| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 67186 | 2006-03-20 04:39:00 | Marina Decision | KiwiTT_NZ (233) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 439358 | 2006-03-20 04:39:00 | Minister is correct (www.nzherald.co.nz) Therefore if we want to save a lot of money and time, simply apply directly to the Minister in-charge. |
KiwiTT_NZ (233) | ||
| 439359 | 2006-03-20 04:48:00 | I am glad the marina didn't go ahead. Someone made a great argument that changed my pro marina mind. That peson said along the lines, of "This is a natural area that everyone can enjoy, who gives a private individual the right to exploit it for personal gain and remove it from the public enjoyment for ever." I totally agree, whats nicer, an estuary with fish and crabs and birds, or a marina with expensive boats owned by a minority of people? |
netchicken (4843) | ||
| 439360 | 2006-03-20 04:55:00 | Whether the decision is supported or not, why have an environment court if it is only a recommender. Why not scrap it, save the tax-payer some money. | KiwiTT_NZ (233) | ||
| 439361 | 2006-03-20 05:34:00 | Whether the decision is supported or not, why have an environment court if it is only a recommender. Why not scrap it, save the tax-payer some money. An environment court,like other Govt.agencies is supposed to make sensible decisions that give the public what the majority what they want. This mob shouod be sacked. If we abolish the court the decisions will be made by politians,as this one was. |
JJJJJ (528) | ||
| 439362 | 2006-03-20 06:26:00 | Yes I too back the minsters decision. As said above the marina is only for the rich and wealthy few where the estuary etc is for everyone. There is far to much natural habitat being destroyed in NZ and around the world for the wealthy and money hungry. BTW I have no money but survive living my meager existence. Trevor :) |
Trev (427) | ||
| 439363 | 2006-03-21 00:15:00 | Difficult decision here. People spend a lot of time and energy going through the correct channels, get a Court decision in their favour, only to be over-ruled by a politician. Seems unfair. On the other hand, we expect our politicians to protect the public interest. Imagine Bastian Point which is an icon Auckland headland. I don't know it's current status but lets imagine its owned by Maori and they decide to build a casino and resort there. This is exactly what some American Indian tribes have done to lift themselves out of poverty. They get the licenses and the Auckland City Plan allows such a land use, so it is granted. Huge public outcry but the Environment Court says the development is lawful and approves it. Would it be the right decision in the wider public interest for the Minister to stop it? |
Winston001 (3612) | ||
| 439364 | 2006-03-21 00:50:00 | As I understand the situation, everything up to the final decision of the Minister is a recommendation. The final decision rests with the Minister, and that is his unenviable job. Heads I win, tails you lose! Edit: Note also it is the developers who are crying the loudest, Oh dear, how sad, never mind :) |
Terry Porritt (14) | ||
| 1 | |||||