I don’t think some people are interested in consistency of view, or have a particular problem living with internally inconsistent or logically incompatible opinions.

Psychiatrists probably have a field day with this stuff - but it seems a very common part of human nature that the stronger our personal opinions are about an issue the less subject they are to logic or the rigour of consistency.

Anyone see Michael Laws on Campbell Live last night?

State “interference”" in the rights of parents is wrong, but state “intervention” in the clothing choices of gang members is right. The key distinction Laws drew between the two issues really came down to the strength of his feelings about each issue:

“I can see the difference mate, why can’t you?” said Laws.

BB, if you are really serious about a ban on factory farming (and I think you are) then that will have to involve the state running your life and everyone elses lives. The state will be telling you, me and everyone else what sort of eggs we can buy and what sort of meat. And anyone trying to meet the demand for cheaper battery eggs or factory farmed meat will be punished to the full extent of the law. Now how can anyone describe that as anything other than the state running our lives.

You see, you need to be consistent. It seems you are quite willing to have the state run everyones’ life as long as they are running it in a way consistent with your own values, and preventing someone from doing what you think is wrong, but not when they are preventing you from doing something that other think is wrong. But if you believe that the state has a legitimate role in curtailing some activities, then you need to argue the case for each proposed activity the state wishes to control, not simply state that all control is wrong.

I agree. What we need is medium-density. Check out what they are doing in Germany in places like Freiburg :

http://www.sustainability.murdoch.edu.au/publications/jscheurer/carfre e/frvaub-f.html

http://www.vauban.de/info/abstract.html

Typically three-storey buildings with six or nine apartments. Plenty of green space. Cars banished to the periphery (collective garages). Good public transport, obviously. Energy efficiency is a key goal.

I agree. What we need is medium-density. Check out what they are doing in Germany in places like Freiburg :

http://www.sustainability.murdoch.edu.au/publications/jscheurer/carfre e/frvaub-f.html

http://www.vauban.de/info/abstract.html

Typically three-storey buildings with six or nine apartments. Plenty of green space. Cars banished to the periphery (collective garages). Good public transport, obviously. Energy efficiency is a key goal.

>Boy racers, BTW, pale into insignificance beside the excessses of status-hungry alpha male property developers (Did anyone see the profile of Terry Serepios in the Sport pages of the Weekend Dompost? SERIOUSLY high-miantenance bloke there, no carbon-credits whatsoever!!!)

Not all property developers are evil, though I agree that that particular one is. But that’s because his buildings are ugly and in many cases profit from being associated with the atmosphere of the area while giving nothing back to it and blighting it with ugly buildings.

The other big residential property developer working in the Te Aro area is a BIG contrast. Ian Cassels seems to understand to character of places like Cuba st, and develop buildings that add to the vibrancy of the area. Actually, I’m a bit disapponited with how some of them have turned out, but even if Left Bank has some ugly details, it’s still a great visionary development.

BB
“And all of them involve the state running my life!…thanks but no thanks, if this is the true intention of the Green party then please be good enough to campaign on it.”
^^^^^^^^^^^

At present our life is run by a government which maintains full employment by globalising the NZ property market. Decisions about our community are made (largely) by greedy property developers who are motivated by the lowest common denominator. One of the underlying tenets of a benevolent society is that its institutions function for the benefit of the majority, at present individuals can exploit the system gaining far more wealth, power and influence than they should. A case in point Eamon Cleary.

Christchurchs motto is “A city founded in faith, rich in the fullfillment thereoff, and strong in the hope for the future“. Hagley Park was surveyed when there were about 500 people living here. Those people had Values, many of our present property developers (quite a few of them from off-shore) are just dirt-bags.
Developer Dolf DeRoss talks on his mentoring tapes about choosing a real estate agent who will find properties 30% below value…..>> scum,scum,….scum.
jh

March 26th, 2007 at 11:00 am
big bruv Says:
March 26th, 2007 at 9:18 am

I just wish one of you would be brave enough to state what the Green parties true intentions are.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
There are a wide range of policy options between laisee-faire and communisism
jh”

And all of them involve the state running my life!…thanks but no thanks, if this is the true intention of the Green party then please be good enough to campaign on it.

Just were do you draw the line at state ownership?

“We need to learn to live in higher density communities closer to places of work”

Would love to set up my machinery at home. Have enough room but somehow the whine of a 24000 rpm milling machine spindle cutting screaming tortured metal is not going to go down well with my neighbour who works nights.

You would need to legislate local councils to take over small tracts of residential housing and put in mini industrial estates. Within walking, biking distance. Not just the industrial estates but small shopping and recreational estates as well. The problem we have is local zoning spaces these out so far away that a car is a mandatory.

Would really like to walk to the local watering hole but council wont zone one in our older subdivision. The new Fletcher Housing subdivision (900 new houses) on the rest of the Wattle Downs peninsular has a school but no shops, no pub, no clubs, no entertainment. But it does have extensive (21K) tidal marine walk and reserves but the mangroves are blocking all access to the water.

When one tries to control mangrove growth the council forbids the destruction of this introduced weed (but that is another story).

So the direction has to come from local a government and if your assertions that the elected politicians are proprty developers stools then the Greens had better get standing at local levels to get real changes to how we live.

As one who grew up in tenament housing I’m not averse to it. Always wonder why we dont even have semi detatched housing so at least you can get a reasonable access to the back yard.

I think high rise housing though, unless properly policed, is a good idea. European experience would suggest people are not all that keen to live like that unless forced to.

jh,

“We are becoming strangled by denser living, concrete and cars” which is just the opposite of Alistirs opinion.

I just wish one of you would be brave enough to state what the Green parties true intentions are.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
There are a wide range of policy options between laisee-faire and communisism
jh