| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 59225 | 2005-06-25 05:27:00 | public access across private land Bill | mark c (247) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 366970 | 2005-06-26 08:46:00 | Yes. | Winston001 (3612) | ||
| 366971 | 2005-06-26 09:02:00 | Typical, thanks to the link given earlier you can see the truth lost in the hysteria of the moment... www.beehive.govt.nz Its not open access to roam across land but narrow access to reach waterways, for fishermen, trampers etc. Can we get back to more important issues instead of the media beat up of an act that is trying to enshirne the queens chain principles? We are just victims and patsies for a national led protest movement that is only serving to obfuscate the election and take the attention away from more important issues. You are entitled to your view but this has little to do with Labour v National. The Minister (whom I regard as a decent fellow normally) says it is only access. But he won't have to face the everyday reality of unknown people wandering up the river bank and across the farm. Basically folks are not as trusting as we used to be. There are two elements to the proposal: 1 5m access strips alongside rivers 2 Separate access lanes across private land to get to the river strips. The first one is an extension of the Queens Chain and if backed up by strong laws and compensation, it could be quite fair. But the second element means allowing strangers to cross your land and that makes farmers nervous. If everyone was trustworthy then this debate wouldn't even happen. But the reality is that farmers family's face theft, assault, and violence from strangers weekly in NZ. Oddly enough people get shot. So the general public cannot expect a few of its members to swallow something which members of the public would never agree to themselves. Again I ask - why no new access to the banks of the Avon and other city rivers? |
Winston001 (3612) | ||
| 366972 | 2005-06-26 09:14:00 | As per google. In law, eminent domain is the power of the state to appropriate private property for its own use without the owner's consent. Governments most commonly use the power of eminent domain when the acquisition of real property is necessary for the completion of a public project such as a road, and the owner of the required property is unwilling to negotiate a price for its sale. In many jurisdictions the power of eminent domain is tempered with a right that just compensation be made for the appropriation. This is the usa,is it the same here I wonder? It is now even worse in the US, a new ruling on 23 June, regarded by many who champion liberty as a black day. From the Washington Post: Justices Affirm Property Seizures 5-4 Ruling Backs Forced Sales for Private Development By Charles Lane Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, June 24, 2005; Page A01 The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that local governments may force property owners to sell out and make way for private economic development when officials decide it would benefit the public, even if the property is not blighted and the new project's success is not guaranteed...... www.washingtonpost.com Notice this is property seizure for private development, not public works. |
Terry Porritt (14) | ||
| 366973 | 2005-06-26 10:07:00 | An interesting read Terry. Very easily open for abuse considering the interminglings of developers and public officess both there and here. Makes the compulsory purchase of a trail down to the river for public use seem positively Godzone. | mark c (247) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 | |||||