Steve, without going into the detail I am exactly the target
market the dudes and dudettes responsible for marketing the
flights, should have had a really focused bead on. Yet at no
point have I bumped into any form of proactive communication
(let's call it publicity) of any sort that would prompt me to
readily believe that direct MEL-DUD, or SYD-DUD flights,
existed. I've been around the traps long enough to know a
'whoops' moment when one comes along. And the publicity /
marketing underpinning the flights has the hallmarks of one
of those. Seems to have been a wee bit of a Marketing 101
fail, from several angles. (BTW, your link landed on a page
that spoke of a 2011/12 NZ tourism campaign, that
breathlessly gushed about promoting SI self-drive packages,
to Aussies. I couldn't find any reference to anything that
resembled a comment about direct int'l flights from Aussie,
The biggest joke is this country's insistence in calling
single lane roads state highways when in fact anywhere else
in the developed world they would be called minor roads.
Crashes here are nearly always caused by centre lane crossing
or impatience, and until they dual carriageway the entire
so-called state highway system this will never end. You show
me a highway in the UK where the speed limit is 50kmh. The
road into Dunedin is not a highway!
DeathWeasel, get a grip. Don't tell us you we should believe
your arguments and your supposed statistical thinking. Argh.
Not everyone who runs a bike isn't running a car or other
vehicles as well. This isn't the dark ages. But it will be if
Cull, MacTavish and Wilson get their way - moving closer and
closer to a DCC consolidated billion-dollar debt, and a
central government-appointed commissioner for governance (who
should already be in place if councillors and council
staff weren't so busy burying information).[Abridged]
Two carrots, actually. The first is the 25m pool .... which
will be the same size as the existing pool which the Wanaka
residents have been trying to have upgraded for years. The
problem is it will not nearly be adequate for the proposed
expanded development, let alone the Three Parks plus existing
residents. The second carrot is the 'affordable' housing ...
yeah right. Just hope the council have the guts to stick to
the existing plans and reject the developers proposal.
Affordable housing is a complete smokescreen for a massive
real estate development which is completely at odds with the
surrounding rural residential lots. It will severely impact
the landscape views from existing residents of Aubrey Road
and visitors walkig the Mt Iron track, will create a huge
burden on Wanaka's infrastructure, and it will negatively
impact on all those who use the cycle tracks, walkways and
quiet riverside areas.
This development is is not consistent with the majority of
submissions received during the planning hearings, nor the
views expressed over the planning for the future discussions.
With the Three Parks subdivision underway those who have
chosen to live in rural residential sections on the outskirts
of Wanaka now face being hemmed in by two new retail
precincts and 4400 new houses.
This isn't nimbyism, it's a plea to council to listen to the
voices of Wanaka which have been overlooked consistently in
recent years. Developers are chasing money (and fair enough)
but they must also listen to the voices of the community in
which they wish to develop.
The Meehans are simply refusing to enter a discussion with
the very people who are affected by their enterprise, and the
QLDC appears to be rubberstamping their development despite
the views of the ratepayers. Roll on the next election.
"In what sense is it an unnecessary regulation that if your
fence is on someone else's property you have to buy, lease or
give back the land you've enclosed?" asks Rob Fischer.
True, when the encroachment onto someone else's property was
done within, say, the last 30 years. That's enough time
for the legitimate owner to notice it's wrong and get it put
right. But in the case of "a 130-year-old fence" that
has caused no actual problems, unless there is proof that
whoever first built the fence intended to deprive the owner
of the reserve of some land, it's petty to penalise the
current owner for errors on both parts that long ago. A
boundary fence is the responsibility of both parties, isn't
it? So why hasn't the State, which has far better
resources including surveyors and detailed maps than the
ordinary householder, noticed till now? Carelessness!
Best they shut up and leave the couple to replace the
fence quietly at their own expense - or cough up for all
those years of fence maintenance carried out by owners of the
The other side to your statistics show that more women assult
their male partners every year than male assult female, it's
just not reported as often. So will cunliffe also apologise
for not balancing his argument with these facts? It's not
always what is said; more often it is what is not
Oh, not another loopy Bennett diversion ploy two months out
from a change of Government! Surely not a diversion away from
child poverty, ridiculous house prices, a buy cheapest
regardless of quality goverment policy, an arrogant PM, and a
Minister of Social Welfare who fools only the gullible?
"In another example, a property owner trying to replace a
130-year-old fence discovered some of it was on a scenic
reserve and they faced having to buy or lease the land."
In what sense is it an unnecessary regulation that if your
fence is on someone else's property you have to buy, lease or
give back the land you've enclosed? Rather than the State
(aka. the taxpayer, aka. you and me) giving them the land (as
Paula seems to suggest) they could have been charged 130
years of back rent. Simply asking them to pay for it from
that point on seems utterly utterly reasonable.
"Car 'culture' may be your preference, but it isn't mine, so
please stop claiming that it is ours," oxygendebt
reproves me. Fair point. If I appeared to insist that
our culture was rigidly car-only it's clear that I expressed
myself poorly. Likewise, my apologies to any
dairy-intolerant readers for my claim that cheese rolls are a
cultural artefact of Otago-Southland. People who cannot
eat cheese can still be dyed in the wool Otago/Southlanders.