Since Resource-Management Act "reform"/renaming is once again on the table -- about which even the unexciting Peter Dunne is feeling an unexcited sense of déjà vu -- it seemed a good time to remind you why even the unexcitable and unelectable feel that something should be done. One main reason perhaps is that nearly every voter has now experienced something like this, that I described back in 2004:
What's the real problem with the Act?
No wonder the lawyers like it.
So why not get excited about yesterday's announcement? 'Cos even in 2004 we'd already seen it all before:
Instead of that, we're getting another rewrite, with another layer of bureaucracy, and still with the same life-negating principles at its heart that I identified back in 2004...
Here's Graham Parker:
3 comments:
It’s not quite as bad as you described in 2004 in terms of practical effects for your carport builder, because planners have standard waffle they quick copy into every consent application, and most go through unchallenged on that basis. But the potential for abuse on the basis of these ‘principles’ is certainly there, and possibly worse with this new rehash.
You're only saying that because you can afford to pay people to copy and past all that standard waffle before they head off to [2022's over-priced equivalent to the now-closed] Antoine's. ;-)
The particular BS you’re quoting here is relatively cheap in relation to all the other BS you have to address.
Post a Comment