Discussion:
Rising house prices.
(too old to reply)
John Bowes
2020-11-28 21:23:07 UTC
Permalink
Seems it started getting bad during Clarks time as PM. Seems Rich owes Key an apology for his senseless tirades!
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/123527809/which-prime-ministers-oversaw-the-biggest-house-price-increases

Sure they were rising before 1998 but nowhere like the rises since under successive governments.

The question is how do you stop it without buggering the economy??
James Christophers
2020-11-29 01:35:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Bowes
Seems it started getting bad during Clarks time as PM. Seems Rich owes Key an apology for his senseless tirades!
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/123527809/which-prime-ministers-oversaw-the-biggest-house-price-increases
In the article you reference, economist Matt Burgess from The New Zealand Initiative economics think tank, says both National and Labour governments have been culpable: “It’s been a train wreck for 30 years because the consequences of bad policy are longer than the electoral cycle”

He's right.

100% But who's listening?

Now try this (select 25Y period):

https://tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/interest-rate

Note the unprecedented negative step-change in the OCR under John Key's administration during late 2009 from which the cheapening, expanding money supply started flowing and since when has never stopped doing so. Since that fateful plunge, it has taken a natural lead time of about 6 to 7 years for the change, and those to even lower levels, to work their way through and make their full impact on the housing market. In essence, this is the poisoned chalice from yesteryear that keeps on giving, with Ardern and her lot being merely today's luckless recipients, locked as they are by the Reserve Bank's mandate into an insoluble conundrum that has its origins in that 2009 ORC plunge. And all of it always with the worthy intention of maintaining economic stimulus, that stimulus now however being concentrated virtually exclusively within the selfish money-for-nothing zero-productivity sector of our economy.

Again, viewing this 25-year chart or any other and then comparing degrees of prime-ministerial culpability is childishly simplistic since no matter the party, intrinsic behaviours and policies are identical; this behaviour driven by the current ruling party's desperation to either spend or reserve political and financial capital in a way most conducive to winning the next election. Worse still, with our forever-electioneering three-year term, you end up with short-termism in all things, with short-attention-span politicians having neither the wit nor the commonsense - let alone having developed that quinitessential **maturity and commitment** - required once and for all to get real and get down to planning for the long-term.

Again, one such "bad policy" (Burgess) - supposedly designed to prevent the economy grinding to a complete halt - has been the Reserve Bank's downward manipulation of the OCR which is now so low that the policy is now virtually self-negating. And once we're into negative interest rates, all bets are off. As I've already made clear in another recent thread, we now have the worst of all possible worlds: cheap money going into a hellish orgy of zero-productivity asset swapping between the greediest among us - with the likes of the pathologically meretricious Auckland-centric TVNZ acting as mindless cheerleader, hyping the Ponzi scheme up to the heavens. And this acompanied by little if any evidence of an honest willingness on the part of retail banks and private individuals to lend to or invest in the productive sector which - and never forget it - is the lifeblood of this country.

So, until there is some sort of alternative pact agreed between Reserve Bank and government to bring this madness to a halt, this country will continue to slip-slide itself into its own inevitable financial and economic chasm, baring itself to the predations of every over-monied overseas hyena always out there on the margins in plain sight with his avaricious eye on his next homely timber-framed killing.
Rich80105
2020-11-29 04:17:37 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 28 Nov 2020 17:35:19 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by John Bowes
Seems it started getting bad during Clarks time as PM. Seems Rich owes Key an apology for his senseless tirades!
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/123527809/which-prime-ministers-oversaw-the-biggest-house-price-increases
In the article you reference, economist Matt Burgess from The New Zealand Initiative economics think tank, says both National and Labour governments have been culpable: “It’s been a train wreck for 30 years because the consequences of bad policy are longer than the electoral cycle”
He's right.
100% But who's listening?
https://tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/interest-rate
Note the unprecedented negative step-change in the OCR under John Key's administration during late 2009 from which the cheapening, expanding money supply started flowing and since when has never stopped doing so. Since that fateful plunge, it has taken a natural lead time of about 6 to 7 years for the change, and those to even lower levels, to work their way through and make their full impact on the housing market. In essence, this is the poisoned chalice from yesteryear that keeps on giving, with Ardern and her lot being merely today's luckless recipients, locked as they are by the Reserve Bank's mandate into an insoluble conundrum that has its origins in that 2009 ORC plunge. And all of it always with the worthy intention of maintaining economic stimulus, that stimulus now however being concentrated virtually exclusively within the selfish money-for-nothing zero-productivity sector of our economy.
Again, viewing this 25-year chart or any other and then comparing degrees of prime-ministerial culpability is childishly simplistic since no matter the party, intrinsic behaviours and policies are identical; this behaviour driven by the current ruling party's desperation to either spend or reserve political and financial capital in a way most conducive to winning the next election. Worse still, with our forever-electioneering three-year term, you end up with short-termism in all things, with short-attention-span politicians having neither the wit nor the commonsense - let alone having developed that quinitessential **maturity and commitment** - required once and for all to get real and get down to planning for the long-term.
Again, one such "bad policy" (Burgess) - supposedly designed to prevent the economy grinding to a complete halt - has been the Reserve Bank's downward manipulation of the OCR which is now so low that the policy is now virtually self-negating. And once we're into negative interest rates, all bets are off. As I've already made clear in another recent thread, we now have the worst of all possible worlds: cheap money going into a hellish orgy of zero-productivity asset swapping between the greediest among us - with the likes of the pathologically meretricious Auckland-centric TVNZ acting as mindless cheerleader, hyping the Ponzi scheme up to the heavens. And this acompanied by little if any evidence of an honest willingness on the part of retail banks and private individuals to lend to or invest in the productive sector which - and never forget it - is the lifeblood of this country.
So, until there is some sort of alternative pact agreed between Reserve Bank and government to bring this madness to a halt, this country will continue to slip-slide itself into its own inevitable financial and economic chasm, baring itself to the predations of every over-monied overseas hyena always out there on the margins in plain sight with his avaricious eye on his next homely timber-framed killing.
And as the first article above says: "Spiralling house prices only
became a political issue in the 2008 general election when Key
campaigned on housing affordability, but Pavletich said “they used
housing as a lever to get into government, then dropped it like a
brick”. "

One thing that the current government is doing is progressively
working through those houses that are still owned by the government
and making sure that they meet current healthy home standards. There
have been recent stories about properties in very poor condition being
offered as rental accomodation. Those standards should reduce both
costs for such houses as well as reduce health problems - and in time
will give added force for calls for the standards to become mandatory
for all rental properties.
John Bowes
2020-11-29 04:54:33 UTC
Permalink
On Sunday, November 29, 2020 at 5:17:43 PM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
<garbage snipped>
Post by Rich80105
And as the first article above says: "Spiralling house prices only
became a political issue in the 2008 general election when Key
campaigned on housing affordability, but Pavletich said “they used
housing as a lever to get into government, then dropped it like a
brick”. "
Funny how the spiraling prices started under a government you keep claiming did nothing wrong Rich!
Post by Rich80105
One thing that the current government is doing is progressively
working through those houses that are still owned by the government
and making sure that they meet current healthy home standards.
MWAHAHA! Funny how they cried when National trashed housing Corp houses that were past their use by date. Then falsely claimed they built 8,000!
Post by Rich80105
There
have been recent stories about properties in very poor condition being
offered as rental accomodation. Those standards should reduce both
costs for such houses as well as reduce health problems - and in time
will give added force for calls for the standards to become mandatory
for all rental properties.
You expect this ramble on STATE /rental housing will provide a solution to the lack of affordable housing coming on the market? Here's a prediction for you: The housing market will still be a disaster after three years of Ardern, Labour and the Greens have done nothing but talk about the problem for three years Rich! After all as has been roved beyond doubt. Labour is only any good at talking about problems and bloody useless at achieving anything!
John Bowes
2020-11-29 04:46:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Bowes
Seems it started getting bad during Clarks time as PM. Seems Rich owes Key an apology for his senseless tirades!
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/123527809/which-prime-ministers-oversaw-the-biggest-house-price-increases
In the article you reference, economist Matt Burgess from The New Zealand Initiative economics think tank, says both National and Labour governments have been culpable: “It’s been a train wreck for 30 years because the consequences of bad policy are longer than the electoral cycle”
He's right.
100% But who's listening?
Why?
https://tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/interest-rate
Note the unprecedented negative step-change in the OCR under John Key's administration during late 2009 from which the cheapening, expanding money supply started flowing and since when has never stopped doing so. Since that fateful plunge, it has taken a natural lead time of about 6 to 7 years for the change, and those to even lower levels, to work their way through and make their full impact on the housing market. In essence, this is the poisoned chalice from yesteryear that keeps on giving, with Ardern and her lot being merely today's luckless recipients, locked as they are by the Reserve Bank's mandate into an insoluble conundrum that has its origins in that 2009 ORC plunge. And all of it always with the worthy intention of maintaining economic stimulus, that stimulus now however being concentrated virtually exclusively within the selfish money-for-nothing zero-productivity sector of our economy.
Look at what they had to deal with Keith. That's if your capable of looking objectively at anything Key did!
Again, viewing this 25-year chart or any other and then comparing degrees of prime-ministerial culpability is childishly simplistic since no matter the party, intrinsic behaviours and policies are identical;
Explain that to Rich, then have a look back at so many of your posts Keith!
this behaviour driven by the current ruling party's desperation to either spend or reserve political and financial capital in a way most conducive to winning the next election. Worse still, with our forever-electioneering three-year term, you end up with short-termism in all things, with short-attention-span politicians having neither the wit nor the commonsense - let alone having developed that quinitessential **maturity and commitment** - required once and for all to get real and get down to planning for the long-term.
Quinitessential?
Again, one such "bad policy" (Burgess) - supposedly designed to prevent the economy grinding to a complete halt - has been the Reserve Bank's downward manipulation of the OCR which is now so low that the policy is now virtually self-negating. And once we're into negative interest rates, all bets are off. As I've already made clear in another recent thread, we now have the worst of all possible worlds: cheap money going into a hellish orgy of zero-productivity asset swapping between the greediest among us - with the likes of the pathologically meretricious Auckland-centric TVNZ acting as mindless cheerleader, hyping the Ponzi scheme up to the heavens. And this acompanied by little if any evidence of an honest willingness on the part of retail banks and private individuals to lend to or invest in the productive sector which - and never forget it - is the lifeblood of this country.
Shouldn't that be accompanied Keith?
So, until there is some sort of alternative pact agreed between Reserve Bank and government to bring this madness to a halt, this country will continue to slip-slide itself into its own inevitable financial and economic chasm, baring itself to the predations of every over-monied overseas hyena always out there on the margins in plain sight with his avaricious eye on his next homely timber-framed killing.
This country ain't on it's own Keith. Despite what you believe. It tends to follow bad policy from overseas a lot!
Gordon
2020-11-29 04:03:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Bowes
Seems it started getting bad during Clarks time as PM. Seems Rich owes Key an apology for his senseless tirades!
We must be kind to Rich for he only sees one side, not the overall view.
Post by John Bowes
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/123527809/which-prime-ministers-oversaw-the-biggest-house-price-increases
Sure they were rising before 1998 but nowhere like the rises since under successive governments.
The question is how do you stop it without buggering the economy??
Having money tied up in property does little for the wealth of the country.
If there was no spectulation then alot more money could be invested in
companies that make goods and services.

What needs to be done is a long term plan needs to be agreed upon by all
MP's and this is to build good quality houses a great faster than we do at
present.

We also need to get the speculation/profit/income taxed. Everything else is
so its about time speculation on property is as well.

Long term objective with no let up. Yeah right.

Strange how if things are not controlled, ie Market Forces are allowed to
Govern, it will fix itself and damage the economy, far worse than Covid has.
BR
2020-11-29 16:20:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
We also need to get the speculation/profit/income taxed. Everything else is
so its about time speculation on property is as well.
That's a stupid idea.

Giving more money to the government won't fix a damn thing. What will
the government do with the extra money? Answer: they will do what all
governments do with our money. They will blow it on vanity projects
and election bribes.

A far better idea would be to reduce tax on productive investment, and
of course get rid of the odious RMA which has achieved nothing other
than to introduce unnecessary and costly obstacles into the process
required to build new houses and has allowed a large, powerful and
expensive bureaucracy to be created.

Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
George
2020-11-29 19:13:58 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 05:20:52 +1300
Post by BR
Post by Gordon
We also need to get the speculation/profit/income taxed. Everything
else is so its about time speculation on property is as well.
That's a stupid idea.
Giving more money to the government won't fix a damn thing. What will
the government do with the extra money? Answer: they will do what all
governments do with our money. They will blow it on vanity projects
and election bribes.
A far better idea would be to reduce tax on productive investment, and
of course get rid of the odious RMA which has achieved nothing other
than to introduce unnecessary and costly obstacles into the process
required to build new houses and has allowed a large, powerful and
expensive bureaucracy to be created.
Bill.
Yup.
To much is made by governments of governments intrusion into the private
sector.
With the very low rates of interest current it pays to put any cash
into rental housing or investing in businesses.
To build a house currently the RMA is a very large part of the cost.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Rich80105
2020-11-29 20:40:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 05:20:52 +1300
Post by BR
Post by Gordon
We also need to get the speculation/profit/income taxed. Everything
else is so its about time speculation on property is as well.
That's a stupid idea.
Giving more money to the government won't fix a damn thing. What will
the government do with the extra money? Answer: they will do what all
governments do with our money. They will blow it on vanity projects
and election bribes.
Indeed. Health care for example - Bill English did a great job of
increasing private services, and helth insurance does a good job of
ensuring that the right people don't have to worry about queues for
services. A system like the USA has some of the best health services
in the world at lower cost to their government.
Post by George
Post by BR
A far better idea would be to reduce tax on productive investment, and
of course get rid of the odious RMA which has achieved nothing other
than to introduce unnecessary and costly obstacles into the process
required to build new houses and has allowed a large, powerful and
expensive bureaucracy to be created.
Other businesses are much harder than property ownership, BR, and I
can't see the current government reducing the rate of company tax. A
company that sells property will see that reflected in profits, which
are taxable, and I am sure you realise that having returns free of tax
is more desirable. Just look at what MPs do - most invest in property
rather than shares - they get professional advice which tells them the
best way to make profits while sitting on their backsides. There is
still a way to go in property prices, and as they get higher it helps
weed out the family investors; the right people will find it easier to
raise capital (from overseas at lower rates than are available from NZ
banks if necessary) and get into that tax free investment.

Do you have a problem with distortions in the market? Forget it until
you've got a few extra properties locked; only then should you allow
yourself to worry about manufacturers and trading companies - National
will be back in to help them with subsidies soon enough . . .
Post by George
Post by BR
Bill.
Yup.
To much is made by governments of governments intrusion into the private
sector.
With the very low rates of interest current it pays to put any cash
into rental housing or investing in businesses.
To build a house currently the RMA is a very large part of the cost.
John Bowes
2020-11-29 20:59:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 05:20:52 +1300
Post by BR
Post by Gordon
We also need to get the speculation/profit/income taxed. Everything
else is so its about time speculation on property is as well.
That's a stupid idea.
Giving more money to the government won't fix a damn thing. What will
the government do with the extra money? Answer: they will do what all
governments do with our money. They will blow it on vanity projects
and election bribes.
A far better idea would be to reduce tax on productive investment, and
of course get rid of the odious RMA which has achieved nothing other
than to introduce unnecessary and costly obstacles into the process
required to build new houses and has allowed a large, powerful and
expensive bureaucracy to be created.
Bill.
Yup.
To much is made by governments of governments intrusion into the private
sector.
With the very low rates of interest current it pays to put any cash
into rental housing or investing in businesses.
To build a house currently the RMA is a very large part of the cost.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Not to mention the delays before actual building can start....
But will doing away with the RMZ bring down prices?
James Christophers
2020-11-30 05:09:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Bowes
Post by George
On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 05:20:52 +1300
Post by BR
Post by Gordon
We also need to get the speculation/profit/income taxed. Everything
else is so its about time speculation on property is as well.
That's a stupid idea.
Giving more money to the government won't fix a damn thing. What will
the government do with the extra money? Answer: they will do what all
governments do with our money. They will blow it on vanity projects
and election bribes.
A far better idea would be to reduce tax on productive investment, and
of course get rid of the odious RMA which has achieved nothing other
than to introduce unnecessary and costly obstacles into the process
required to build new houses and has allowed a large, powerful and
expensive bureaucracy to be created.
Bill.
Yup.
To much is made by governments of governments intrusion into the private
sector.
With the very low rates of interest current it pays to put any cash
into rental housing or investing in businesses.
To build a house currently the RMA is a very large part of the cost.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Not to mention the delays before actual building can start....
But will doing away with the RMZ bring down prices?
Why would it? Prices will always increase to absorb the available money to meet them. During times of increased demand versus scarcity, the more near-free credit you hand out, the more prices **will** rise.

Though exposed for the self-serving fraud it always was, the now fast-failing neo-liberal Gordon Gekko "market" thinking still applies - i.e. scarcity breeds need; the disenfranchised, dishinherited first home-buyer, versus greed and venality - the cynical, selfish mindset of those so terribly egalitarian Kiwis whose only waking thought is, "How can I even **further** enrich myself at the expense of my fellow egalitarian Kiwi-in-need about whom, in fact, I frankly don't give a tuppeny f..k?"

So in in such a scenario, I further suggest there is not one asset-swapping property speculator in the land who welcomes any threat of the relieving of this need/greed scenario by reducing the basic reasons and causes of its socially destructive dynamic. New Zealand society has never been celebrated for its cohesiveness and, with such a troubled widening of the gulf betwen the "haves and have -nots", that crucial lack can never improve, only worse.

Ergo, I reckon that doing away with the RMZ would do nothing whatever to reduce property prices **for as long as the government is held hostage to the provisions and mandates of the Reserve Bank Act**.
John Bowes
2020-11-30 05:51:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Bowes
Post by George
On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 05:20:52 +1300
Post by BR
Post by Gordon
We also need to get the speculation/profit/income taxed. Everything
else is so its about time speculation on property is as well.
That's a stupid idea.
Giving more money to the government won't fix a damn thing. What will
the government do with the extra money? Answer: they will do what all
governments do with our money. They will blow it on vanity projects
and election bribes.
A far better idea would be to reduce tax on productive investment, and
of course get rid of the odious RMA which has achieved nothing other
than to introduce unnecessary and costly obstacles into the process
required to build new houses and has allowed a large, powerful and
expensive bureaucracy to be created.
Bill.
Yup.
To much is made by governments of governments intrusion into the private
sector.
With the very low rates of interest current it pays to put any cash
into rental housing or investing in businesses.
To build a house currently the RMA is a very large part of the cost.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Not to mention the delays before actual building can start....
But will doing away with the RMZ bring down prices?
Why would it? Prices will always increase to absorb the available money to meet them. During times of increased demand versus scarcity, the more near-free credit you hand out, the more prices **will** rise.
Though exposed for the self-serving fraud it always was, the now fast-failing neo-liberal Gordon Gekko "market" thinking still applies - i.e. scarcity breeds need; the disenfranchised, dishinherited first home-buyer, versus greed and venality - the cynical, selfish mindset of those so terribly egalitarian Kiwis whose only waking thought is, "How can I even **further** enrich myself at the expense of my fellow egalitarian Kiwi-in-need about whom, in fact, I frankly don't give a tuppeny f..k?"
So in in such a scenario, I further suggest there is not one asset-swapping property speculator in the land who welcomes any threat of the relieving of this need/greed scenario by reducing the basic reasons and causes of its socially destructive dynamic. New Zealand society has never been celebrated for its cohesiveness and, with such a troubled widening of the gulf betwen the "haves and have -nots", that crucial lack can never improve, only worse.
Ergo, I reckon that doing away with the RMZ would do nothing whatever to reduce property prices **for as long as the government is held hostage to the provisions and mandates of the Reserve Bank Act**.
A simple no beyond you Keith? Though I do agree with you :)
James Christophers
2020-11-29 22:01:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 05:20:52 +1300
Post by BR
Post by Gordon
We also need to get the speculation/profit/income taxed. Everything
else is so its about time speculation on property is as well.
That's a stupid idea.
Giving more money to the government won't fix a damn thing. What will
the government do with the extra money? Answer: they will do what all
governments do with our money. They will blow it on vanity projects
and election bribes.
A far better idea would be to reduce tax on productive investment, and
of course get rid of the odious RMA which has achieved nothing other
than to introduce unnecessary and costly obstacles into the process
required to build new houses and has allowed a large, powerful and
expensive bureaucracy to be created.
Bill.
Yup.
To much is made by governments of governments intrusion into the private
sector.
With the very low rates of interest current it pays to put any cash
into rental housing or investing in businesses.
To build a house currently the RMA is a very large part of the cost.
That cost being?
George
2020-11-30 00:11:30 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 29 Nov 2020 14:01:21 -0800 (PST)
Post by James Christophers
Post by George
On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 05:20:52 +1300
Post by BR
Post by Gordon
We also need to get the speculation/profit/income taxed.
Everything else is so its about time speculation on property is
as well.
That's a stupid idea.
Giving more money to the government won't fix a damn thing. What
will the government do with the extra money? Answer: they will do
what all governments do with our money. They will blow it on
vanity projects and election bribes.
A far better idea would be to reduce tax on productive
investment, and of course get rid of the odious RMA which has
achieved nothing other than to introduce unnecessary and costly
obstacles into the process required to build new houses and has
allowed a large, powerful and expensive bureaucracy to be
created.
Bill.
Yup.
To much is made by governments of governments intrusion into the
private sector.
With the very low rates of interest current it pays to put any cash
into rental housing or investing in businesses.
To build a house currently the RMA is a very large part of the cost.
That cost being?
Are you really this thick ???
The cost of building a house is made far greater with the RMA.....
Is that simple enough?
Or do you think all those rules and regs come free ????
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Crash
2020-11-30 00:24:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
On Sun, 29 Nov 2020 14:01:21 -0800 (PST)
Post by James Christophers
Post by George
On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 05:20:52 +1300
Post by BR
Post by Gordon
We also need to get the speculation/profit/income taxed.
Everything else is so its about time speculation on property is
as well.
That's a stupid idea.
Giving more money to the government won't fix a damn thing. What
will the government do with the extra money? Answer: they will do
what all governments do with our money. They will blow it on
vanity projects and election bribes.
A far better idea would be to reduce tax on productive
investment, and of course get rid of the odious RMA which has
achieved nothing other than to introduce unnecessary and costly
obstacles into the process required to build new houses and has
allowed a large, powerful and expensive bureaucracy to be
created.
Bill.
Yup.
To much is made by governments of governments intrusion into the
private sector.
With the very low rates of interest current it pays to put any cash
into rental housing or investing in businesses.
To build a house currently the RMA is a very large part of the cost.
That cost being?
Are you really this thick ???
The cost of building a house is made far greater with the RMA.....
Is that simple enough?
Or do you think all those rules and regs come free ????
You make the claim that "the RMA is a very large part of the cost" (of
building a house. James is simply asking what numbers you base that
assertion on. Add me to that list.


--
Crash McBash
George
2020-11-30 02:27:37 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 13:24:14 +1300
Post by Crash
Post by George
On Sun, 29 Nov 2020 14:01:21 -0800 (PST)
Post by James Christophers
Post by George
On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 05:20:52 +1300
Post by BR
Post by Gordon
We also need to get the speculation/profit/income taxed.
Everything else is so its about time speculation on property
is as well.
That's a stupid idea.
Giving more money to the government won't fix a damn thing.
What will the government do with the extra money? Answer: they
will do what all governments do with our money. They will blow
it on vanity projects and election bribes.
A far better idea would be to reduce tax on productive
investment, and of course get rid of the odious RMA which has
achieved nothing other than to introduce unnecessary and costly
obstacles into the process required to build new houses and has
allowed a large, powerful and expensive bureaucracy to be
created.
Bill.
Yup.
To much is made by governments of governments intrusion into the
private sector.
With the very low rates of interest current it pays to put any
cash into rental housing or investing in businesses.
To build a house currently the RMA is a very large part of the cost.
That cost being?
Are you really this thick ???
The cost of building a house is made far greater with the RMA.....
Is that simple enough?
Or do you think all those rules and regs come free ????
You make the claim that "the RMA is a very large part of the cost" (of
building a house. James is simply asking what numbers you base that
assertion on. Add me to that list.
Go price the building of a house.
you have to 'engage all manner of 'experts''
For some reason web searches do not 'go there' but I have a local job
site where the RMA requirement was around $20000 before a chippie was
on site.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
James Christophers
2020-11-30 02:53:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 13:24:14 +1300
Post by Crash
Post by George
On Sun, 29 Nov 2020 14:01:21 -0800 (PST)
Post by James Christophers
Post by George
On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 05:20:52 +1300
Post by BR
Post by Gordon
We also need to get the speculation/profit/income taxed.
Everything else is so its about time speculation on property
is as well.
That's a stupid idea.
Giving more money to the government won't fix a damn thing.
What will the government do with the extra money? Answer: they
will do what all governments do with our money. They will blow
it on vanity projects and election bribes.
A far better idea would be to reduce tax on productive
investment, and of course get rid of the odious RMA which has
achieved nothing other than to introduce unnecessary and costly
obstacles into the process required to build new houses and has
allowed a large, powerful and expensive bureaucracy to be
created.
Bill.
Yup.
To much is made by governments of governments intrusion into the
private sector.
With the very low rates of interest current it pays to put any
cash into rental housing or investing in businesses.
To build a house currently the RMA is a very large part of the cost.
That cost being?
Are you really this thick ???
The cost of building a house is made far greater with the RMA.....
Is that simple enough?
Or do you think all those rules and regs come free ????
You make the claim that "the RMA is a very large part of the cost" (of
building a house. James is simply asking what numbers you base that
assertion on. Add me to that list.
Go price the building of a house.
No need - see below.
Post by George
For some reason web searches do not 'go there' but I have a local job
site where the RMA requirement was around $20000 before a chippie was
on site.
So what?

To make the so far meaningless meaningful:

1. Give the actual sum representing the total RMA charges as a percentage of the total cost of the entire enterprise at completion...

2. ...and why in your opinion those charges are unreasonable.

While you're sorting yourself out over that little chore, here's an item worth pondering from a noted British historian who knows whereof he speaks:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/nov/27/boris-johnson-planning-algorithm-england-white-paper

...and before you even start thinking of dissing him and his thinking, refer to this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Jenkins
George
2020-11-30 19:12:19 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 29 Nov 2020 18:53:10 -0800 (PST)
Post by James Christophers
So what?
Okay
The RMA requires engineers.
Reports and surveys
Only takes an anomaly and my $20000 can go as high as $100000 even
before any remedial work can start...
Then another engineer can suddenly find yet another point where
the building work stops and more remedial work is required
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
James Christophers
2020-11-30 20:56:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
On Sun, 29 Nov 2020 18:53:10 -0800 (PST)
Post by James Christophers
So what?
Okay
The RMA requires engineers.
Reports and surveys
Only takes an anomaly and my $20000 can go as high as $100000 even
before any remedial work can start...
Then another engineer can suddenly find yet another point where
the building work stops and more remedial work is required
--
1. Contingency factor. That's business. In fact, construction companies have a higher risk and rate of failure than most other kinds of companies, with those that have been in business for only one to three years being most at risk. But the history shows that even long-established companies can go to the wall as readily as new ones.

2. RMA costs may well be an additional component of the overall risk. You know this legal **certainty** is a given before you even sign up for the caper. You also know that the Act has been in place for the past 30 years. So if you can't stand the heat, why hang around in the kitchen?

3. What has compliance with the RMA have to do with **remediation** of work done or in hand but of a quality too badly executed to be fit for purpose?
Rich80105
2020-12-01 01:19:04 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 12:56:30 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by George
On Sun, 29 Nov 2020 18:53:10 -0800 (PST)
Post by James Christophers
So what?
Okay
The RMA requires engineers.
Reports and surveys
Only takes an anomaly and my $20000 can go as high as $100000 even
before any remedial work can start...
Then another engineer can suddenly find yet another point where
the building work stops and more remedial work is required
--
1. Contingency factor. That's business. In fact, construction companies have a higher risk and rate of failure than most other kinds of companies, with those that have been in business for only one to three years being most at risk. But the history shows that even long-established companies can go to the wall as readily as new ones.
Some years ago it was a 'feature' of some industries to see companies
closing and new ones starting - so "Joe Smith Construction 2002" may
fold and "Joe Smith Builder 2004"" started, which after a while closes
and "Joe Smith Developments 2008" starts . . . Does that still
happen?
Post by James Christophers
2. RMA costs may well be an additional component of the overall risk. You know this legal **certainty** is a given before you even sign up for the caper. You also know that the Act has been in place for the past 30 years. So if you can't stand the heat, why hang around in the kitchen?
3. What has compliance with the RMA have to do with **remediation** of work done or in hand but of a quality too badly executed to be fit for purpose?
As a ratepayer, I hope my Council covers the costs of perusal of plans
and proposals, construction inspections (the Council gets sues for
signing off while the construction company has folded . . .), and the
costs of any eventual litigation - remember the slips out of Dunedin
(Green Island?), leaky buildings? Do any of those costs relate to the
RMA?

As a ratepayer, I also want to kow that I am not paying for the cost
of extra work for water, power, sewage arising from greater density or
new areas adding load. If a street of quarter acre 1-story houses is
replaced with 5 story apartments, will my rates go up for the extra
load on pipes carrying sewage?

There are a lot of houses being built at present, but I still have no
idea of the relative costs of issues relating to the RMA vs other
costs. Perhaps it is quite small, given that a lot of development
costs seem to be being left to existing ratepayers to share . . .
Tony
2020-12-01 02:19:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 12:56:30 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by George
On Sun, 29 Nov 2020 18:53:10 -0800 (PST)
Post by James Christophers
So what?
Okay
The RMA requires engineers.
Reports and surveys
Only takes an anomaly and my $20000 can go as high as $100000 even
before any remedial work can start...
Then another engineer can suddenly find yet another point where
the building work stops and more remedial work is required
--
1. Contingency factor. That's business. In fact, construction companies
have a higher risk and rate of failure than most other kinds of companies, with
those that have been in business for only one to three years being most at
risk. But the history shows that even long-established companies can go to the
wall as readily as new ones.
Some years ago it was a 'feature' of some industries to see companies
closing and new ones starting - so "Joe Smith Construction 2002" may
fold and "Joe Smith Builder 2004"" started, which after a while closes
and "Joe Smith Developments 2008" starts . . . Does that still
happen?
Post by James Christophers
2. RMA costs may well be an additional component of the overall risk. You
know this legal **certainty** is a given before you even sign up for the caper.
You also know that the Act has been in place for the past 30 years. So if you
can't stand the heat, why hang around in the kitchen?
3. What has compliance with the RMA have to do with **remediation** of work
done or in hand but of a quality too badly executed to be fit for purpose?
As a ratepayer, I hope my Council covers the costs of perusal of plans
and proposals, construction inspections (the Council gets sues for
signing off while the construction company has folded . . .), and the
costs of any eventual litigation - remember the slips out of Dunedin
(Green Island?), leaky buildings? Do any of those costs relate to the
RMA?
As a ratepayer, I also want to kow that I am not paying for the cost
of extra work for water, power, sewage arising from greater density or
new areas adding load. If a street of quarter acre 1-story houses is
replaced with 5 story apartments, will my rates go up for the extra
load on pipes carrying sewage?
There are a lot of houses being built at present, but I still have no
idea of the relative costs of issues relating to the RMA vs other
costs. Perhaps it is quite small, given that a lot of development
costs seem to be being left to existing ratepayers to share . . .
You could start here. It may be quite extreme but it gives some indication of
the idiotic legislation that the RMA has become under several governments.
It is obvious that such a monster will introduce costs.
It should be scrapped and replaced by something resmbling common sense.
Rich80105
2020-12-01 02:53:32 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 20:19:22 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 12:56:30 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by George
On Sun, 29 Nov 2020 18:53:10 -0800 (PST)
Post by James Christophers
So what?
Okay
The RMA requires engineers.
Reports and surveys
Only takes an anomaly and my $20000 can go as high as $100000 even
before any remedial work can start...
Then another engineer can suddenly find yet another point where
the building work stops and more remedial work is required
--
1. Contingency factor. That's business. In fact, construction companies
have a higher risk and rate of failure than most other kinds of companies, with
those that have been in business for only one to three years being most at
risk. But the history shows that even long-established companies can go to the
wall as readily as new ones.
Some years ago it was a 'feature' of some industries to see companies
closing and new ones starting - so "Joe Smith Construction 2002" may
fold and "Joe Smith Builder 2004"" started, which after a while closes
and "Joe Smith Developments 2008" starts . . . Does that still
happen?
Post by James Christophers
2. RMA costs may well be an additional component of the overall risk. You
know this legal **certainty** is a given before you even sign up for the caper.
You also know that the Act has been in place for the past 30 years. So if you
can't stand the heat, why hang around in the kitchen?
3. What has compliance with the RMA have to do with **remediation** of work
done or in hand but of a quality too badly executed to be fit for purpose?
As a ratepayer, I hope my Council covers the costs of perusal of plans
and proposals, construction inspections (the Council gets sues for
signing off while the construction company has folded . . .), and the
costs of any eventual litigation - remember the slips out of Dunedin
(Green Island?), leaky buildings? Do any of those costs relate to the
RMA?
As a ratepayer, I also want to kow that I am not paying for the cost
of extra work for water, power, sewage arising from greater density or
new areas adding load. If a street of quarter acre 1-story houses is
replaced with 5 story apartments, will my rates go up for the extra
load on pipes carrying sewage?
There are a lot of houses being built at present, but I still have no
idea of the relative costs of issues relating to the RMA vs other
costs. Perhaps it is quite small, given that a lot of development
costs seem to be being left to existing ratepayers to share . . .
You could start here.
Where is that, Tony?
Post by Tony
It may be quite extreme but it gives some indication of
the idiotic legislation that the RMA has become under several governments.
It is obvious that such a monster will introduce costs.
It should be scrapped and replaced by something resmbling common sense.
Tony
2020-12-01 03:28:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 20:19:22 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 12:56:30 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by George
On Sun, 29 Nov 2020 18:53:10 -0800 (PST)
Post by James Christophers
So what?
Okay
The RMA requires engineers.
Reports and surveys
Only takes an anomaly and my $20000 can go as high as $100000 even
before any remedial work can start...
Then another engineer can suddenly find yet another point where
the building work stops and more remedial work is required
--
1. Contingency factor. That's business. In fact, construction companies
have a higher risk and rate of failure than most other kinds of companies, with
those that have been in business for only one to three years being most at
risk. But the history shows that even long-established companies can go to the
wall as readily as new ones.
Some years ago it was a 'feature' of some industries to see companies
closing and new ones starting - so "Joe Smith Construction 2002" may
fold and "Joe Smith Builder 2004"" started, which after a while closes
and "Joe Smith Developments 2008" starts . . . Does that still
happen?
Post by James Christophers
2. RMA costs may well be an additional component of the overall risk. You
know this legal **certainty** is a given before you even sign up for the caper.
You also know that the Act has been in place for the past 30 years. So if you
can't stand the heat, why hang around in the kitchen?
3. What has compliance with the RMA have to do with **remediation** of work
done or in hand but of a quality too badly executed to be fit for purpose?
As a ratepayer, I hope my Council covers the costs of perusal of plans
and proposals, construction inspections (the Council gets sues for
signing off while the construction company has folded . . .), and the
costs of any eventual litigation - remember the slips out of Dunedin
(Green Island?), leaky buildings? Do any of those costs relate to the
RMA?
As a ratepayer, I also want to kow that I am not paying for the cost
of extra work for water, power, sewage arising from greater density or
new areas adding load. If a street of quarter acre 1-story houses is
replaced with 5 story apartments, will my rates go up for the extra
load on pipes carrying sewage?
There are a lot of houses being built at present, but I still have no
idea of the relative costs of issues relating to the RMA vs other
costs. Perhaps it is quite small, given that a lot of development
costs seem to be being left to existing ratepayers to share . . .
You could start here.
Where is that, Tony?
https://www.odt.co.nz/star-news/star-opinion/opinion-rma-one-nz%E2%80%99s-worst-pieces-legislation
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
It may be quite extreme but it gives some indication of
the idiotic legislation that the RMA has become under several governments.
It is obvious that such a monster will introduce costs.
It should be scrapped and replaced by something resmbling common sense.
James Christophers
2020-12-01 05:02:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 12:56:30 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by George
On Sun, 29 Nov 2020 18:53:10 -0800 (PST)
Post by James Christophers
So what?
Okay
The RMA requires engineers.
Reports and surveys
Only takes an anomaly and my $20000 can go as high as $100000 even
before any remedial work can start...
Then another engineer can suddenly find yet another point where
the building work stops and more remedial work is required
--
1. Contingency factor. That's business. In fact, construction companies
have a higher risk and rate of failure than most other kinds of companies, with
those that have been in business for only one to three years being most at
risk. But the history shows that even long-established companies can go to the
wall as readily as new ones.
Some years ago it was a 'feature' of some industries to see companies
closing and new ones starting - so "Joe Smith Construction 2002" may
fold and "Joe Smith Builder 2004"" started, which after a while closes
and "Joe Smith Developments 2008" starts . . . Does that still
happen?
2. RMA costs may well be an additional component of the overall risk. You
know this legal **certainty** is a given before you even sign up for the caper.
You also know that the Act has been in place for the past 30 years. So if you
can't stand the heat, why hang around in the kitchen?
3. What has compliance with the RMA have to do with **remediation** of work
done or in hand but of a quality too badly executed to be fit for purpose?
As a ratepayer, I hope my Council covers the costs of perusal of plans
and proposals, construction inspections (the Council gets sues for
signing off while the construction company has folded . . .), and the
costs of any eventual litigation - remember the slips out of Dunedin
(Green Island?), leaky buildings? Do any of those costs relate to the
RMA?
As a ratepayer, I also want to kow that I am not paying for the cost
of extra work for water, power, sewage arising from greater density or
new areas adding load. If a street of quarter acre 1-story houses is
replaced with 5 story apartments, will my rates go up for the extra
load on pipes carrying sewage?
There are a lot of houses being built at present, but I still have no
idea of the relative costs of issues relating to the RMA vs other
costs. Perhaps it is quite small, given that a lot of development
costs seem to be being left to existing ratepayers to share . . .
You could start here. It may be quite extreme but it gives some indication of
the idiotic legislation that the RMA has become under several governments.
It is obvious that such a monster will introduce costs.
It should be scrapped and replaced by something resmbling common sense.
Note also that Newman puts race-based preferment and race-based exclusivity top of the list.

Is this sort of thing alright, do you suppose, in a country that so earnestly, tirelessly insist that it is both democratic and egalitarian?
Tony
2020-12-01 05:40:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 12:56:30 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by George
On Sun, 29 Nov 2020 18:53:10 -0800 (PST)
Post by James Christophers
So what?
Okay
The RMA requires engineers.
Reports and surveys
Only takes an anomaly and my $20000 can go as high as $100000 even
before any remedial work can start...
Then another engineer can suddenly find yet another point where
the building work stops and more remedial work is required
--
1. Contingency factor. That's business. In fact, construction companies
have a higher risk and rate of failure than most other kinds of companies, with
those that have been in business for only one to three years being most at
risk. But the history shows that even long-established companies can go to the
wall as readily as new ones.
Some years ago it was a 'feature' of some industries to see companies
closing and new ones starting - so "Joe Smith Construction 2002" may
fold and "Joe Smith Builder 2004"" started, which after a while closes
and "Joe Smith Developments 2008" starts . . . Does that still
happen?
2. RMA costs may well be an additional component of the overall risk. You
know this legal **certainty** is a given before you even sign up for the caper.
You also know that the Act has been in place for the past 30 years. So if you
can't stand the heat, why hang around in the kitchen?
3. What has compliance with the RMA have to do with **remediation** of work
done or in hand but of a quality too badly executed to be fit for purpose?
As a ratepayer, I hope my Council covers the costs of perusal of plans
and proposals, construction inspections (the Council gets sues for
signing off while the construction company has folded . . .), and the
costs of any eventual litigation - remember the slips out of Dunedin
(Green Island?), leaky buildings? Do any of those costs relate to the
RMA?
As a ratepayer, I also want to kow that I am not paying for the cost
of extra work for water, power, sewage arising from greater density or
new areas adding load. If a street of quarter acre 1-story houses is
replaced with 5 story apartments, will my rates go up for the extra
load on pipes carrying sewage?
There are a lot of houses being built at present, but I still have no
idea of the relative costs of issues relating to the RMA vs other
costs. Perhaps it is quite small, given that a lot of development
costs seem to be being left to existing ratepayers to share . . .
You could start here. It may be quite extreme but it gives some indication of
the idiotic legislation that the RMA has become under several governments.
It is obvious that such a monster will introduce costs.
It should be scrapped and replaced by something resmbling common sense.
Note also that Newman puts race-based preferment and race-based exclusivity top of the list.
Is this sort of thing alright, do you suppose, in a country that so earnestly,
tirelessly insist that it is both democratic and egalitarian?
Off topic of course. The RMA has been a thorn in the side of progress for 30
years, and that is an almost universally held opinion.
Rich80105
2020-12-01 06:54:23 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 23:40:37 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 12:56:30 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by George
On Sun, 29 Nov 2020 18:53:10 -0800 (PST)
Post by James Christophers
So what?
Okay
The RMA requires engineers.
Reports and surveys
Only takes an anomaly and my $20000 can go as high as $100000 even
before any remedial work can start...
Then another engineer can suddenly find yet another point where
the building work stops and more remedial work is required
--
1. Contingency factor. That's business. In fact, construction companies
have a higher risk and rate of failure than most other kinds of companies, with
those that have been in business for only one to three years being most at
risk. But the history shows that even long-established companies can go to the
wall as readily as new ones.
Some years ago it was a 'feature' of some industries to see companies
closing and new ones starting - so "Joe Smith Construction 2002" may
fold and "Joe Smith Builder 2004"" started, which after a while closes
and "Joe Smith Developments 2008" starts . . . Does that still
happen?
2. RMA costs may well be an additional component of the overall risk. You
know this legal **certainty** is a given before you even sign up for the caper.
You also know that the Act has been in place for the past 30 years. So if you
can't stand the heat, why hang around in the kitchen?
3. What has compliance with the RMA have to do with **remediation** of work
done or in hand but of a quality too badly executed to be fit for purpose?
As a ratepayer, I hope my Council covers the costs of perusal of plans
and proposals, construction inspections (the Council gets sues for
signing off while the construction company has folded . . .), and the
costs of any eventual litigation - remember the slips out of Dunedin
(Green Island?), leaky buildings? Do any of those costs relate to the
RMA?
As a ratepayer, I also want to kow that I am not paying for the cost
of extra work for water, power, sewage arising from greater density or
new areas adding load. If a street of quarter acre 1-story houses is
replaced with 5 story apartments, will my rates go up for the extra
load on pipes carrying sewage?
There are a lot of houses being built at present, but I still have no
idea of the relative costs of issues relating to the RMA vs other
costs. Perhaps it is quite small, given that a lot of development
costs seem to be being left to existing ratepayers to share . . .
You could start here. It may be quite extreme
https://www.odt.co.nz/star-news/star-opinion/opinion-rma-one-nz%E2%80%99s-worst-pieces-legislation
Indeed it is quite extreme; little evidence for most of the assertions
either. The changes objected to don't come into effect until the end
of next year, so they haven't had any impact in the recent past, and
if there are further changes this year those provisions will be able
to be raised by ACT MPs . . .

Certainly the article reminds us of the value of reasoned independent
journalists who are expected to justify assertions . . .
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
but it gives some indication
of
the idiotic legislation that the RMA has become under several governments.
No it doesn't - it just says it is idiotic; it is one person's
opinion.

And we still lack any indication of the level of cost that the RMA
causes that is asserted is being too much . . .
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
It is obvious that such a monster will introduce costs.
It should be scrapped and replaced by something resmbling common sense.
Note also that Newman puts race-based preferment and race-based exclusivity
top of the list.
Is this sort of thing alright, do you suppose, in a country that so earnestly,
tirelessly insist that it is both democratic and egalitarian?
Off topic of course. The RMA has been a thorn in the side of progress for 30
years, and that is an almost universally held opinion.
That assertion if of course irrelevant itself - the changes put
through are to ensure that the sanctity of contract is recognised - it
appears that ACT does not believe in the rule of law except when it
suits them - they want to government to ignore some laws when that
suits their political views. We should be outraged that their
suggestion, and yours, that a contract that is seen to be a thorn in
anyone's side should be able to be ignored.
Tony
2020-12-01 19:17:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 23:40:37 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 12:56:30 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by George
On Sun, 29 Nov 2020 18:53:10 -0800 (PST)
Post by James Christophers
So what?
Okay
The RMA requires engineers.
Reports and surveys
Only takes an anomaly and my $20000 can go as high as $100000 even
before any remedial work can start...
Then another engineer can suddenly find yet another point where
the building work stops and more remedial work is required
--
1. Contingency factor. That's business. In fact, construction companies
have a higher risk and rate of failure than most other kinds of
companies,
with
those that have been in business for only one to three years being most at
risk. But the history shows that even long-established companies can go
to
the
wall as readily as new ones.
Some years ago it was a 'feature' of some industries to see companies
closing and new ones starting - so "Joe Smith Construction 2002" may
fold and "Joe Smith Builder 2004"" started, which after a while closes
and "Joe Smith Developments 2008" starts . . . Does that still
happen?
2. RMA costs may well be an additional component of the overall risk. You
know this legal **certainty** is a given before you even sign up for the caper.
You also know that the Act has been in place for the past 30 years. So
if
you
can't stand the heat, why hang around in the kitchen?
3. What has compliance with the RMA have to do with **remediation** of work
done or in hand but of a quality too badly executed to be fit for purpose?
As a ratepayer, I hope my Council covers the costs of perusal of plans
and proposals, construction inspections (the Council gets sues for
signing off while the construction company has folded . . .), and the
costs of any eventual litigation - remember the slips out of Dunedin
(Green Island?), leaky buildings? Do any of those costs relate to the
RMA?
As a ratepayer, I also want to kow that I am not paying for the cost
of extra work for water, power, sewage arising from greater density or
new areas adding load. If a street of quarter acre 1-story houses is
replaced with 5 story apartments, will my rates go up for the extra
load on pipes carrying sewage?
There are a lot of houses being built at present, but I still have no
idea of the relative costs of issues relating to the RMA vs other
costs. Perhaps it is quite small, given that a lot of development
costs seem to be being left to existing ratepayers to share . . .
You could start here. It may be quite extreme
https://www.odt.co.nz/star-news/star-opinion/opinion-rma-one-nz%E2%80%99s-worst-pieces-legislation
Indeed it is quite extreme; little evidence for most of the assertions
either. The changes objected to don't come into effect until the end
of next year, so they haven't had any impact in the recent past, and
if there are further changes this year those provisions will be able
to be raised by ACT MPs . . .
Certainly the article reminds us of the value of reasoned independent
journalists who are expected to justify assertions . . .
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
but it gives some indication
of
the idiotic legislation that the RMA has become under several governments.
No it doesn't - it just says it is idiotic; it is one person's
opinion.
And we still lack any indication of the level of cost that the RMA
causes that is asserted is being too much . . .
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
It is obvious that such a monster will introduce costs.
It should be scrapped and replaced by something resmbling common sense.
Note also that Newman puts race-based preferment and race-based exclusivity
top of the list.
Is this sort of thing alright, do you suppose, in a country that so earnestly,
tirelessly insist that it is both democratic and egalitarian?
Off topic of course. The RMA has been a thorn in the side of progress for 30
years, and that is an almost universally held opinion.
That assertion if of course irrelevant itself - the changes put
through are to ensure that the sanctity of contract is recognised - it
appears that ACT does not believe in the rule of law except when it
suits them - they want to government to ignore some laws when that
suits their political views. We should be outraged that their
suggestion, and yours, that a contract that is seen to be a thorn in
anyone's side should be able to be ignored.
Absolute nonsense, every word of yours here is deliberate obfuscation.
The RMA is gets in the way of progress and does not assist in any way.
George
2020-12-01 21:16:30 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 01 Dec 2020 13:17:37 -0600
Post by Tony
Absolute nonsense, every word of yours here is deliberate obfuscation.
The RMA is gets in the way of progress and does not assist in any way.
Yup.
And the denial is strong in that one.
Last job before retirement was window making, curtain walling and
balustrade construction (Metropolis Towers) and I have some experience
with the RMA and its effects upon the industry...
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Tony
2020-12-01 22:17:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by George
On Tue, 01 Dec 2020 13:17:37 -0600
Post by Tony
Absolute nonsense, every word of yours here is deliberate obfuscation.
The RMA is gets in the way of progress and does not assist in any way.
Yup.
And the denial is strong in that one.
Last job before retirement was window making, curtain walling and
balustrade construction (Metropolis Towers) and I have some experience
with the RMA and its effects upon the industry...
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Only a fool would defend this shoddy legislation, but that is nothing new.
George
2020-12-02 00:21:50 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 01 Dec 2020 16:17:33 -0600
Post by Tony
Post by George
On Tue, 01 Dec 2020 13:17:37 -0600
Post by Tony
Absolute nonsense, every word of yours here is deliberate
obfuscation. The RMA is gets in the way of progress and does not
assist in any way.
Yup.
And the denial is strong in that one.
Last job before retirement was window making, curtain walling and
balustrade construction (Metropolis Towers) and I have some
experience with the RMA and its effects upon the industry...
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Only a fool would defend this shoddy legislation, but that is nothing new.
`And he is....
James Christophers
2020-12-02 00:49:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by George
On Tue, 01 Dec 2020 13:17:37 -0600
Post by Tony
Absolute nonsense, every word of yours here is deliberate obfuscation.
The RMA is gets in the way of progress and does not assist in any way.
Yup.
And the denial is strong in that one.
Last job before retirement was window making, curtain walling and
balustrade construction (Metropolis Towers) and I have some experience
with the RMA and its effects upon the industry...
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Only a fool would defend this shoddy legislation, but that is nothing new.
Bad legislation stems from indolent pass-the-parcel expediency on the part of those whose self-interests come first, whether it be an individual or a group or a political party garnering or conserving political capital.

Expecting any individual or party to resolve or compensate for the downstream collateral consequences of such rank selfishness is like expecting a blind person to solve Rubik's cube

The perpetrators disavow the mess they've **they know** made of things, clear their desks and walk free, deaf and blind to all adverse commentary on their past failings. It's the little people who take the hit so caused. Every time. T'was ever thus, and shall always be.
Tony
2020-12-02 01:16:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by George
On Tue, 01 Dec 2020 13:17:37 -0600
Post by Tony
Absolute nonsense, every word of yours here is deliberate obfuscation.
The RMA is gets in the way of progress and does not assist in any way.
Yup.
And the denial is strong in that one.
Last job before retirement was window making, curtain walling and
balustrade construction (Metropolis Towers) and I have some experience
with the RMA and its effects upon the industry...
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Only a fool would defend this shoddy legislation, but that is nothing new.
Bad legislation stems from indolent pass-the-parcel expediency on the part of
those whose self-interests come first, whether it be an individual or a group
or a political party garnering or conserving political capital.
Obviously.
Post by James Christophers
Expecting any individual or party to resolve or compensate for the downstream
collateral consequences of such rank selfishness is like expecting a blind
person to solve Rubik's cube
The perpetrators disavow the mess they've **they know** made of things, clear
their desks and walk free, deaf and blind to all adverse commentary on their
past failings. It's the little people who take the hit so caused. Every time.
T'was ever thus, and shall always be.
OK so let's not bother with the worry and cost of bad regulations. why don't we
just "all" (not just the few) bury our heads in the sand, pray for England and
let the buggers get away with it.
Doing nothing, whatever the cause, is the reason that extreme governments come
to pass and is cowardly.
James Christophers
2020-12-02 01:27:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by George
On Tue, 01 Dec 2020 13:17:37 -0600
Post by Tony
Absolute nonsense, every word of yours here is deliberate obfuscation.
The RMA is gets in the way of progress and does not assist in any way.
Yup.
And the denial is strong in that one.
Last job before retirement was window making, curtain walling and
balustrade construction (Metropolis Towers) and I have some experience
with the RMA and its effects upon the industry...
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Only a fool would defend this shoddy legislation, but that is nothing new.
Bad legislation stems from indolent pass-the-parcel expediency on the part of
those whose self-interests come first, whether it be an individual or a group
or a political party garnering or conserving political capital.
Obviously.
Post by James Christophers
Expecting any individual or party to resolve or compensate for the downstream
collateral consequences of such rank selfishness is like expecting a blind
person to solve Rubik's cube
The perpetrators disavow the mess they've **they know** made of things, clear
their desks and walk free, deaf and blind to all adverse commentary on their
past failings. It's the little people who take the hit so caused. Every time.
T'was ever thus, and shall always be.
OK so let's not bother with the worry and cost of bad regulations. why don't we
just "all" (not just the few) bury our heads in the sand, pray for England and
let the buggers get away with it.
Obviously.
Post by Tony
Doing nothing, whatever the cause, is the reason that extreme governments come
to pass and is cowardly.
Obviously.
Tony
2020-12-02 02:55:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by George
On Tue, 01 Dec 2020 13:17:37 -0600
Post by Tony
Absolute nonsense, every word of yours here is deliberate obfuscation.
The RMA is gets in the way of progress and does not assist in any way.
Yup.
And the denial is strong in that one.
Last job before retirement was window making, curtain walling and
balustrade construction (Metropolis Towers) and I have some experience
with the RMA and its effects upon the industry...
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Only a fool would defend this shoddy legislation, but that is nothing new.
Bad legislation stems from indolent pass-the-parcel expediency on the part of
those whose self-interests come first, whether it be an individual or a group
or a political party garnering or conserving political capital.
Obviously.
Post by James Christophers
Expecting any individual or party to resolve or compensate for the downstream
collateral consequences of such rank selfishness is like expecting a blind
person to solve Rubik's cube
The perpetrators disavow the mess they've **they know** made of things, clear
their desks and walk free, deaf and blind to all adverse commentary on their
past failings. It's the little people who take the hit so caused. Every time.
T'was ever thus, and shall always be.
OK so let's not bother with the worry and cost of bad regulations. why don't we
just "all" (not just the few) bury our heads in the sand, pray for England and
let the buggers get away with it.
Obviously.
Post by Tony
Doing nothing, whatever the cause, is the reason that extreme governments come
to pass and is cowardly.
Obviously.
So? Do you actually bave anything of value to offer? Or do you still believe in
hiding while others take power?
James Christophers
2020-12-01 21:09:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 12:56:30 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by George
On Sun, 29 Nov 2020 18:53:10 -0800 (PST)
Post by James Christophers
So what?
Okay
The RMA requires engineers.
Reports and surveys
Only takes an anomaly and my $20000 can go as high as $100000 even
before any remedial work can start...
Then another engineer can suddenly find yet another point where
the building work stops and more remedial work is required
--
1. Contingency factor. That's business. In fact, construction companies
have a higher risk and rate of failure than most other kinds of companies, with
those that have been in business for only one to three years being most at
risk. But the history shows that even long-established companies can go to the
wall as readily as new ones.
Some years ago it was a 'feature' of some industries to see companies
closing and new ones starting - so "Joe Smith Construction 2002" may
fold and "Joe Smith Builder 2004"" started, which after a while closes
and "Joe Smith Developments 2008" starts . . . Does that still
happen?
2. RMA costs may well be an additional component of the overall risk. You
know this legal **certainty** is a given before you even sign up for the caper.
You also know that the Act has been in place for the past 30 years. So if you
can't stand the heat, why hang around in the kitchen?
3. What has compliance with the RMA have to do with **remediation** of work
done or in hand but of a quality too badly executed to be fit for purpose?
As a ratepayer, I hope my Council covers the costs of perusal of plans
and proposals, construction inspections (the Council gets sues for
signing off while the construction company has folded . . .), and the
costs of any eventual litigation - remember the slips out of Dunedin
(Green Island?), leaky buildings? Do any of those costs relate to the
RMA?
As a ratepayer, I also want to kow that I am not paying for the cost
of extra work for water, power, sewage arising from greater density or
new areas adding load. If a street of quarter acre 1-story houses is
replaced with 5 story apartments, will my rates go up for the extra
load on pipes carrying sewage?
There are a lot of houses being built at present, but I still have no
idea of the relative costs of issues relating to the RMA vs other
costs. Perhaps it is quite small, given that a lot of development
costs seem to be being left to existing ratepayers to share . . .
You could start here. It may be quite extreme but it gives some indication of
the idiotic legislation that the RMA has become under several governments.
It is obvious that such a monster will introduce costs.
It should be scrapped and replaced by something resmbling common sense.
Note also that Newman puts race-based preferment and race-based exclusivity
top of the list.
Is this sort of thing alright, do you suppose, in a country that so earnestly,
tirelessly insist that it is both democratic and egalitarian?
Off topic of course.
From Newman's opinion piece that you yourself have validly introduced to the topic, not I. The asterisks are mine:

"The last National Government planned sweeping reforms but couldn’t persuade their United Future and ACT coalition partners to support their proposals. In the end, they did a deal with the Maori Party and as a result, along with sensible changes, new **race-based** provisions giving iwi greater influence in council decision-making were also introduced that have made the problems with the RMA even worse."

There you have it, verbatim.


The RMA has been a thorn in the side of progress for 30
Post by Tony
years, and that is an almost universally held opinion.
Quite so. When race-based provisions are an integral element in the RMA, they are ipso facto integral to the problem, this further (to me, spurious) complexity in this case having been the workof the Key government.

This is not an opinion. It is the fact of the matter and, as such, is four-squarely on-topic

Also germane to the topic is the fact that, as Newman says, United Future and Act had declined to support the then National government's proposals for RMA reform. So to ensure their proposals would pass scrutiny the National government had no recourse but to seek the support of the Maori party. The rest is history and the additional impact and burden it has placed on the reform process is, in my view, irreversible as things now stand.

Incidentally, do you know why United Future and Act bucked at the proposed reforms? It matters because their rejection of National's proposals made them a significant part of the very problem that Newman is addressing.

Newman and you have much to say about the RMA and its many failings adn there's nothing wrong with that. But neither of you has yet proposed any kind of reform(s) that would repeal, reverse or change current laws and amendments to the benefit of the environment and to the satisfaction of the developers and the people, including you.

Talk is easy. As Gordon once succinctly pointed out, when it comes to policy formation and implementation, "Everything is easy when you don't have to do it."
Tony
2020-12-01 22:16:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 12:56:30 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by George
On Sun, 29 Nov 2020 18:53:10 -0800 (PST)
Post by James Christophers
So what?
Okay
The RMA requires engineers.
Reports and surveys
Only takes an anomaly and my $20000 can go as high as $100000 even
before any remedial work can start...
Then another engineer can suddenly find yet another point where
the building work stops and more remedial work is required
--
1. Contingency factor. That's business. In fact, construction companies
have a higher risk and rate of failure than most other kinds of
companies,
with
those that have been in business for only one to three years being most at
risk. But the history shows that even long-established companies can go
to
the
wall as readily as new ones.
Some years ago it was a 'feature' of some industries to see companies
closing and new ones starting - so "Joe Smith Construction 2002" may
fold and "Joe Smith Builder 2004"" started, which after a while closes
and "Joe Smith Developments 2008" starts . . . Does that still
happen?
2. RMA costs may well be an additional component of the overall risk. You
know this legal **certainty** is a given before you even sign up for
the
caper.
You also know that the Act has been in place for the past 30 years. So
if
you
can't stand the heat, why hang around in the kitchen?
3. What has compliance with the RMA have to do with **remediation** of work
done or in hand but of a quality too badly executed to be fit for purpose?
As a ratepayer, I hope my Council covers the costs of perusal of plans
and proposals, construction inspections (the Council gets sues for
signing off while the construction company has folded . . .), and the
costs of any eventual litigation - remember the slips out of Dunedin
(Green Island?), leaky buildings? Do any of those costs relate to the
RMA?
As a ratepayer, I also want to kow that I am not paying for the cost
of extra work for water, power, sewage arising from greater density or
new areas adding load. If a street of quarter acre 1-story houses is
replaced with 5 story apartments, will my rates go up for the extra
load on pipes carrying sewage?
There are a lot of houses being built at present, but I still have no
idea of the relative costs of issues relating to the RMA vs other
costs. Perhaps it is quite small, given that a lot of development
costs seem to be being left to existing ratepayers to share . . .
You could start here. It may be quite extreme but it gives some
indication
of
the idiotic legislation that the RMA has become under several governments.
It is obvious that such a monster will introduce costs.
It should be scrapped and replaced by something resmbling common sense.
Note also that Newman puts race-based preferment and race-based exclusivity
top of the list.
Is this sort of thing alright, do you suppose, in a country that so earnestly,
tirelessly insist that it is both democratic and egalitarian?
Off topic of course.
From Newman's opinion piece that you yourself have validly introduced to the
"The last National Government planned sweeping reforms but couldn’t persuade
their United Future and ACT coalition partners to support their proposals. In
the end, they did a deal with the Maori Party and as a result, along with
sensible changes, new **race-based** provisions giving iwi greater influence
in council decision-making were also introduced that have made the problems
with the RMA even worse."
There you have it, verbatim.
Still off topic. I have not posted anything other than that the RMA is bad
legislation.
If you wish to debate what should replace it then feel free.
Post by James Christophers
The RMA has been a thorn in the side of progress for 30
Post by Tony
years, and that is an almost universally held opinion.
Quite so. When race-based provisions are an integral element in the RMA, they
are ipso facto integral to the problem, this further (to me, spurious)
complexity in this case having been the workof the Key government.
This is not an opinion. It is the fact of the matter and, as such, is four-squarely on-topic
Also germane to the topic is the fact that, as Newman says, United Future and
Act had declined to support the then National government's proposals for RMA
reform. So to ensure their proposals would pass scrutiny the National
government had no recourse but to seek the support of the Maori party. The
rest is history and the additional impact and burden it has placed on the
reform process is, in my view, irreversible as things now stand.
Incidentally, do you know why United Future and Act bucked at the proposed
reforms? It matters because their rejection of National's proposals made them
a significant part of the very problem that Newman is addressing.
All you are doing is re-inforcing my stated opinion so thank you.
Post by James Christophers
Newman and you have much to say about the RMA and its many failings adn
there's nothing wrong with that. But neither of you has yet proposed any kind
of reform(s) that would repeal, reverse or change current laws and amendments
to the benefit of the environment and to the satisfaction of the developers and
the people, including you.
Talk is easy. As Gordon once succinctly pointed out, when it comes to policy
formation and implementation, "Everything is easy when you don't have to do it."
So are you saying that unless I have a solution I should keep quiet? Really?
I do not propose a solution, merely pointing out that there is a probl;em, a
problem tha some fool here thinks does not exist.
The RMA is a nonsense and it is the responsibility of this government, now, to
resolve it.
James Christophers
2020-12-02 00:18:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 12:56:30 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by George
On Sun, 29 Nov 2020 18:53:10 -0800 (PST)
Post by James Christophers
So what?
Okay
The RMA requires engineers.
Reports and surveys
Only takes an anomaly and my $20000 can go as high as $100000 even
before any remedial work can start...
Then another engineer can suddenly find yet another point where
the building work stops and more remedial work is required
--
1. Contingency factor. That's business. In fact, construction companies
have a higher risk and rate of failure than most other kinds of
companies,
with
those that have been in business for only one to three years being most at
risk. But the history shows that even long-established companies can go
to
the
wall as readily as new ones.
Some years ago it was a 'feature' of some industries to see companies
closing and new ones starting - so "Joe Smith Construction 2002" may
fold and "Joe Smith Builder 2004"" started, which after a while closes
and "Joe Smith Developments 2008" starts . . . Does that still
happen?
2. RMA costs may well be an additional component of the overall risk. You
know this legal **certainty** is a given before you even sign up for
the
caper.
You also know that the Act has been in place for the past 30 years. So
if
you
can't stand the heat, why hang around in the kitchen?
3. What has compliance with the RMA have to do with **remediation** of work
done or in hand but of a quality too badly executed to be fit for purpose?
As a ratepayer, I hope my Council covers the costs of perusal of plans
and proposals, construction inspections (the Council gets sues for
signing off while the construction company has folded . . .), and the
costs of any eventual litigation - remember the slips out of Dunedin
(Green Island?), leaky buildings? Do any of those costs relate to the
RMA?
As a ratepayer, I also want to kow that I am not paying for the cost
of extra work for water, power, sewage arising from greater density or
new areas adding load. If a street of quarter acre 1-story houses is
replaced with 5 story apartments, will my rates go up for the extra
load on pipes carrying sewage?
There are a lot of houses being built at present, but I still have no
idea of the relative costs of issues relating to the RMA vs other
costs. Perhaps it is quite small, given that a lot of development
costs seem to be being left to existing ratepayers to share . . .
You could start here. It may be quite extreme but it gives some
indication
of
the idiotic legislation that the RMA has become under several governments.
It is obvious that such a monster will introduce costs.
It should be scrapped and replaced by something resmbling common sense.
Note also that Newman puts race-based preferment and race-based exclusivity
top of the list.
Is this sort of thing alright, do you suppose, in a country that so earnestly,
tirelessly insist that it is both democratic and egalitarian?
Off topic of course.
From Newman's opinion piece that you yourself have validly introduced to the
"The last National Government planned sweeping reforms but couldn’t persuade
their United Future and ACT coalition partners to support their proposals. In
the end, they did a deal with the Maori Party and as a result, along with
sensible changes, new **race-based** provisions giving iwi greater influence
in council decision-making were also introduced that have made the problems
with the RMA even worse."
There you have it, verbatim.
(
snipped)


I have not posted anything other than that the RMA is bad
Post by Tony
legislation.
Yet another of your childish "nothing new here" posts, thereby making redundant the rest of your calculated side-stepping.
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
The RMA has been a thorn in the side of progress for 30
Post by Tony
years, and that is an almost universally held opinion.
Quite so. When race-based provisions are an integral element in the RMA, they
are ipso facto integral to the problem, this further (to me, spurious)
complexity in this case having been the workof the Key government.
This is not an opinion. It is the fact of the matter and, as such, is
four-squarely on-topic
Also germane to the topic is the fact that, as Newman says, United Future and
Act had declined to support the then National government's proposals for RMA
reform. So to ensure their proposals would pass scrutiny the National
government had no recourse but to seek the support of the Maori party. The
rest is history and the additional impact and burden it has placed on the
reform process is, in my view, irreversible as things now stand.
Incidentally, do you know why United Future and Act bucked at the proposed
reforms? It matters because their rejection of National's proposals made them
a significant part of the very problem that Newman is addressing.
Newman and you have much to say about the RMA and its many failings adn
there's nothing wrong with that. But neither of you has yet proposed any kind
of reform(s) that would repeal, reverse or change current laws and amendments
to the benefit of the environment and to the satisfaction of the developers and
the people, including you.
Talk is easy. As Gordon once succinctly pointed out, when it comes to policy
formation and implementation, "Everything is easy when you don't have to do it."
Tony
2020-12-02 01:10:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 12:56:30 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by George
On Sun, 29 Nov 2020 18:53:10 -0800 (PST)
Post by James Christophers
So what?
Okay
The RMA requires engineers.
Reports and surveys
Only takes an anomaly and my $20000 can go as high as $100000 even
before any remedial work can start...
Then another engineer can suddenly find yet another point where
the building work stops and more remedial work is required
--
1. Contingency factor. That's business. In fact, construction companies
have a higher risk and rate of failure than most other kinds of
companies,
with
those that have been in business for only one to three years being
most
at
risk. But the history shows that even long-established companies can go
to
the
wall as readily as new ones.
Some years ago it was a 'feature' of some industries to see companies
closing and new ones starting - so "Joe Smith Construction 2002" may
fold and "Joe Smith Builder 2004"" started, which after a while closes
and "Joe Smith Developments 2008" starts . . . Does that still
happen?
2. RMA costs may well be an additional component of the overall
risk.
You
know this legal **certainty** is a given before you even sign up for
the
caper.
You also know that the Act has been in place for the past 30 years. So
if
you
can't stand the heat, why hang around in the kitchen?
3. What has compliance with the RMA have to do with **remediation**
of
work
done or in hand but of a quality too badly executed to be fit for
purpose?
As a ratepayer, I hope my Council covers the costs of perusal of plans
and proposals, construction inspections (the Council gets sues for
signing off while the construction company has folded . . .), and the
costs of any eventual litigation - remember the slips out of Dunedin
(Green Island?), leaky buildings? Do any of those costs relate to the
RMA?
As a ratepayer, I also want to kow that I am not paying for the cost
of extra work for water, power, sewage arising from greater density or
new areas adding load. If a street of quarter acre 1-story houses is
replaced with 5 story apartments, will my rates go up for the extra
load on pipes carrying sewage?
There are a lot of houses being built at present, but I still have no
idea of the relative costs of issues relating to the RMA vs other
costs. Perhaps it is quite small, given that a lot of development
costs seem to be being left to existing ratepayers to share . . .
You could start here. It may be quite extreme but it gives some
indication
of
the idiotic legislation that the RMA has become under several governments.
It is obvious that such a monster will introduce costs.
It should be scrapped and replaced by something resmbling common sense.
Note also that Newman puts race-based preferment and race-based exclusivity
top of the list.
Is this sort of thing alright, do you suppose, in a country that so earnestly,
tirelessly insist that it is both democratic and egalitarian?
Off topic of course.
From Newman's opinion piece that you yourself have validly introduced to the
"The last National Government planned sweeping reforms but couldn’t persuade
their United Future and ACT coalition partners to support their proposals. In
the end, they did a deal with the Maori Party and as a result, along with
sensible changes, new **race-based** provisions giving iwi greater influence
in council decision-making were also introduced that have made the problems
with the RMA even worse."
There you have it, verbatim.
(
snipped)
I have not posted anything other than that the RMA is bad
Post by Tony
legislation.
Yet another of your childish "nothing new here" posts, thereby making
redundant the rest of your calculated side-stepping.
Ane there you go being abusive - entirely predictable and becoming increasingly
boring.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
The RMA has been a thorn in the side of progress for 30
Post by Tony
years, and that is an almost universally held opinion.
Quite so. When race-based provisions are an integral element in the RMA, they
are ipso facto integral to the problem, this further (to me, spurious)
complexity in this case having been the workof the Key government.
This is not an opinion. It is the fact of the matter and, as such, is
four-squarely on-topic
Also germane to the topic is the fact that, as Newman says, United Future and
Act had declined to support the then National government's proposals for RMA
reform. So to ensure their proposals would pass scrutiny the National
government had no recourse but to seek the support of the Maori party. The
rest is history and the additional impact and burden it has placed on the
reform process is, in my view, irreversible as things now stand.
Incidentally, do you know why United Future and Act bucked at the proposed
reforms? It matters because their rejection of National's proposals made them
a significant part of the very problem that Newman is addressing.
Newman and you have much to say about the RMA and its many failings adn
there's nothing wrong with that. But neither of you has yet proposed any kind
of reform(s) that would repeal, reverse or change current laws and amendments
to the benefit of the environment and to the satisfaction of the developers and
the people, including you.
Talk is easy. As Gordon once succinctly pointed out, when it comes to policy
formation and implementation, "Everything is easy when you don't have to do it."
James Christophers
2020-12-02 02:14:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 12:56:30 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by George
On Sun, 29 Nov 2020 18:53:10 -0800 (PST)
Post by James Christophers
So what?
Okay
The RMA requires engineers.
Reports and surveys
Only takes an anomaly and my $20000 can go as high as $100000 even
before any remedial work can start...
Then another engineer can suddenly find yet another point where
the building work stops and more remedial work is required
--
1. Contingency factor. That's business. In fact, construction
companies
have a higher risk and rate of failure than most other kinds of
companies,
with
those that have been in business for only one to three years being
most
at
risk. But the history shows that even long-established companies can
go
to
the
wall as readily as new ones.
Some years ago it was a 'feature' of some industries to see companies
closing and new ones starting - so "Joe Smith Construction 2002" may
fold and "Joe Smith Builder 2004"" started, which after a while closes
and "Joe Smith Developments 2008" starts . . . Does that still
happen?
2. RMA costs may well be an additional component of the overall
risk.
You
know this legal **certainty** is a given before you even sign up for
the
caper.
You also know that the Act has been in place for the past 30 years.
So
if
you
can't stand the heat, why hang around in the kitchen?
3. What has compliance with the RMA have to do with **remediation**
of
work
done or in hand but of a quality too badly executed to be fit for
purpose?
As a ratepayer, I hope my Council covers the costs of perusal of plans
and proposals, construction inspections (the Council gets sues for
signing off while the construction company has folded . . .), and the
costs of any eventual litigation - remember the slips out of Dunedin
(Green Island?), leaky buildings? Do any of those costs relate to the
RMA?
As a ratepayer, I also want to kow that I am not paying for the cost
of extra work for water, power, sewage arising from greater density or
new areas adding load. If a street of quarter acre 1-story houses is
replaced with 5 story apartments, will my rates go up for the extra
load on pipes carrying sewage?
There are a lot of houses being built at present, but I still have no
idea of the relative costs of issues relating to the RMA vs other
costs. Perhaps it is quite small, given that a lot of development
costs seem to be being left to existing ratepayers to share . . .
You could start here. It may be quite extreme but it gives some
indication
of
the idiotic legislation that the RMA has become under several governments.
It is obvious that such a monster will introduce costs.
It should be scrapped and replaced by something resmbling common sense.
Note also that Newman puts race-based preferment and race-based exclusivity
top of the list.
Is this sort of thing alright, do you suppose, in a country that so
earnestly,
tirelessly insist that it is both democratic and egalitarian?
Off topic of course.
From Newman's opinion piece that you yourself have validly introduced to the
"The last National Government planned sweeping reforms but couldn’t persuade
their United Future and ACT coalition partners to support their proposals. In
the end, they did a deal with the Maori Party and as a result, along with
sensible changes, new **race-based** provisions giving iwi greater influence
in council decision-making were also introduced that have made the problems
with the RMA even worse."
There you have it, verbatim.
(
snipped)
I have not posted anything other than that the RMA is bad
Post by Tony
legislation.
Yet another of your childish "nothing new here" posts, thereby making
redundant the rest of your calculated side-stepping.
Ane there you go being abusive - entirely predictable and becoming increasingly
boring.
In no way abusive but plain, straightforward observation of what is so plainly evident to any reader of this group.

Replace 'boring' with 'challenging'and all becomes clear: you are palpably incapable of meeting those challenges you set yourself, and this solely for lack of learning, research and inspiration on your part.

And whose fault is that if not yours, eh?
Tony
2020-12-02 02:54:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 12:56:30 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by George
On Sun, 29 Nov 2020 18:53:10 -0800 (PST)
Post by James Christophers
So what?
Okay
The RMA requires engineers.
Reports and surveys
Only takes an anomaly and my $20000 can go as high as $100000
even
before any remedial work can start...
Then another engineer can suddenly find yet another point where
the building work stops and more remedial work is required
--
1. Contingency factor. That's business. In fact, construction
companies
have a higher risk and rate of failure than most other kinds of
companies,
with
those that have been in business for only one to three years being
most
at
risk. But the history shows that even long-established companies
can
go
to
the
wall as readily as new ones.
Some years ago it was a 'feature' of some industries to see companies
closing and new ones starting - so "Joe Smith Construction 2002" may
fold and "Joe Smith Builder 2004"" started, which after a while
closes
and "Joe Smith Developments 2008" starts . . . Does that still
happen?
2. RMA costs may well be an additional component of the overall
risk.
You
know this legal **certainty** is a given before you even sign up
for
the
caper.
You also know that the Act has been in place for the past 30 years.
So
if
you
can't stand the heat, why hang around in the kitchen?
3. What has compliance with the RMA have to do with **remediation**
of
work
done or in hand but of a quality too badly executed to be fit for
purpose?
As a ratepayer, I hope my Council covers the costs of perusal of
plans
and proposals, construction inspections (the Council gets sues for
signing off while the construction company has folded . . .), and the
costs of any eventual litigation - remember the slips out of Dunedin
(Green Island?), leaky buildings? Do any of those costs relate to the
RMA?
As a ratepayer, I also want to kow that I am not paying for the cost
of extra work for water, power, sewage arising from greater
density
or
new areas adding load. If a street of quarter acre 1-story houses is
replaced with 5 story apartments, will my rates go up for the extra
load on pipes carrying sewage?
There are a lot of houses being built at present, but I still have no
idea of the relative costs of issues relating to the RMA vs other
costs. Perhaps it is quite small, given that a lot of development
costs seem to be being left to existing ratepayers to share . . .
You could start here. It may be quite extreme but it gives some
indication
of
the idiotic legislation that the RMA has become under several
governments.
It is obvious that such a monster will introduce costs.
It should be scrapped and replaced by something resmbling common sense.
Note also that Newman puts race-based preferment and race-based exclusivity
top of the list.
Is this sort of thing alright, do you suppose, in a country that so
earnestly,
tirelessly insist that it is both democratic and egalitarian?
Off topic of course.
From Newman's opinion piece that you yourself have validly introduced to the
"The last National Government planned sweeping reforms but couldn’t persuade
their United Future and ACT coalition partners to support their
proposals.
In
the end, they did a deal with the Maori Party and as a result, along with
sensible changes, new **race-based** provisions giving iwi greater influence
in council decision-making were also introduced that have made the problems
with the RMA even worse."
There you have it, verbatim.
(
snipped)
I have not posted anything other than that the RMA is bad
Post by Tony
legislation.
Yet another of your childish "nothing new here" posts, thereby making
redundant the rest of your calculated side-stepping.
Ane there you go being abusive - entirely predictable and becoming increasingly
boring.
In no way abusive but plain, straightforward observation of what is so plainly
evident to any reader of this group.
Replace 'boring' with 'challenging'and all becomes clear: you are palpably
incapable of meeting those challenges you set yourself, and this solely for
lack of learning, research and inspiration on your part.
And whose fault is that if not yours, eh?
As I said, you are abusive, and are now doubling down on that clear path.
Clear to all. My learning eclipses yours by a country mile or three. But I have
not been abusive, being so is your escape from reality.
James Christophers
2020-12-02 04:20:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 12:56:30 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by George
On Sun, 29 Nov 2020 18:53:10 -0800 (PST)
Post by James Christophers
So what?
Okay
The RMA requires engineers.
Reports and surveys
Only takes an anomaly and my $20000 can go as high as $100000
even
before any remedial work can start...
Then another engineer can suddenly find yet another point where
the building work stops and more remedial work is required
--
1. Contingency factor. That's business. In fact, construction
companies
have a higher risk and rate of failure than most other kinds of
companies,
with
those that have been in business for only one to three years
being
most
at
risk. But the history shows that even long-established companies
can
go
to
the
wall as readily as new ones.
Some years ago it was a 'feature' of some industries to see
companies
closing and new ones starting - so "Joe Smith Construction 2002"
may
fold and "Joe Smith Builder 2004"" started, which after a while
closes
and "Joe Smith Developments 2008" starts . . . Does that still
happen?
2. RMA costs may well be an additional component of the overall
risk.
You
know this legal **certainty** is a given before you even sign up
for
the
caper.
You also know that the Act has been in place for the past 30
years.
So
if
you
can't stand the heat, why hang around in the kitchen?
3. What has compliance with the RMA have to do with
**remediation**
of
work
done or in hand but of a quality too badly executed to be fit for
purpose?
As a ratepayer, I hope my Council covers the costs of perusal of
plans
and proposals, construction inspections (the Council gets sues for
signing off while the construction company has folded . . .), and
the
costs of any eventual litigation - remember the slips out of
Dunedin
(Green Island?), leaky buildings? Do any of those costs relate to
the
RMA?
As a ratepayer, I also want to kow that I am not paying for the
cost
of extra work for water, power, sewage arising from greater
density
or
new areas adding load. If a street of quarter acre 1-story houses
is
replaced with 5 story apartments, will my rates go up for the
extra
load on pipes carrying sewage?
There are a lot of houses being built at present, but I still have
no
idea of the relative costs of issues relating to the RMA vs other
costs. Perhaps it is quite small, given that a lot of development
costs seem to be being left to existing ratepayers to share . . .
You could start here. It may be quite extreme but it gives some
indication
of
the idiotic legislation that the RMA has become under several
governments.
It is obvious that such a monster will introduce costs.
It should be scrapped and replaced by something resmbling common
sense.
Note also that Newman puts race-based preferment and race-based
exclusivity
top of the list.
Is this sort of thing alright, do you suppose, in a country that so
earnestly,
tirelessly insist that it is both democratic and egalitarian?
Off topic of course.
From Newman's opinion piece that you yourself have validly introduced to the
"The last National Government planned sweeping reforms but couldn’t
persuade
their United Future and ACT coalition partners to support their
proposals.
In
the end, they did a deal with the Maori Party and as a result, along with
sensible changes, new **race-based** provisions giving iwi greater influence
in council decision-making were also introduced that have made the problems
with the RMA even worse."
There you have it, verbatim.
(
snipped)
I have not posted anything other than that the RMA is bad
Post by Tony
legislation.
Yet another of your childish "nothing new here" posts, thereby making
redundant the rest of your calculated side-stepping.
Ane there you go being abusive - entirely predictable and becoming increasingly
boring.
In no way abusive but plain, straightforward observation of what is so plainly
evident to any reader of this group.
Replace 'boring' with 'challenging'and all becomes clear: you are palpably
incapable of meeting those challenges you set yourself, and this solely for
lack of learning, research and inspiration on your part.
And whose fault is that if not yours, eh?
As I said, you are abusive, and are now doubling down on that clear path.
Know that the nature of such a response from you only serves further to reinforce my fact-based comments.
Post by Tony
Clear to all. My learning eclipses yours by a country mile or three.
Clear to all: you have yet to show any evidence of such learning as foolishly claimed, this simply because you are manifestly neither learned where needed nor applied when faced with the task you set in motion. Hence you have become challenged by your own behaviour, and so all that is left to you is your lordly superficiality and self-serving humbug. That, plus what I view as your intellectual pilfering and passing-off.
Post by Tony
But I have not been abusive, being so is your escape from reality.
Your own reality is yours alone, and that reality is to continue to spurn the advice generously given you by a wiser man on this group some time ago: namely, it would pay you to support your bald, unqualified opinions with facts rather than immediately raise your drawbridge against any who may reasonably challenge you to provide such support. Such blatant vexatiousness is not debate in any legitimate form, and the sooner you learn and accept the truth of this the sooner yours will - or should, God willing - become a more openly honest and engaging persona.

It's up to you.
John Bowes
2020-12-02 05:01:26 UTC
Permalink
On Wednesday, December 2, 2020 at 5:20:25 PM UTC+13, ***@gmail.com wrote:
<further garbage from Keith snipped>

Grow up Keith!
Tony
2020-12-02 06:10:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 12:56:30 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by George
On Sun, 29 Nov 2020 18:53:10 -0800 (PST)
Post by James Christophers
So what?
Okay
The RMA requires engineers.
Reports and surveys
Only takes an anomaly and my $20000 can go as high as
$100000
even
before any remedial work can start...
Then another engineer can suddenly find yet another point
where
the building work stops and more remedial work is required
--
1. Contingency factor. That's business. In fact, construction
companies
have a higher risk and rate of failure than most other kinds
of
companies,
with
those that have been in business for only one to three years
being
most
at
risk. But the history shows that even long-established
companies
can
go
to
the
wall as readily as new ones.
Some years ago it was a 'feature' of some industries to see
companies
closing and new ones starting - so "Joe Smith Construction
2002"
may
fold and "Joe Smith Builder 2004"" started, which after a while
closes
and "Joe Smith Developments 2008" starts . . . Does that still
happen?
2. RMA costs may well be an additional component of the
overall
risk.
You
know this legal **certainty** is a given before you even sign
up
for
the
caper.
You also know that the Act has been in place for the past 30
years.
So
if
you
can't stand the heat, why hang around in the kitchen?
3. What has compliance with the RMA have to do with
**remediation**
of
work
done or in hand but of a quality too badly executed to be fit
for
purpose?
As a ratepayer, I hope my Council covers the costs of perusal
of
plans
and proposals, construction inspections (the Council gets sues
for
signing off while the construction company has folded . . .),
and
the
costs of any eventual litigation - remember the slips out of
Dunedin
(Green Island?), leaky buildings? Do any of those costs relate
to
the
RMA?
As a ratepayer, I also want to kow that I am not paying for the
cost
of extra work for water, power, sewage arising from greater
density
or
new areas adding load. If a street of quarter acre 1-story
houses
is
replaced with 5 story apartments, will my rates go up for the
extra
load on pipes carrying sewage?
There are a lot of houses being built at present, but I still
have
no
idea of the relative costs of issues relating to the RMA vs
other
costs. Perhaps it is quite small, given that a lot of
development
costs seem to be being left to existing ratepayers to share . .
.
You could start here. It may be quite extreme but it gives some
indication
of
the idiotic legislation that the RMA has become under several
governments.
It is obvious that such a monster will introduce costs.
It should be scrapped and replaced by something resmbling common
sense.
Note also that Newman puts race-based preferment and race-based
exclusivity
top of the list.
Is this sort of thing alright, do you suppose, in a country that so
earnestly,
tirelessly insist that it is both democratic and egalitarian?
Off topic of course.
From Newman's opinion piece that you yourself have validly introduced
to
the
"The last National Government planned sweeping reforms but couldn’t
persuade
their United Future and ACT coalition partners to support their
proposals.
In
the end, they did a deal with the Maori Party and as a result, along with
sensible changes, new **race-based** provisions giving iwi greater
influence
in council decision-making were also introduced that have made the problems
with the RMA even worse."
There you have it, verbatim.
(
snipped)
I have not posted anything other than that the RMA is bad
Post by Tony
legislation.
Yet another of your childish "nothing new here" posts, thereby making
redundant the rest of your calculated side-stepping.
Ane there you go being abusive - entirely predictable and becoming increasingly
boring.
In no way abusive but plain, straightforward observation of what is so plainly
evident to any reader of this group.
Replace 'boring' with 'challenging'and all becomes clear: you are palpably
incapable of meeting those challenges you set yourself, and this solely for
lack of learning, research and inspiration on your part.
And whose fault is that if not yours, eh?
As I said, you are abusive, and are now doubling down on that clear path.
Know that the nature of such a response from you only serves further to
reinforce my fact-based comments.
Post by Tony
Clear to all. My learning eclipses yours by a country mile or three.
Clear to all: you have yet to show any evidence of such learning as foolishly
claimed, this simply because you are manifestly neither learned where needed
nor applied when faced with the task you set in motion. Hence you have become
challenged by your own behaviour, and so all that is left to you is your lordly
superficiality and self-serving humbug. That, plus what I view as your
intellectual pilfering and passing-off.
Post by Tony
But I have not been abusive, being so is your escape from reality.
Your own reality is yours alone, and that reality is to continue to spurn the
advice generously given you by a wiser man on this group some time ago: namely,
it would pay you to support your bald, unqualified opinions with facts rather
than immediately raise your drawbridge against any who may reasonably challenge
you to provide such support. Such blatant vexatiousness is not debate in any
legitimate form, and the sooner you learn and accept the truth of this the
sooner yours will - or should, God willing - become a more openly honest and
engaging persona.
It's up to you.
No it is not.
You are the abuser. Factual, obvious and eternal. Your only talent in life.
All else is smoke and mirrors.

John Bowes
2020-12-02 03:18:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Mon, 30 Nov 2020 12:56:30 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by George
On Sun, 29 Nov 2020 18:53:10 -0800 (PST)
Post by James Christophers
So what?
Okay
The RMA requires engineers.
Reports and surveys
Only takes an anomaly and my $20000 can go as high as $100000 even
before any remedial work can start...
Then another engineer can suddenly find yet another point where
the building work stops and more remedial work is required
--
1. Contingency factor. That's business. In fact, construction companies
have a higher risk and rate of failure than most other kinds of
companies,
with
those that have been in business for only one to three years being most
at
risk. But the history shows that even long-established companies can go
to
the
wall as readily as new ones.
Some years ago it was a 'feature' of some industries to see companies
closing and new ones starting - so "Joe Smith Construction 2002" may
fold and "Joe Smith Builder 2004"" started, which after a while closes
and "Joe Smith Developments 2008" starts . . . Does that still
happen?
2. RMA costs may well be an additional component of the overall risk.
You
know this legal **certainty** is a given before you even sign up for
the
caper.
You also know that the Act has been in place for the past 30 years. So
if
you
can't stand the heat, why hang around in the kitchen?
3. What has compliance with the RMA have to do with **remediation** of
work
done or in hand but of a quality too badly executed to be fit for
purpose?
As a ratepayer, I hope my Council covers the costs of perusal of plans
and proposals, construction inspections (the Council gets sues for
signing off while the construction company has folded . . .), and the
costs of any eventual litigation - remember the slips out of Dunedin
(Green Island?), leaky buildings? Do any of those costs relate to the
RMA?
As a ratepayer, I also want to kow that I am not paying for the cost
of extra work for water, power, sewage arising from greater density or
new areas adding load. If a street of quarter acre 1-story houses is
replaced with 5 story apartments, will my rates go up for the extra
load on pipes carrying sewage?
There are a lot of houses being built at present, but I still have no
idea of the relative costs of issues relating to the RMA vs other
costs. Perhaps it is quite small, given that a lot of development
costs seem to be being left to existing ratepayers to share . . .
You could start here. It may be quite extreme but it gives some
indication
of
the idiotic legislation that the RMA has become under several governments.
It is obvious that such a monster will introduce costs.
It should be scrapped and replaced by something resmbling common sense.
Note also that Newman puts race-based preferment and race-based exclusivity
top of the list.
Is this sort of thing alright, do you suppose, in a country that so earnestly,
tirelessly insist that it is both democratic and egalitarian?
Off topic of course.
From Newman's opinion piece that you yourself have validly introduced to the
"The last National Government planned sweeping reforms but couldn’t persuade
their United Future and ACT coalition partners to support their proposals. In
the end, they did a deal with the Maori Party and as a result, along with
sensible changes, new **race-based** provisions giving iwi greater influence
in council decision-making were also introduced that have made the problems
with the RMA even worse."
There you have it, verbatim.
(
snipped)
I have not posted anything other than that the RMA is bad
Post by Tony
legislation.
Yet another of your childish "nothing new here" posts, thereby making redundant the rest of your calculated side-stepping.
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
The RMA has been a thorn in the side of progress for 30
Post by Tony
years, and that is an almost universally held opinion.
Quite so. When race-based provisions are an integral element in the RMA, they
are ipso facto integral to the problem, this further (to me, spurious)
complexity in this case having been the workof the Key government.
This is not an opinion. It is the fact of the matter and, as such, is
four-squarely on-topic
Also germane to the topic is the fact that, as Newman says, United Future and
Act had declined to support the then National government's proposals for RMA
reform. So to ensure their proposals would pass scrutiny the National
government had no recourse but to seek the support of the Maori party. The
rest is history and the additional impact and burden it has placed on the
reform process is, in my view, irreversible as things now stand.
Incidentally, do you know why United Future and Act bucked at the proposed
reforms? It matters because their rejection of National's proposals made them
a significant part of the very problem that Newman is addressing.
Newman and you have much to say about the RMA and its many failings adn
there's nothing wrong with that. But neither of you has yet proposed any kind
of reform(s) that would repeal, reverse or change current laws and amendments
to the benefit of the environment and to the satisfaction of the developers and
the people, including you.
Talk is easy. As Gordon once succinctly pointed out, when it comes to policy
formation and implementation, "Everything is easy when you don't have to do it."
Get back on topic moron! You start responding to threads and they turn to shit Keith! either get back on topic or fuck off!
Loading...