I used to live in Queenstown. Roads used to last 5 years max. Then it was 2, then they were relaying sections every year. If any other company did such substandard work, contracts would get torn up.
Big sharks in a tiny pond, much like the supermarket duopoly here, can't see anything changing soon.
NZWarriors.com
Every year? Luxury, it's every 3 months now, the scam that keeps on giving.
They do.
However, the highways here are a joke, from Warkworth north.
On Northlands west coast, part of the the state highway has been closed for more than two years.
Northland is the most economically depraved regions with some of the highest prices for food because of transportation costs.
It doesn't stop at food either, everything is more expensive due to transport costs.
The planned spending is from Warkworth to Whangarei which makes good sense when compared with the Auckland - Hamilton highway. That has opened up huge residential development along that corridor and the same will happen Auckland - Whangarei.
- Thread starter
- #10,546
The māori Party want to see this model replicated across NZ…
NZWarriors.com
And this is one of the main reasons I didn’t like the Three Waters model… because the bulk of the spending would have been done in the major centers where the bulk of the revenue was collected, at the expense of regions like Northland.
Three Waters was based on the Scottish Water model…. and designed by the same person. But the bulk of the infrastructure spending in Scotland for water is done around the major southern cities/Southern Highlands and Inverness in the north..
Scottish Water hasn’t improved the water quality compared to our current system…. last year, they had more boil water notices and for longer periods than we did.
Another aspect I didn’t like about Three Waters was that they were going to pay the council’s the current value of the assets and not the price to provide them. This meant, the Three Waters central groups could buy say a councils assets for say $500,000,000 but the council had borrowed $800,000,000 to provide the infrastructure. That left the councils (and ratepayers) loans for $300,000,000 to be paid back for assets they no longer owned. The council’s would then have to resecure the balance of those loans against the assets they owned or pay back the balance straight away.
Personally. I like the idea of assets being owned and managed by local/regional councils and with funding also available through the central government for new and improving existing water infrastructure. Definitely NOT sold of privately or have the water companies privatised…. locals need to maintain control of the assets and not some overseas retirement fund!!!
I agree but with some caveats.
Currently we have a number of Councils unable to do this. Voter turnout is so low , candidates are generally poor. So I'm not convinced these people are capable of managing anything. Not sure what the answer is but we need to improve and change the current model.
From my experience dealing with council's, the issues aren't with the elected officials (mayors and councilors) but with the unelected. While the elected ones set the budget and sign off on the projects, it's the HOD's, CEO's and CFO's who really set the agendas and run things.
I think I've mentioned this before but a number of years ago, I was involved with a project where a subdivision was to take place on a property. My client brought the house which had already had drainage work done to provide new connections and relocate some existing drainage lines to avoid the building platform on the rear of the property for a the new house.... which already had a building consent issued by the new buyer didn't like it.
Part of the building platform has already been built out and retaining walls provided. If the drains hadn't already been moved, they would have been exposed and hanging in midair.
We applied for a revised BC and the drainage engineer reviewing the application asked that we provide a video inspection because the upgrades to the drainage works hadn't been signed off and council provided with an as-built drawing showing where the drains had been relocated to.
Instead, I did a search through the property files of all the neighbouring properties and found the council's approval for the work and the as-built drawing. The engineer who had inspected the work, signed it off and approved the as-built drawing as being accurate but put the information in the wrong property file was the same engineer telling me the drainage work hadn't been done. Less than two years later, he was CEO of Watercare.
Last edited:
NZWarriors.com
Doesn’t the model that’s intended to replace 3 waters amalgamate councils together, some that are performing bad with some that are performing well, essentially driving everybody’s rates up? Pretty sure it’s an issue around the Wairarapa with a divided response
I think smaller councils should have the right to amalgamate into a new organisation for raising funds and providing new services/assets but still maintain ownership over their existing assets if that amalgamation is going to improve services and the quality of the water. But not have the equivalent of a mortgagee sale forced on them by central government.
The thing is, most of the water infrastructure is underground and technical changes (i.e. new ways of treating drinkable water and dealing with stormwater/waste water) means water assets depreciate in value and then, at some stage, needs to be replaced. So, a council would never receive from government the full cost of providing those assets.... only the value of the assets now. But loans for more than the value of the assets still need to be repaid.
I agree they should have the right to, but the right to reject it also. If I was a ratepayer in a town that isn’t seeing issues regarding water and performing well to be lumped with another town that has been negligent, I would be frustrated with that model
NZWarriors.com
I can guarantee you that expensive food in Northland is not due to "transportation costs". Its 162km my guy. Low competition, low demand and low population density is the reason.
Northlands entire population is 200k, spit in the wind.
Proof, citations, or it's the racist dog whistle it looks like
I can guarantee you it is my guy.
The distance is not the issue, it is the time it takes to cover it. If your truck is sitting in road works traffic stops, having to detour on 60km winding roads and generally not being able to travel at the safe speed limit, then the cost is not the same as travelling the same distance on a two lane highway.
Wages are probably the same or lower than in bigger places and land prices are lower, so rents and leases are lower, so those overheads are competitive.
We have two supermarkets in town that regularly run out of some stock due to transport time.
When the Brynderwyns closed for a few months earlier this year. some forestry harvest also stopped because of the added transport costs.
NZWarriors.com
If it was Māori wanting to open a conversation or referendum regarding the treaty, and the crown opposed it as Māori do, would your support it?
I would listen to what they had to say and the basis for saying it.
NZWarriors.com
Just did an interesting exercise. When my wife and I were first married (30 years ago in a few weeks), we rented a house valued at $170,000 for $120 PW.... giving the landlord a rental return of 3.67% PA. Later, we brought that property from the landlord. After 10 years, we sold it.
Then, in 2016, we brought it back with the intention of ultimately retiring in it. I've just had a look and using an estimated online valuation, the rental return we're getting on the house is 3.69%.
What really amazing is that, at the peak of the property market when FOMO and COVID pushed prices up too absurd levels, the rental return dropped down to less than 2.5%.
Then, in 2016, we brought it back with the intention of ultimately retiring in it. I've just had a look and using an estimated online valuation, the rental return we're getting on the house is 3.69%.
What really amazing is that, at the peak of the property market when FOMO and COVID pushed prices up too absurd levels, the rental return dropped down to less than 2.5%.
Yields drop when house prices rise.
On a gross yield of 3.7% over 30 years, that is a pretty poor return. Much easier, less hassle and a better return to simply put your money in the bank over that 30 years rather than be a landlord. I guess the value has increased, any idea of current market value?
