Fun and Frolics By The Seaside.

“But things happened and there was stuff and shenanigans. Beautiful word. Shenanigans.”
From Dr Who.

Now we’ve had a day to ponder the stirring events at Wharetana Bay there are all kinds of interesting points that we shoul

d consider. The local Facebook pages lit up with posts. The TV news coverage was surprisingly detailed. My story on here got over four hundred views in twenty four hours which I believe is a record. (My humble thanks.) And this morning the Kennedy Point roundabout had sprouted an endearingly tatty sign saying “!SACK! Paul Walden” (This has since been amusingly altered.)

And there I was thinking we were in the political doldrums. My usual level of devotion to this island community always goes through the roof when we all start shouting and blithering about issues, and real issues have been a bit thin on the ground of late. So when yesterday’s splendid shenanigans erupted it felt wonderful. Everywhere I go I’m hearing people talking about it. Most are supportive but a few are grumbling about how ‘disgraceful’ it all is.

Now the day is getting on and I am supposed to be making beer. But the urge to give this particular brew a stir instead is powerful. So let’s take a look at a few angles that have emerged. In no particular order….

Firstly, it’s a bit of a shame that the island’s boaties couldn’t have made a better showing. There was some talk on Facebook of organizing a flotilla to block access to the bay. Then it all went very quiet and anyone watching might be forgiven for thinking “Hello…They are planning something here. They just don’t want to give the game away.”
Sadly, there was no game, which was a pity considering how easily just a few sail boats could have blocked off the bay until the high tide passed. Though I admit I know nothing of such activities so I won’t push that line any further.

Then there is the telling business of the arrested protesters and the unwillingness of the police to actually lay any charges. Several of the doughty folk taking part were entirely willing to be arrested. Their point was that if the charges went to court they couldn’t be made to stick, what with the dubious legality of closing a public reserve. The authorities clearly recognised this problem as well.

Now it was clear that we had quite a few real veterans of public protest down there showing us amateurs how it’s done. But then Waiheke has long been a home to many such motivated people so we shouldn’t be surprised. While most of us left on our own feet, unwilling to be carried off by long suffering members of the constabulary, others followed their own instincts, made themselves heavy and were rewarded by being bodily removed like many times before. “Go Limp!” they advised us.

But, let’s be clear on one thing. Bandying words like ‘brutality’ and ‘thuggishness’ about as the pictures emerged on Facebook is really not helping. The police behaved with the calm restraint typical of this civilized and polite country. They did their job and nothing more. Nor did any of the protesters offer them any violence. We all knew that by going there we would find ourselves being asked, officially, to leave. Those who were hauled out by their arms and legs CHOSE to leave that way. So if you are one of those Perennially Indignant types trying to make a point by bleating about brutality, please stop it. You just sound silly and petulant and are NOT HELPING. This isn’t the bloody Springboks tour, it’s just a local spat over a bad resource decision.

Amid all the delighted reaction to all of this let us spare a thought for the opposition. Halfway through the proceedings yesterday a man pulled up by the old villa and walked towards the protesters. He began shouting. I was too far away to hear what he was saying but was keen to go and talk to him about his views. Sadly he retreated almost immediately so his opinions, whatever they were, will have to go unrecorded. The various facebook pages filled with comment, yet it took until this morning for anyone to even attempt to raise an argument in favour of either the development or the local board and council planners. The supporters of the local board are difficult to hear. Almost impossible in fact. And yet, one of their favourite mantras, whenever they write in to the papers, is that THEY are the majority and those of us who disagree are a foolish and tiny minority, horrible malcontents and trouble makers who can be safely ignored.

Right….That’s a tiny minority who somehow manage to pretend that we are numerous by each having a dozen or so facebook accounts which we use on the People’s Parliament to make it look as if there are hundreds of us pointing out the dismal failure of the board like the dead bodies propped on the ramparts in Beau Geste. In fact, we have got so good at it that we even disguise ourselves as our fictional alter egos when we go out. Check out the Waiheke People’s Parliament to see how duplicitous we are! Sure it SAYS there are two hundred and fifty of us, but really there are less than half a dozen. See all those names listed? All fake. Except me, Hans Versluys and Susi Newborn. There, you got us. We invented all those other names to fool you. We made it all up. All those other people you see posting are us wearing a bewildering variety of wigs and silly hats.


Come on you pro-board types. Get real. YOU are the minority. Off hand I can list a dozen or so of you and I pay attention to this stuff. I’m sure I’d meet a few more if I played golf but I can’t raise that level of boredom. For all your bluster the fact remains that you don’t have the numbers to raise a rival Facebook page to state your point of view. I wish you would! It would make dialogue so much easier. Maybe one or two of you, (Or indeed all THREE) might like to write something and post it on here? Your thoughts would be welcomed. And we PROMISE to post it unaltered. We want to hear from you. We’d love to read WHY you think Faye Storer is a figure of towering statesmanship. We are agog to learn why you see the Wharetana Bay business as an excellent step in the right direction or why we need to stop questioning the Auckland Council when they force their wishes upon us without adequate consultation. We’d be fascinated to know why you think the island should be run like Queensland’s Gold Coast.
Otherwise we will never understand you. “Hedgehogs,” we’ll keep thinking, “They can hide, but they can’t run!”

56 thoughts on “Fun and Frolics By The Seaside.”

  1. Yes, I’d be very interested to hear the pro-community board point of view! Don’t be scared. We promise to listen, even if we don’t agree.

  2. Very entertaining yet again, Alan….I’d also be interested to hear why anyone thinks Faye et al have done a good job. What comment I have heard from the current board support seems to be limited to statements without much rationale…along the lines of “Faye works really hard for Waiheke and you should all be grateful rather than the whiny naysayers you obviously are” A bit of proof of the ‘for Waiheke’ bit as opposed to ‘in the interests of maintaining her grip on power’ would be nice…..

  3. Darn it. I go away for one week and this is what happens.
    Apparently fayjo is seen as being competent. If smoothing the path for developers is the criteria then apparently this is a reasonable view.

  4. I wonder why the protest seems to be pointed at the landowner who you describe as a developer!!. He purchased his land. He applied for RC. He gained RC. He is building his holiday home. He is a very nice man as is his family. I feel ashamed and disgusted at the treatment that so called friendly Waihekians have leveled at him.

    1. OK, first, if you’d READ IT, you’d see at once that my main target is the council planners and the local board. The owner IS a developer. It’s his JOB. He applied for ‘RC” yes, but in doing so managed to wriggle round obstacles that most people wouldn’t have. He’s seriously pissed off his new neighbours by avoiding the notification stuff.
      The thing is, I agree with the idea of property owners being able to do what the hell they like on their own property. No arguments whatsoever from me on that one.
      BUT…Their activities may NOT, under any circumstances inconvenience their neighbours. Anyone who tries to behave otherwise will always find their appearance unwelcome.

      1. BUT…Their activities may NOT, under any circumstances inconvenience their neighbors. Anyone who tries to behave otherwise will always find their appearance unwelcome.

        So who has been inconvenienced If I start from the SW
        1) A man who also had his house bought in in parts. By truck i think. Don’t care looked bad at the start but looks great now. Recently met the man and happy he’s here Great man
        2) Window cleaner. About a kilometer away. Shouldn’t effect him or her or granny much about .5 out of 10 for effect. Still good mate though
        3) The tenant of the land. Cant even see it. Only noticed the noise of the digger. Been down in the redoubt during all the protests. Told me at the pub that he would probably be sharing a red wine with Mr Holyoke on his deck within a year?
        4)Above the batch in question: converted dodgy shed into living house. No RC. Complained when council challenged him. No surprises here
        5) Great mate of mine. Took me to look at development. Admitted that he would have liked to do the same himself. Enough said.
        6 Last owner: very disappointed he was told he couldn’t build in the same spot. Would have though if he had been told different.
        7) Great lawyer activist mate from thurs pub Said of the activists: . You all failed you didn’t get arrested. He is a great mate dosnt seem to support left or right. Has a great perception on things. His only real complaint is that the H28 yachts may be offended if they try and have a function on this beach in the future. I don’t think so.

        So who are really offended and for what

        1. I can’t even decipher what you are trying to say here. Do any of your mates at the pub know joined up writing? Maybe they could help you state your argument a bit more legibly.

          1. In the spirit of helping things along Alan, I think Ned’s arguments runs something like this: “My neighbours who don’t object to this development are all jolly nice people and mates of mine. Anyone who does object are either (a) neighbours I don’t like and therefore their objections are invalid; or (b) neighbours who I have unilaterally determined are not affected by the development because I, of course know best as I have lawyer mates.” Not a particularly compelling or even very novel argument to be sure but I’m not certain we should expect too much from someone who categorises people by reference to their career choices and whether he considers them mates or not.

  5. Ned…are you by any chance a friend or perhaps a neighbour of ‘nice’ Mr Holyoake? There is that neighbour who sold him a strip of land….hmmmmm…is that also the same neighbour who seemed to think that another strip of public land could be appropriated for personal use? This is interesting…
    Can anyone tell me if there is a connection here?

    1. Speculation. Only way you would know is if the administrator leaks private info like ACC. Imm I wonder. Take note comrades. Anyway lets play the speculation game. Sounds fun. So who’s Tuffgirlie? I no one who is always outraged in the red press about just about everything the happens on Waiheke. Could be, she lives quite close to bay in question. Next one around actually. But no this girlie has the ball to print her name. Havnt heard her very vocal on this one though perhaps she hiding behind Tuffgirlie on this one. Maybe because its that she also landed a house by barge on Okoka Bay. Without consent. She then bulldozed a track to the nearest public road over private property and through the middle of Maori midden. Left the house in two parts standing up on drums in the middle of Margaret Reeve Lane completely blocking it. The house stayed there for 3 weeks while she applied for resource consent (I said this Lady has balls) Thankfully she gained RC and finally landed the house on her land. Was there a public outrage? No. Did the Maoris complain someone had squashed their pipi shells? Not a whimper. Did people throw themselves under the barge? No one there. Warm day also. Was I inconvenienced. Not much. Had to engage 4 wheel drive to get past sometime. Thought it was a bloody good idea actually. (still consistent after 11 years). Why no fuss then in this case. Could it be that the local rent a crowd is only outraged at rich barstards. I could publish the link on this article but as Im only speculating I want be so low ball

  6. Bless,
    sweltering in Honiara where god or his local branch has declared sunday papers verbotten, your brewing skills are also needed here Alan
    John Stansfield

  7. Actually Ned….your guesses are way off base, I live in Surfdale….sounds like I inadvertantly hit the nail on the head with you, though. Thanks for joining the dots for me. I’m not sure why that one posted with Tuffgirlie on it and my first one didn’t, but I’m glad it did as it prompted a very entertaining and revealing kneejerk response from you. You might find a dictionary useful in assisting you when composing your next response, though. Also, some kind of grammar guide, perhaps.

    1. I don’t think that “inadvertantly” is anywhere near the mark. See posts below. It looks like you only aided the breach of privacy. For the record I didn’t really think you were the person I referred to but it was a good chance to point out the hypocrisies going on here. And yes I cant spell or do grammar cant see that well, and have big fingers, but Iv got over it. So while were on that its spelt “inadvertently”

      1. Or “So while we’re on that, it’s spelt “inadvertently”. Apostrophes and commas matter!

  8. if it says below that emails addresses are never shared and you imply that you want others to join in (which would be more of an honest battle for some people who have to protect themselves from being identified) then why did you take ‘talking horse ned’s’ name and expose him as Lance Peterson on the waiheke parliament page?
    I was going to join in here but you can’t be trusted with confidentiality so I’ll take one shot only at this.

    Kay Bason (I don’t know her) posted a couple of things recently on facebook 1- a photo with a wankers t-shirt on and 2 – a poster with a mantra something along the lines of ‘if it’s anger from someone, then its not your issue its’ theirs’. I think she also mentioned being enlightened a while ago. As someone who watches and reads (like many voters who choose not to get active) I honestly thought she was angry, really angry and a bit unstable. That was my perception from reading what was written and once I saw those things, I have formed an opinion that pretty much knocks out any of her ideas present and future as, dodgy.

    And, I also have wondered “why was the aging woman (with health issues) on the front the protest lines but not Kay or Janet ?

    I don’t think you guys are wrong or exactly right either. But I do think you don’t really want to take the time to read and read and learn how to get change. I came to that conclusion when reading one of your supporters comments which was something along the lines of ‘I am not interested in learning about policy’ — so I would ask, if you are going to have a point of view, why not make it so solid and well researched and supported, that it can’t be shot down?

    At the moment, I think you are the vocal minority and that’s not enough to get more of your team elected next time around. For regular people, you look a bit unstable, fanatical and that just isn’t who the majority vote for. Take a look at Nobilangelo’s political picture, the one he ran with an won a few years back – he looked like a professor! I voted for him! What??? I know! That’s what I’m saying, perception – it’s important – yours isn’t good. cheers.

    1. Luke – if I may call you that, This is Andrew Watkins.
      As the host and admin of OneWaiheke I have not and would not make public the email addresses and potentially the identities of people who choose to comment here (unless they broke the law of course).

      I take this quite seriously and will have words with the offender about protocol here.

      As you may have noticed the process for comments here is that you have to register with an email address, This is necessary to filter out the humans from the spam bots. We also don’t automatically publish comments from new posters until they have been vetted by an admin again to keep out the spam. After that all your later comments are posted immediately and automatically.

      My policy here is that authors get privileges that allow them to approve comments – and thereby see the email addresses.

      As far as I know we have never deleted or refused a valid comment from an islander. And only once blocked a comment for moderation that potentially crossed the ‘legal’ line.

      The goal is to make OneWaiheke an interesting place to visit, a good read and a good place to make comments. Being on the public Internet rather than Facebook it is a little more open and accessible.

      Any Waiheke Islander who wants to have a go at writing an opinion piece about current local issues is welcome to request access as an author, or can send me articles to publish, insight and good humour are also welcome. The website as a whole is not party political – although individual writers and commenters will of course express their own opinions – thats the point really.

      Regards Andrew (Admin)

      1. Ok Andrew answer this. On Oct 13th at 7.11pm I posted a post asking protesters to not play the man. The post gave no hint as to who I was. Read it above. So how come at 8.27pm same night Oct 13th Alan Bright poisted this.

        A brace of bracing replies to a couple of my recent One Waiheke posts from a ‘Lance Peterson’.
        Check in, give the lad a run for his money.
        I got the ball rolling.

        If it didnt come from the Admin then your site is corrupted

        1. And also Andrew I note from your site that you are an expert in computors so I don’t think your site would be corrupted. I also note that one of your interests is fermentation. I also notice that Alan is a brewer. So what time was it exactly that he rang you on 13th evening

          1. It doesn’t look as if i’m getting a reply to this question. I read in your reply to Luke that you give authors ‘privileges’ that identify those who reply to their post. I have tried to find any reference to this or any other privacy policy on your site. The only reference I can find is that when subscribing you say that email addresses are ‘required but never shared’. I think it is highly damaging to the integrity of your site that you have released my e-mail address.. Before making this complaint to you I thought I would check it out with another experienced blogger. His reply – “It isn’t wrong, but it is poor form. Generally authors though can see ip addresses and emails. I know most all of my commenters, and even the most offensive i don’t do that, so obviously they are very thin skinned…probably lefties.They love victimising people. I suggest that you setup an anonymous email for use in commenting that doesn’t identify yourself. ”

            This should be a warning to anyone who might want to contribute to the One Waiheke site. Don’t, if you expect privacy.

        2. Hi Ned, As I made clear in my posting, authors – and Alan is an author on this site as you know, get to vet comments from people who have not posted before. This process is absolutely standard procedure on WordPress websites. So no corruption or hacking involved, or collusion either.
          Obviously I know Alan, as I also know a fair number of posters on the the site. I’d be happy to get to know you too.

          In actual fact I’ve been on holiday for the last two weeks, and in Korea for the last week. I missed the protest and have only been able to follow the comments here intermittently.

          I’m not obliged to post a privacy policy for the site, but as I said I do run one and it was broken by Alan – and I did take that seriously, – I see that he has posted a response and explanation below.

          People are welcome to post here under an anonymous email address – if they do so their comments will be approved so long as they are relevant to the subject matter and not trying to sell viagra etc.

          Finally anyone who has met and spoken to Alan would be much amused to hear him described as a ‘Leftie’ .


  9. Luke…If I was going to base my judgement of all your ideas or thoughts on a couple of things you have said, then the fact that you voted for Nobilangelo based on a photo would immediately characterise the rest of your thoughts as ‘dodgy’ or at least extremely shallow. I don’t think that way, and believe that most people hold a combination of well thought out and ill-informed views as they are human beings, not research bots with no emotions. Also, nasty comments about Kay, who isn’t involved in this thread, just make you seem petty. Now there’s a perception. You could have made your point without mentioning her by name. Also, to characterise a whole group – although I’m not quite sure who you mean when you say ‘you guys’ – by the comments from a couple of people is pretty lazy thinking, exactly what you are accusing other people of….there is no ‘group’ in the way your comment implies. You also imply that ‘our’ ideas can be shot down easily. Well, if that was the case I would have altered my opinion about the Wharetana Bay development, and I have not. Exactly how has the opposition to this development been shot down? And could you expand on the phrase ‘regular people’? I’m unsure what that means. Is it a reference to size? Or colour? Gender, perhaps? Or do you just mean people who think like you? I guess I won’t get a response to this as Luke just wants to have his say and bugger off…a bit like throwing eggs at a building and running away….

  10. Hi Cranky Franky – I read what you wrote. I guess I just think that most voters are shallow. Most people don’t look deeply into the views of candidates before voting. There are small paragraphs you can read on the voting papers and that’s it unless you do your own research or actively follow politics. Alot of voting does come down to the photo. I think it’s true what was said about Franklin Roosevelt – if there had been TV, America wouldn’t have voted him in, with a wheelchair. Has nothing to do with his brains or anything else, judgements are a big factor. I am not saying that you or anyone else protesting wharetana are bad or really dodgy. What I am saying is that I found this blog by reading the facebook comments, which I have done for a while now. Of the people who commented on facebook alot during that time, some of them wrote some pretty dodgy stuff, inflammatory, unfounded and a bit odd. And, even if you don’t see it as an ‘us’ and ‘them’ or group situation, you are by virtue of your written participation, part of the group of people not wanting wharetana to have a house on it at the beach. So in a way, you are part of the group of Kay and Janet and others who were there and also online discussing the issue. Some of the things that have been written are actually not true and the laziness is yours in part and not mine. Its yours for not taking the time to find out the facts about the development. I don’t particularly like it myself. However, I know what I would have to do to stop similar developments in the future. I am not prepared to do that. It’s just not something I want to do or am interested in doing. For your group, I would have thought it IS something you want do know about and learn about and figure out how to change it. Instead, the laziness of writing comments implying payoffs and incompetence replaced the truth that could have been very valuable, strongly written and cleverly presented in a well timed way. As for ‘regular people’ – a majority of waihekeans don’t even read the facebook groups or join in. There are what, 250 members or so? But a majority of waihekeans do look at voting billboards and are likely to buy a gulf news although that doesn’t mean they will actually vote. Assuming some will, then we, the regular people, are the one’s that your group needs to appeal to if you want to get voted in. For years I wouldn’t vote green because Jeanette and her followers were often photographed wearing woolly jumpers. Now, they wear suits and look how their party vote is growing. Throughout history politics has been dominated by smarmy, yucky, lying, money grubbers and that’s because they understand that perception is 99% of getting a majority election. For whatever reason, Faye and Jo happen to look pretty bloody acceptable (I am not saying they are yucky etc. I’m just saying it;s about perception). Some of the wharetana folks on the board would probably be great but they have to get there first and that’s not going to happen while they are wearing wankers t-shirts and refusing to learn about policy.

  11. I wanted to have a go with the below phrase so here goes.

    “Otherwise we will never understand you. “Hedgehogs,” we’ll keep thinking, “They can hide, but they can’t run!”

    It’s a funny thing if you ever watch TV shows like American Idol, especially. Ever notice how upset some people get when they are told they can’t sing? You can really see it their faces sometimes. Its as if they have been told day after day after day that they are a great singer. When they step onto that stage, they are absolutely certain that they will be applauded and revered and moved on to the next stages of the competition. Some of them, when they are told that they can’t sing, go nuts and at this point, they turn on the judges and start crying, yelling, pleading and eventually they storm off. They go back to the people behind the scenes, their families normally, where a lovely looking mother or partner hugs then and says, ‘you can sing. you’re wonderful. try again next year.’ We all know they can’t sing. But they can’t accept that as a possibilty at all. Their identity is a ‘singer’ even if they’ve never earned a dollar from it.

    So my thinking on your request to learn more about how we ‘hedgehogs’ function is quite simple — You are so sure about your point of view and are so egged on by each other, that you can’t see that the ‘hedgehogs’ aren’t hiding at all. They don’t even see you so how could they hide from you? Just as blind as you are. Singers of a different type, on a different stage.

  12. Gosh Luke, for someone who was only going to have one go at this you’ve really outdone yourself….I am absolutely part of the group opposed to what was done at Wharetana Bay. That does not mean that we all think alike about everything, as you seem to think….one thing I don’t hold with is making nasty personal comments about individuals, but if other people want to do that they are entitled to, if that is what blows your skirt up, then fire away. You don’t know what I know or what steps I might be taking re this development or any other. You seem to be pretty big on assumption and pretty small on facts. And that is lazy, whether you want to admit it or not. If you are not interested, as you say, then why are you even bothering to comment on this? Oh, and I think you misunderstood the hedgehog reference – which was made by Alan, not me. Bit of an in joke. And you haven’t answered my question about how the opposition to this development has been shot down, just provided a few very strange analogies that don’t explain what you are on about at all.

  13. Ned…fair enough….I didn’t think it was such a big deal, but it obviously is to you, so my apologies……

  14. Cranky Frankie, I decided to have another go because I believed what what Andew wrote. I don’t know what you know but I know you spend alot of time online talking crap when you could be learning. And I know that over the past several years there have been lots of local ads run in the papers telling people that changes were being proposed to plans and THAT was the time to get together and do something big to change things. That time has passed which makes things much much harder, if not impossible, to get turned around. And I suppose I haven’t stated how I believe your agrument has been shot down accept to say that you are about 3 years or so too late to make changes. It’s also pointless discussing effects. Planners are trained to have opinions that are in line with the current planning institute standard for decision making. It doesn’t matter if Jo public thinks a decision is bad, planners are given the authority to decide based on their training. So in a way, you have no argument and the changes you may want, are unachievable and late. And, I think it’s totally reasonable to assume that people who are part of a group, are similar. If you want to be an individual within a group then either stop being in the group or say something different, do something different or be different. I implied in the beginning that my view is probably in line with how most voters see you and your ‘group’ – I stand by the belief that you aren’t in a position to be elected in a majority to the next board. The group looks not ok.

    And in all honesty, you are so perplexed by what I wrote, that you can only point, stare and pick but you can’t really participate in a discussion yet. It’s an unfair discussion anyway because I know more. Talk about saving whales or peak oil and I would be in the same position, short on knowledge.

    1. Nice one Luke. Is there any way you can get that purple monster that accompanies your comments changed to something more suitable. Maybe we could swap.

  15. Luke….as you haven’t demonstrated the encyclopaedic knowledge you claim to have, I guess I’ll just have to take you at your word. But I’ve come to understand over my time on this planet that personal insults usually demonstrate a weakness of both mind and argument. Simply stating what you think is not the same as proving it or demonstrating it….and if you paid attention to the objections to the development in question, they are mostly regarding how this particular development did not adhere to the laws already in place. The process used to exercise the law is flawed and as a result, a development that should have been publicly notified, was not, thereby denying valid stakeholders the right to influence the outcome of the decisions made. It is in everyone’s interest to challenge bad decisions. If everyone thought like you i.e. there’s nothing we can do let’s just bend over; no social or political or legal change would ever occur.
    I’m not sure why you think I want to be elected to something, but I can assure you I don’t. Also, I am not perplexed by what you wrote, I’m perplexed by your apparent belief that you are presenting a cogent argument when all you are doing is repeating yourself; albeit with a bit of paraphrasing sprinkled with weird analogies. Having said that, I am perplexed by your reference to saving whales and peak oil…..

  16. “If everyone thought like you i.e. there’s nothing we can do let’s just bend over; no social or political or legal change would ever occur.” — Franky – you are sooo American in your thinking! Things only matter when you can see them right in front of you. So much happens that you don’t see and therefore don’t make an issue of. And, the American mantras of, “WE can change the world.” “We can do it if we try!” are too late now. If you don’t believe me, which it’s apparent you do not, push for a judicial review of that consent. It will make it in and out in tact and appear as it is on site at the moment. Why do you think I am so annoyed with all the repetitve group posts alleging dodgy dealings to get that consent passed? It wasn’t dodgy! The same decision would be made today regarding that site. (perhaps the cababa would be smaller) Again, if you would LEARN something, you would realize that notification is exactly what COULD have been altered IF you’d read the newspaper public notifices (requesting input) for the past 3 years instead of being here now saying that you can change things when it is completely obvious to anyone in the field, that you cannot! 3 years ago was the time to be American in your thinking, not now. All you can do now is talk and talk and talk and talk but not change it – not this way anyway. You have to learn more. What’s so wrong about admitting that you don;t know enough and need to know more?

  17. Like I said….personal insults usually demonstrate a weakness of both mind and argument. And pitifully weak personal insults strengthen that impression…really? American in my thinking? That was the best you could come up with? Sad…..

  18. Are you a planner Luke? You seem to have all the insider knowledge (eg., you apparently know for a fact there were no dodgy dealings, judicial review would not succeed) etc etc. Apart from being a disinterested person who is apathetic about the development at Wharetana Bay (by your own admission), I’d be interested in hearing your qualifications for drawing such strident and definitive conclusions about something you care little about. In particular, I’m interested in your view of how it is that “planners are trained to have opinions that are in line with the current planning institute standard for decision making”. Are you talking about the NZPI and how exactly does that voluntary membership body representing some planners dictate the considerations to be applied pursuant to legislation? I’ve searched far and wide through the relevant planning legislation and can find nowhere where it says that planners must hold opinions that are in line with something called the “planning institute standard for decision making”. Please enlighten me.

  19. Luke….I’m beginning to think you must be quite young, the zealous tone, the capitalisation, the insistence that you are all-knowing (I used to think that when I was a teenager, too)….so maybe I am expecting a bit much of you…..

  20. Ned….why would I want to ruin the fun I’m having guessing?

  21. Ned..I’ve been meaning to ask “6 Last owner: very disappointed he was told he couldn’t build in the same spot. Would have though if he had been told different.”
    Why do you think the last owner was told no but Mr. Holyoake was given approval?

    1. I think that Scott Holyoak was the only one of the two who actually put in for consent. The application had to be worked through and was actually passed. The previous person was advised differently but never actually tested it. I was talking to a planner I know in the private sector recently and I asked there opinion on the decision. He had looked into it and agrees the council planner made the right decision. Personally I didn’t think the development had much effect on others and the council seem to think the same.

    2. Good point Frankie and it begs the question why “last owner” allowed the property to be advertised as

      “What every Kiwi wants!
      Direct flat access to the beach at the bottom of your land to enjoy with family and friends.
      Level house site with fabulous views to build your dream or holiday home.
      Power and water on site
      Your own sheltered boat mooring.
      Privacy!! One hectare (2.25 acres)”

  22. really Ned that is uncalled for Alan hardly ever cremates his readers these days

  23. Oh for goodness sake……..

    I return to this after a week of being too busy to check in and find a huge ‘Kerfuffle’ has erupted.

    I apologise UNRESERVEDLY to the chap whose name I inadvertently blurted. The trouble is, when someone takes the time to reply to a post on here I get a complicated looking email telling me I have to approve it. When that particular reply came in, I glanced at the content, saw it was supportive of the Wharetana development and hit ‘approve’ immediately. The email address of the sender was the only bit I saw and, since it gave the actual name of the respondent, I thought he’d written under his own name.

    Thrilled that we’d finally got a reasoned reply from a pro development person, (Which, let’s face it, I was asking to get in the article) I went on Facebook to let everyone know that the debate finally had another side.

    It was only when I looked at the actual page that I realised that the response was written under a pseudonym.

    Mea Culpa. Mea MAXIMA Culpa. This was entirely my fault and I am abjectly sorry for it. There was no problem with the system, simply a foolish chap in a hurry who didn’t check his stuff before hitting the post button.

    In future, I shall only approve those posts that are signed by an actual name. Just like the newspapers do. This anonymous stuff is just too complicated.

  24. I think that’s fine Alan – like you said, you did invite people here to talk. I feel fine about it now, the confidentiality. I am tired of picking on Frankie and that’s not really the point of discussions anyway. Also, my writing wreaks of arrogance and I am aware of that and have done it on purpose- but you know what, try not having your current point of view and then read through the comments of your peers on the facebook parliament page and get a feel for how angry you might be to read some of that crud, it’s pretty inflammatory and also, unproven. I don’t want to apologize for commenting about Kay (which appears to have concerned Frankie the most). My reason is that I really do think that one person, with a wankers T-shirt and few odd comments can actually come to represent the rest of the group. And, ‘incompetent planners’ have actually become a bit of group in the eyes of some of your facebook discussions so it goes both ways.

    As for planners, I am not one by the way, I think that the role of the planning institute shouldn’t be underestimated when you consider that they are active in university environments, there’s a young planners group at nzpi and then there are, of course, full members and experienced planners. They produce a quarterly mag I think and that really does set the stage for decisions. And they have regular conferences. That’s why, in my opinion, 50 people/ratepaters/anyone can submit on an aspect of a plan (when its the time to do so) and it doens’t matter that 50 people said the same thing – that doesn’t make it ‘good planning’. So, one policy writing can see it differently and voila! your views have not been accepted for the new district plan. I read an abstract for an article online that was called, ‘stmbolic violence and victimization in planning processes: a reconnoitre of of the NZ RMA’ – so I am pretty sure that the sorts of issues that are brought up by the Wharetana development can be linked to a much larger set of problems in planning. I think that it is true that planners are both taught and encouranged to make decisions in line with the NZPI and I also think that it really limits them in their roles. I wouldn’t say that students chose to go into planning because they want to be constrained by rules. Rather, I think they get in there and realize that there are rules to answer everything. I keep going on about learning, learning, learning because I know that the only way to get what you want (whatevet that is in terms of environmental choice/change in planning) you will only get it if you learn what planners know and how they make decisions. THEN, you will be armed with the right ideas and vocabulary and understanding that can really make some good changes in the future. You need a longterm plan to get your views taken up and considered. It’s not enough to just want to protect the pretty places on waiheke.

  25. Umm, thanks (I think) Luke. Have no idea what you are trying to say but that might be because your writing is full of assumptions and contradictions (like castigating Frankie for not having responded to “public notices” to voice concerns and then saying 50 people voicing concerns means nothing when it all comes down to one policy writing(?) (writer, maybe). Anyhow, will leave you to your fantasies about “young planners” and their conferences while I continue to focus on how actual planning decisions are constrained by legislation and how planners can be held accountable for their failure to to properly apply legal provisions (which might have something to do with your insight that they apparently get their planning guidance and wisdom from a quarterly magazine).

  26. Luke…gosh thanks…I’ll pass that incredibly novel way of looking at things on to WICPG…I’m sure they’ll really appreciate your wisdom. I’ll just check that I’ve got it right…I’m a bit slow and ignorant so forgive me if I misunderstand, I’m sure you’ll be able to point out where I have failed to understand. Here goes:
    Understand the legislation. Understand how planners might apply the legislation. Understand the vocabulary used to describe and enact decisions made by planners.
    Start working towards changes in legislation and planning practice armed with this knowledge and vocabulary. (These next ones are the really revolutionary ones) Do your best to appear arrogant and childish as it gives one a special yet indefinable tactical advantage in any discussion.And whatever you do, do not engage in robust yet respectful discussions with members of the community on facebook if they don’t express themselves in the approved way. Otherwise, right thinking, ‘regular’ people might think you’re a nutcase. Groundbreaking stuff.

  27. Yes Frankie – you’re onto it now except you forgot the part about calling in your girlfriend to save you when you get really pinned in a corner 🙂 And Merran — If you really think that you can find a way to pin point some sort of innaccountability of planners then you really will not achieve a thing. It’s actually one of the most immature tactical suggestions I’ve heard. Pointless actually. This conversation is going nowhere and Frankie I am still completely convinced that you’re a Yank!

  28. Gee “Luke”, more words of wisdom – I’ll pass on to the legal fraternity your perspective that seeking to hold decision makers to account is an “immature” and “pointless tactic”. Maybe you could speak at the next young lawyers conference and tell them all how bloody silly they are being and how they could achieve so much more by adopting “tactical” arrogance and using ad hominems in place of reasoned and considered responses. Or perhaps “Luke” you could take your own advice by “admitting that you don;t know enough and need to know more”. When you’ve got something worth responding to that goes beyond base assumptions and chest-beating about how you are one of the “regular” people (who, by your own admission, are those whose vote is determined by reference to appearance over substance), let me know and maybe I’ll engage some more. In the meantime “Luke” you might want to check your white middle-class heteronormative privilege, evident in the statement about calling in one’s girlfriend. A good starting place would be taking your “cool hand” off the body part you’ve obviously be hanging onto while writing your posts on this topic.

  29. Oh yeah – definitely the lawyer girlfriend to the rescue. Too funny. 🙂

  30. Well, Luke, I have had a lot of fun yanking your chain, so in a way you’re correct. I have to admit it’s getting a little bit samey now though, so Auf Weidersehen, Pet…

  31. I might join in again sometime but will have a good think about my points of view first. It would be better to stick to ideas rather than the personal and I can see that now. But for someone who hasn’t blogged before, I think I did ok. For the record, I don’t like what has happened at Wharetana either but I am concerned that furture decisions of that sort will be the norm. I am glad I’m not a planner, glad I got a run for my money here and glad I’m not a bloke because I think some do put their hands in weird places while blogging perhaps – I have no proff of that though! yuck 🙂 Cheerio! (I should have gone with user name Hot Lips Hoolahan – would have been better I think)

  32. Ummm..Luke…Biology and Human Behaviour 101….girls wank, too! Couldn’t resist, but it really is Sayonara this time.

  33. I agree with you on this one Luke.. the typical comments on WIPP regarding anything that doesn’t follow the Red/Green/Rainbow/Whanau.. blah blah mindset is always described as corruption or worse, when it is patently obviously envy and ignorance. I have had a good look at the development from a few different locations recently, and see an attractive dwelling that fits into the landscape as much as it needs to. Hilarious to see the “sistas” complaining about a couple of perceived insults on here, as they are very happy to throw them around on WIPP, and then start blocking people in a cowardly manner.. maybe it’s only the ones that don’t buy into the PC straight white man hating mantra, and aren’t awed or cowed by their self perceived intellectual superiority.

    1. At Last. Thanks for some honesty. This is my point exactly.

  34. Uroskin…I did wonder…the ‘debating’ style is very similar…..but it also appears that the last comment from ‘Luke’ was someone else again….

  35. The part that got me in the end, in terms of this discussion, is that these people with particular views needed to resort to sexual expressions when they couldn’t handle arguing anymore. It’s just pathetic. I didn’t think that smart people needed to do that.

  36. And I never joined WIPP because it’s just a bunch of moaners for the most part. A couple hundred members and about only about 15 or so who contribute regularly. I just read through it for a laugh. They think they are the core of the island’s opinion – that’s the funniest part!

Comments are closed.