John MacDonald was joined in studio by Christchurch Mayor Phil Mauger for their regular catch up.

What did he make of the Prime Minister’s comments on council spending? The work on the Christ Church Cathedral has been indefinitely paused, will it receive any more ratepayer money? And, does he support the idea of LIV Golf making its way to Christchurch? 

LISTEN ABOVE

John MacDonald was joined in studio by Christchurch Mayor Phil Mauger for their regular catch up. 
What did he make of the Prime Minister’s comments on council spending? The work on the Christ Church Cathedral has been indefinitely paused, will it receive any more ratepayer money? And, does he support the idea of LIV Golf making its way to Christchurch?  
LISTEN ABOVE

Every weekday join the new voice of local issues on Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald, 9am-12pm weekdays.

It’s all about the conversation with John, as he gets right into the things that get our community talking.

If it’s news you’re after, backing John is the combined power of the Newstalk ZB and New Zealand Herald news teams. Meaning when it comes to covering breaking news – you will not beat local radio.

With two decades experience in communications based in Christchurch, John also has a deep understanding of and connections to the Christchurch and Canterbury commercial sector.

Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings 9am-12pm with John MacDonald on 100.1FM and iHeartRadio.

Every weekday join the new voice of local issues on Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald, 9am-12pm weekdays. It’s all about the conversation with John, as he gets right into the things that get our community talking. If it’s news you’re after, backing John is the combined power of the Newstalk ZB and New Zealand Herald news teams. Meaning when it comes to covering breaking news – you will not beat local radio. With two decades experience in communications based in Christchurch, John also has a deep understanding of and connections to the Christchurch and Canterbury commercial sector. Newstalk ZB Canterbury Mornings 9am-12pm with John MacDonald on 100.1FM and iHeartRadio.

Every weekday join the new voice of local issues on Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald, 9am-12pm weekdays.

It’s all about the conversation with John, as he gets right into the things that get our community talking.

Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald

Phil Mauger: Christchurch Mayor on the Cathedral rebuild, the Prime Minister's comments on council spending, LIV Golf

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/5526ea08-5c79-416c-b021-b1d4000ed510/transcript

It’s Gumboot Friday tomorrow and the guy behind it, Mike King, seems to have put his foot in it. Although, I’m a little bit torn on this one.   

So what’s happened is we’ve got this charity fashion show being held in Dunedin to raise money for suicide prevention and mental health awareness. And, like most events, the organisers wanted to serve alcohol as part of the hospitality offering for guests.  

The police, though, weren’t too fussed about that and they opposed the application for a special alcohol licence. They did that because they don’t think it’s appropriate to serve grog at an event that is all about trying to raise awareness and reduce suicide rates, and the reason behind that is the growing evidence linking people drinking and taking their lives.  

So yesterday, Mike King tells Newstalk ZB that alcohol isn't a problem for people with mental illness. It is a lifejacket.  

Now here's where I'm torn.  

Mike King is a guy who not only works tirelessly to raise awareness of mental health issues and raise money —with things like Gumboot Friday— but he’s also someone who has been there and done that.   

Unlike some of the experts, he’s been there himself. And I know he’s right when he says that people turn to alcohol when they’re in mental distress, in fact, even people who you wouldn’t consider to be on the edge turn to alcohol.   

If you say you’ve had a bad day, people will invariably tell you to have a drink.  

So, of course, people turn to alcohol. But the scary bit is all this research coming through that shows how people can actually decide to take their own life – but only do it after they’ve been drinking.  

Whenever I read or hear about that it terrifies me, because we all know people can think they’re capable of all sorts of things once they’ve got a few drinks on board.  

So the link between alcohol and suicide makes perfect sense.  

Which is why we’ve got Otago University health professor Rose Crossin poo-pooing Mike King’s comments today. She says alcohol can give you temporary relief from your problems, but it can also be a depressant and it can make your problems seem worse. And I’m not going to argue with that, either.  

But I’m not going to crucify Mike King because I believe him when he says that alcohol is a lifejacket for people with mental illness. And if he thinks that alcohol does actually stop people taking their lives, then who am I to argue with him?  

But given he is the face of Gumboot Friday, a charity which, remember, received $24 million in government support this year. And given that a lot of people probably consider him to be the most credible mental health advocate in the country, should he have said what he said yesterday?  

My answer to that is “no”. He didn’t need to. We know he used alcohol and drugs to get him through. We know he knows what he’s on about.   

And even though I know full well that alcohol gets a lot of people through their personal nightmares - it didn’t need saying. So I think he was right and he was wrong.  

It’s Gumboot Friday tomorrow and the guy behind it, Mike King, seems to have put his foot in it. Although, I’m a little bit torn on this one. &nbsp;&nbsp;
So what’s happened is we’ve got this charity fashion show being held in Dunedin to raise money for suicide prevention and mental health awareness. And, like most events, the organisers wanted to serve alcohol as part of the hospitality offering for guests. &nbsp;
The police, though, weren’t too fussed about that and they opposed the application for a special alcohol licence. They did that because they don’t think it’s appropriate to serve grog at an event that is all about trying to raise awareness and reduce suicide rates, and the reason behind that is the growing evidence linking people drinking and taking their lives. &nbsp;
So yesterday, Mike King tells Newstalk ZB that alcohol isn't a problem for people with mental illness. It is a lifejacket. &nbsp;
Now here's where I'm torn. &nbsp;
Mike King is a guy who not only works tirelessly to raise awareness of mental health issues and raise money —with things like Gumboot Friday— but he’s also someone who has been there and done that. &nbsp;&nbsp;
Unlike some of the experts, he’s been there himself. And I know he’s right when he says that people turn to alcohol when they’re in mental distress, in fact, even people who you wouldn’t consider to be on the edge turn to alcohol. &nbsp;&nbsp;
If you say you’ve had a bad day, people will invariably tell you to have a drink. &nbsp;
So, of course, people turn to alcohol. But the scary bit is all this research coming through that shows how people can actually decide to take their own life – but only do it after they’ve been drinking. &nbsp;
Whenever I read or hear about that it terrifies me, because we all know people can think they’re capable of all sorts of things once they’ve got a few drinks on board. &nbsp;
So the link between alcohol and suicide makes perfect sense. &nbsp;
Which is why we’ve got Otago University health professor Rose Crossin poo-pooing Mike King’s comments today. She says alcohol can give you temporary relief from your problems, but it can also be a depressant and it can make your problems seem worse. And I’m not going to argue with that, either. &nbsp;
But I’m not going to crucify Mike King because I believe him when he says that alcohol is a lifejacket for people with mental illness. And if he thinks that alcohol does actually stop people taking their lives, then who am I to argue with him? &nbsp;
But given he is the face of Gumboot Friday, a charity which, remember, received $24 million in government support this year. And given that a lot of people probably consider him to be the most credible mental health advocate in the country, should he have said what he said yesterday? &nbsp;
My answer to that is “no”. He didn’t need to. We know he used alcohol and drugs to get him through. We know he knows what he’s on about. &nbsp;&nbsp;
And even though I know full well that alcohol gets a lot of people through their personal nightmares - it didn’t need saying. So I think he was right and he was wrong. &nbsp;

John MacDonald: Mike King was right. But he was wrong too

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/91a74f4e-b3d3-46a2-9276-b21a0012709a/transcript

If I say to you “30 kph speed limit area”, chances are you can think of one. I can think of one straight away - on the southern end of Colombo Street in Christchurch.

You’re cruising along at 50 kph and then —bang— it drops down to 30. No schools on that stretch of Colombo.

There’s a school on one of the side streets, but it goes down to 30 —and it’s permanent— and then it’s back up to 50 by the time you get up to Thorrington School. Where you would think there would be a 30 kph limit.

Someone was telling me this morning about another one like that on Gloucester Street between Linwood Ave and Woodham Road. Again – no schools, no kindys, but still 30 kph. All the time.

So there are two examples where I think the Government’s doing the right thing getting rid of these 24/7 30 kph zones. But I think it’s going too far, because I actually think there is a place for them.

And this is what’s covered in these guidelines for local councils, because it’s the local councils that are responsible for all the signage in their areas.

So the Government is going to ditch the permanent 30 kph zones but the speed limit around schools will be allowed to drop down to 30 kph, but only during morning drop-off and afternoon pick-up times, and I reckon that will be a complete waste of time and effort.

Not to mention money, either. Because if there isn’t already one of those flashing signs outside a school which can show different speed limits at different times, then one of those is going to have to be installed, as well.

But I don’t give two hoots about the money side of it.

What bothers me is the fact that if we have different speed limits outside schools at different times of the day, you know what’s going to happen, don’t you?

Drivers are just going to go 50 kph all the time. And why’s that? They’ll go 50 all the time because they are creatures of habit. We’re all creatures of habit.

And, if we’re told that we can drive 50 kph past a school pretty much 23-hours-a-day - then that’s what we’ll do during the 60 minutes when these 30 kph limits will supposedly be in place.

Now, you might be thinking to yourself, that doesn’t stack up because most of the time when kids are arriving at school and leaving for the day, traffic is close to a standstill because of all the parents who insist they have to drive right up to the gate to pick up their kids.

And you might be right in some cases, but from what I see, that is for a very short window of time.

If it wasn’t, we wouldn’t need the kids out there in the mornings and the afternoons doing the lollipop patrols, would we?

But we do have them, because most drivers are bozos. I’m a bozo. You’re a bozo. I’ll put my hand up right now and admit that I’ve driven past school crossings sometimes in ways that, afterwards, I’ve felt terrible about.

And generally, it’s all about speed.

I was reading some comments by the head of the Board of Trustees at Linwood Ave School. She was saying that returning speed limits back to 50 kph is going to be a backwards step, and I agree with her.

I gather the speed limit outside Linwood Ave School went down to 30 kph earlier this year. She was saying it hasn’t necessarily slowed-down traffic, but she sees it as a start.

And that’s a key thing here too. It can take as long as seven years to change behaviours, which says to me that we need to give these permanent 30 kph speed limits outside schools more time to bed in.

Just because the traffic isn’t any slower today outside Linwood Ave School, for example, than it was before the permanent speed limit went down - that doesn’t mean it’s failed. That doesn’t mean it should be done away with. It just means we need to give it more time.

Because I bet you that if the Government stuck with it, we would see people driving slower around schools - eventually. And what would be wrong with that?

There'd be nothing wrong with that.

If I say to you “30 kph speed limit area”, chances are you can think of one. I can think of one straight away - on the southern end of Colombo Street in Christchurch.
You’re cruising along at 50 kph and then —bang— it drops down to 30. No schools on that stretch of Colombo.
There’s a school on one of the side streets, but it goes down to 30 —and it’s permanent— and then it’s back up to 50 by the time you get up to Thorrington School. Where you would think there would be a 30 kph limit.
Someone was telling me this morning about another one like that on Gloucester Street between Linwood Ave and Woodham Road. Again – no schools, no kindys, but still 30 kph. All the time.
So there are two examples where I think the Government’s doing the right thing getting rid of these 24/7 30 kph zones. But I think it’s going too far, because I actually think there is a place for them.
And this is what’s covered in these guidelines for local councils, because it’s the local councils that are responsible for all the signage in their areas.
So the Government is going to ditch the permanent 30 kph zones but the speed limit around schools will be allowed to drop down to 30 kph, but only during morning drop-off and afternoon pick-up times, and I reckon that will be a complete waste of time and effort.
Not to mention money, either. Because if there isn’t already one of those flashing signs outside a school which can show different speed limits at different times, then one of those is going to have to be installed, as well.
But I don’t give two hoots about the money side of it.
What bothers me is the fact that if we have different speed limits outside schools at different times of the day, you know what’s going to happen, don’t you?
Drivers are just going to go 50 kph all the time. And why’s that? They’ll go 50 all the time because they are creatures of habit. We’re all creatures of habit.
And, if we’re told that we can drive 50 kph past a school pretty much 23-hours-a-day - then that’s what we’ll do during the 60 minutes when these 30 kph limits will supposedly be in place.
Now, you might be thinking to yourself, that doesn’t stack up because most of the time when kids are arriving at school and leaving for the day, traffic is close to a standstill because of all the parents who insist they have to drive right up to the gate to pick up their kids.
And you might be right in some cases, but from what I see, that is for a very short window of time.
If it wasn’t, we wouldn’t need the kids out there in the mornings and the afternoons doing the lollipop patrols, would we?
But we do have them, because most drivers are bozos. I’m a bozo. You’re a bozo. I’ll put my hand up right now and admit that I’ve driven past school crossings sometimes in ways that, afterwards, I’ve felt terrible about.
And generally, it’s all about speed.
I was reading some comments by the head of the Board of Trustees at Linwood Ave School. She was saying that returning speed limits back to 50 kph is going to be a backwards step, and I agree with her.
I gather the speed limit outside Linwood Ave School went down to 30 kph earlier this year. She was saying it hasn’t necessarily slowed-down traffic, but she sees it as a start.
And that’s a key thing here too. It can take as long as seven years to change behaviours, which says to me that we need to give these permanent 30 kph speed limits outside schools more time to bed in.
Just because the traffic isn’t any slower today outside Linwood Ave School, for example, than it was before the permanent speed limit went down - that doesn’t mean it’s failed. That doesn’t mean it should be done away with. It just means we need to give it more time.
Because I bet you that if the Government stuck with it, we would see people driving slower around schools - eventually. And what would be wrong with that?
There'd be nothing wrong with that.

John MacDonald: What's so wrong with slower traffic outside schools?

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/283d67a8-b1dc-4c2e-bfc5-b21900009343/transcript

When I heard that a campervan park is going to be up and running in central Christchurch, near Latimer Square —possibly in time for this summer— my first thought was that I’m glad I haven’t spent more than $500,000 buying an apartment around there.

Not even the developer’s reassurances that campervan people aren’t “yahoo types” made me feel any more excited about it.

In fact, I think it’s the last place we want to see something like this. And I’m pointing the finger squarely at the council for giving this development resource consent.

Because just after I saw at the weekend that the council has failed to achieve its target of having 20,000 people living in the central city by this year, it’s gone and given out consent for a campervan park.

It’s not as if people who have bought apartments in the city aren’t having enough trouble as it is, finding more and more of the apartments around them being hired out as Airbnb accommodation.

If someone’s moved into the centre of town on the sell-job that they’re going to be living in this community of people all wanting to embrace the downtown lifestyle - they’re going to be feeling somewhat short changed, aren't they?

Especially people living near Lattier Square who are finding out today that there’s going to be a campervan park next door or down the road.

So the gist is the Christchurch City Council has given consent for this park with space for up to 25 campervans on Gloucester Street – where the Stonehurst Hotel used to be. That came down after the earthquakes, there was also a hostel there and a small campground back in the day.

The thing is though, that was then, and this is now.

And since the earthquakes, there’s been this big effort to get more people living in the centre of town.

The council set itself the target of having 20,000 people living in the CBD by this year. We found out over the weekend that hasn’t happened, and it’s pushed out the deadline another four years to 2028.

In the meantime, it’s giving the green light for this thing - where people will be able to take their campervans and stay for up to four weeks.

My opposition to it is based on a couple of things.

The first one is gut instinct or gut reaction. I just don’t buy this idea that just because you drive a campervan, it doesn’t mean you’re not going to be a pain in the backside to someone at some point.

Just because you’re a member of the motorhome association, it’s not going to make you any less self-entitled when you cruise into town. And, despite what the developer behind this project is saying today, there is no guarantee that someone driving a campervan is going to give two hoots about the people living there.  

So that’s my gut instinct telling me it’s a bad idea.

The other reason I’m opposed to it is that it flies completely in the face of what the council’s supposed to be hellbent on achieving for Christchurch.

It wants people living in the centre of town. It wants people opening their eyes and realising that the quarter acre section isn’t the be-all and end-all, and that you can have a pretty decent life living in an apartment and making the most of what the central city has to offer.

And a campervan park is completely at odds with the vision it’s been trying to sell since the quakes.

Talk about left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.

When I heard that a campervan park is going to be up and running in central Christchurch, near Latimer Square —possibly in time for this summer— my first thought was that I’m glad I haven’t spent more than $500,000 buying an apartment around there.
Not even the developer’s reassurances that campervan people aren’t “yahoo types” made me feel any more excited about it.
In fact, I think it’s the last place we want to see something like this. And I’m pointing the finger squarely at the council for giving this development resource consent.
Because just after I saw at the weekend that the council has failed to achieve its target of having 20,000 people living in the central city by this year, it’s gone and given out consent for a campervan park.
It’s not as if people who have bought apartments in the city aren’t having enough trouble as it is, finding more and more of the apartments around them being hired out as Airbnb accommodation.
If someone’s moved into the centre of town on the sell-job that they’re going to be living in this community of people all wanting to embrace the downtown lifestyle - they’re going to be feeling somewhat short changed, aren't they?
Especially people living near Lattier Square who are finding out today that there’s going to be a campervan park next door or down the road.
So the gist is the Christchurch City Council has given consent for this park with space for up to 25 campervans on Gloucester Street – where the Stonehurst Hotel used to be. That came down after the earthquakes, there was also a hostel there and a small campground back in the day.
The thing is though, that was then, and this is now.
And since the earthquakes, there’s been this big effort to get more people living in the centre of town.
The council set itself the target of having 20,000 people living in the CBD by this year. We found out over the weekend that hasn’t happened, and it’s pushed out the deadline another four years to 2028.
In the meantime, it’s giving the green light for this thing - where people will be able to take their campervans and stay for up to four weeks.
My opposition to it is based on a couple of things.
The first one is gut instinct or gut reaction. I just don’t buy this idea that just because you drive a campervan, it doesn’t mean you’re not going to be a pain in the backside to someone at some point.
Just because you’re a member of the motorhome association, it’s not going to make you any less self-entitled when you cruise into town. And, despite what the developer behind this project is saying today, there is no guarantee that someone driving a campervan is going to give two hoots about the people living there. &nbsp;
So that’s my gut instinct telling me it’s a bad idea.
The other reason I’m opposed to it is that it flies completely in the face of what the council’s supposed to be hellbent on achieving for Christchurch.
It wants people living in the centre of town. It wants people opening their eyes and realising that the quarter acre section isn’t the be-all and end-all, and that you can have a pretty decent life living in an apartment and making the most of what the central city has to offer.
And a campervan park is completely at odds with the vision it’s been trying to sell since the quakes.
Talk about left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.

John MacDonald: Hi-de-hi campers! Christchurch's campervan clanger

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/2aaa615b-1835-43b6-8880-b21701888fc9/transcript

Phil Mauger: Christchurch Mayor on the Cathedral rebuild, the Prime Minister's comments on council spending, LIV Golf

In 1 playlist(s)

Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips