Reader Comments

Story LinkComment LinkReader Comment
Target market?

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, into Dunedin.)

Joke highway

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!

Moving to new council governance

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

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

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.

Shared responsibility

"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 house.

The other side to your statistics

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 said.[Abridged]

 

Another loopy National 'idea'?

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?     

Unnecessary?

"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.

Cultural mousetraps

"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.

Syndicate content