Tuesday, 31 July 2012

Is there a Darryl Kerrigan in Christchurch? [updated]

After the release yesterday of the government’s CGI fantasy for Christchurch, comes the plan to acquire the land on which the governments’ slick CGI creations are planned. Because virtually all of that land is privately owned, you know. (Something planners always overlook.)

So Gerry Brownlee is now getting out the big stick:

Earthquake Recovery Minister Gerry Brownlee expects most of the land needed for rebuilding central Christchurch will be obtained by negotiation, but some could be compulsorily acquired.

A “negotiation” with a big stick at the door.  The sort of “negotiation” that Al Capone used to undertake with his “clients.”  A negotiation not with one hand tied behind your back, but with it twisted up your back until it hurts.

The sort of compulsory acquisition that Daryl Kerrigan from the hilarious film The Castle would understand.

Naturally, in such a forced negotiation—especially if the land is simply taken—the big, big question is: what are land owners going to be paid for their land.   Brownlee again:

Most of the land in the affected area has very low value and it won't have any value until there is a plan to put things back into that part of Christchurch that creates that value.

So that answers that. “It’s

So much for property rights.

Time for a screening of The Castle in Hagley Park.

UPDATE:  Bill English has revealed this morning he intends to “help pay for the rebuild” by buying land cheap from property owners (“most of the land in the affected area has very low value”) and selling dear later on.

“It’s worked for us with Red Zone land,” says English, unconcerned with how it’s worked for Red Zone property owners.

Government buying land cheap and selling dear to finance their double dealings has a long history in New Zealand. You might recall it was the foundation of Wakefield’s original plan to colonise the place—a setup at a stroke fleecing both iwi and colonists, one quickly enshrined in the second half of the Treaty of Waitangi’s Second Clause banning land being bought and sold by anyone but the government.

A colony built on a government land shark. And we know how well that worked.


  1. So basically if you don't want to 'sell' your land to them, they will just take it anyway?

  2. And not all the developers are happy. No time for clicky, but have a look here:


    Per his radio interview, Peebles said he done a lot of work toward redeveloping his properties - ie, has already spent a lot of money on planning and consents to rebuild, all of which is now lost.

  3. RC, you asked: "So basically if you don't want to 'sell' your land to them, they will just take it anyway?"

    Yes, that's it exactly.

  4. In what way does their action in taking this land by force differ from theft?

  5. Because they smile while they do it?

  6. From the Radio NZ article, which you linked to:

    "The Government will acquire the land needed for major facilities from 840 property owners and the buyouts cannot be appealed."

    But what's even more telling is the nature of the very next line:

    "Mr Key is declining to say how much he expects it will cost the Government, citing commercial sensitivity."

    It just bewilders me that the talk is about the cost to the tax-payer, and not the fact that property rights are being blatantly undermined.

    @RC: I can't find the difference, except that one of the two has legalised force on their side.

  7. Christchurch is almost a lost cause. Who would buy a property in that city now? What's left are those folk who have invested their savings in property there, but the prospects for growth are bleak.

    Gerry Napoleon and Bob Park Sung want their monumental planned city, and the only mainstream arguments are what totems to include.

  8. Thanks for that Peter. I stole your clip. But with credit.

  9. Saw this on Campbell Live last night (http://www.3news.co.nz/Christchurch-residents-fight-to-keep-property-from-Government/tabid/367/articleID/263374/Default.aspx)

    Heritage building to make way for the new 'monument' stadium, building owners unwilling for the bureaucrats to wipe them off the map. In the interview she makes an interesting point. She says they are visual people with their "own ideas" and would be better off without 'them' and their central plans which reminded me of this clip about Joplin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXjrKH4xHMk) from one of your other posts (http://pc.blogspot.co.nz/2012/05/conclusive-experiment-with-crucial.html) how (potentially) Christchurch if left alone could just get on with it


We welcome thoughtful disagreement.
Thanks to a few abusers however, we (ir)regularly moderate comments.
We *will* delete comments with insulting or abusive language, unless they're entertaining. We will also delete totally inane comments. Try to make some sense. We are much more likely to allow critical comments if you have the honesty and courage to use your real name.