Councils are stealing property rights again, this time in Pakiri, north of Auckland.Some years ago the proposed 'Arigato' block at Pakiri became the focus of much environmental opposition, including the opposition of the Environmental Defence Society (EDS). When an application to develop the block was won by those who owned it in the teeth of opposition from those who didn't -- including one judge member of EDS who found against the development only to be overturned on appeal -- caterer Rae Ah Chee formed the dream to buy there, build there and retire there.
Sandra Coney and her coven of Auckland Regional Councillors have a different dream however. They harbour dreams of open space and a large reserve at Pakiri, just as many councils do at many beachfronts, and Rae Ah Chee's house is right in the middle of where they would like that open space to be. Guess whose dream wins? Guess who gets their open space by stealth?
The ARC has just rejected Rae Ah Chee's application to build his own house on his own land. ARC parks chairman Sandra Coney said: "We've spent $20 million of ratepayers' money to give a wonderful remote get-away-from-it-all iconic park and are keen to protect it from this intrusion of a trophy house on the landscape." Sandra Coney is a bitch. A busy-body, meddling, thieving bitch. A harridan whom the Resource Management Act hands the power to destroy -- a power she would not have but for the power it gives her.
She and her brood are using that power to destroy the the property rights and the dreams of Mr Ah Chee, and all property-owning New Zealanders. It is high time instead that the power of these unproductive meddling arseholes be removed, be taken away for good, and the property rights of New Zealanders be respected and protected once again. It is time, in short, for the RMA to go.
UPDATE: Rae Ah Chee told Newstalk ZB, "he thinks the two councils still have a chip on their shoulder over losing the environment court case. Rae Ah Chee says the plans for their home comply with the guidelines and there is no reason for the councils not to grant consent."
Meanwhile Auckland Regional Councilor Christine Rose says they have "genuine concerns which need to be dealt with." Me too. "She says it is important dwellings on prominent ridgelines are in keeping with the sensitive values of the landscape [and thanks, Rae, for the free park]."
LINKS: ARC sours dream of Pakiri beach pad - NZ Herald
It's time to drive a stake through the heart of the RMA - Peter Cresswell, Free Radical [4-page PDF]
TAGS: RMA, Property_Rights, Auckland, Urban_Design
10 comments:
PC, make what you want of this but I am retiring from reading/commenting on your blog, due to the vitriol that has been pouring forth recently. Disagree with someone's views for sure, but the argument is not served by calling anyone a 'bitch', or any other petulant, schoolyard pejoratives.
I enjoyed reading this blog for the reasoned and well-argued opinion that you put down, even though I agree with almost none of what you say, but this kind of shit is ridiculous.
You have a fringe, minority opinion, and to class those who hold opinions closer to mainstream thought as 'thieving bitches' and 'harridans' just makes you look like a disenfranchised, bitter malcontent. Not a good look.
Ciao
Well, I'm disappointed, Den. I'm sorry you find insufficent here to keep you.
But apart from the well-earned epithet flung at the thieving Comrade Sandra, I'm not sure which vitriol you mean? The only thing here recently remotely like that was from Comrade Steve on the subject of planning?
Passion for your subject is one thing, blind venom is another.
Sandra Coney is someone I have actually met. 'Bitch' is not an appropriate way to describe her, I found her very pleasant. Political correctness, wet lefty moonbat simpering, call it what you will, but I put my case with respect when I have a differing opinion.
Obviously you think Sandra Coney (and Annette Presley, whom you similarly tarred with the schoolyard-taut brush) are not worthy of respect in your eyes, because their politics differs from yours.
This attitude says a lot about the arrogance of the libertarian platform - "I'm right, they don't agree thus they are 'bitches'".
I too have met Sandra. Our opinions clearly differ as to her merits, but surely her views on property at least justify calling her a thief, which is what I called Annette. After all, isn't she?
Den, a thief is a thief, whether by direct action or via the use of unjust laws. If someone burgled your home I imagine you might be pretty angry about it. When someone like Coney uses the RMA to strip someone of their property rights, they are worse than the burglar. At least when you are burgled, you can claim to have owned the property in question and seek compensation for your loss; thanks to the RMA, Coney and her cronies actually get to 'own' Rae Ah Chee's without purchasing it and with no compensation granted. That's fascism, and the people who dreamed up the RMA should be flogged, tarred and feathered, and then deported to some remote New Zealand outpost in Antarctica.
Sandra Coney has always struck me as a nasty piece of work, although unlike you I can't claim to have met her. But by all accounts Ted Bundy was also a completely charming fellow when he wasn't killing and mutilating people.
My last word: Of course I recognise that the libertarian paradigm requires all manner of central government figures to be seen as 'thieves' etc - this is all expected.
When this equates to low-brow sniggering about Sandra Coney and Annette Presley being 'bitches' ("Hur hur, search her on Google and see what comes up") - that's when any meaningful value in the argument gets sucked out. It's like me referring repeatedly to libertarians as 'fuckwads' because I see laissez-faire economic policy as a death-knell for the environment.
Anyways, I'm sure that's enough bleating from me. So long.
Property rights guarantee the environment a lot more successfully than the RMA. The overarching case for the 'the public, or greater good' has been shot to pieces in a number of Privy Council decisions in favour of the individual or little man who brought the case. The RMA is a 24 carat hash. It enables the sly to bully. If you encounter a thief in your house you can at least have a crack at them, but you can not get physical with the bureaucrats. The chief characteristic of a bully is usually cowardice. They will only do things when there is no chance or expectation of harm or retribution against them. The RMA enables this type to flourish. They have the motivation and the mind of a common thief, but not a thief's courage.
Rae ah Chee has been robbed of his property use, by the usual suspects... the RMA lobby.
DenMT said...
"Sandra Coney is someone I have actually met."
So , just because you've met Sandra Coney, it does not mean that you have to defend her against the language used by PC. PC is talking metaphoric and synomnyms and not personal. Have some humour man. I bet that you want to screw her?
I suspect I missed the boat in terms of Denmt reading these posts but, Did anyone catch why he thought the bitch was not a thief?
And since we are name dropping, I have conducted business with Ray Ah Chee and his brother Merv and met them informally on numerous occasions to my observation they are men of integrity.
SOUTHERN GENT
Sandra Coney calls another man using his land and money to build his own house "a trophy house" an "intrusion". It is like going up to someone in the street and criticising their clothes, car or partner and say "you've got a trophy" (sneer), stop intruding into my eyesight.
It is just vile and evil. It is one thing to advocate council using force to create public space, which I DO disagree with - it is another to do so with the sneering envy ridden language of a hate filled shrew. Sandra Coney's language says it all - she didn't need to say "trophy" or "intrusion".
The left keenly uses vituperative language against the productive and successful, and gets away with it.
Post a Comment