National's Matt Doocey and Labour's Dan Rosewarne joined John MacDonald for Politics Friday this week.

They covered some of the biggest issues of the week, from the Wolfbrook's Pegasus Golf Course development being denied fast track approval from the Government, what needs to be done about aged care in New Zealand, and what they reckon about The Green's wanting to increase the school lunch programme.

LISTEN ABOVE

National's Matt Doocey and Labour's Dan Rosewarne joined John MacDonald for Politics Friday this week.
They covered some of the biggest issues of the week, from the Wolfbrook's Pegasus Golf Course development being denied fast track approval from the Government, what needs to be done about aged care in New Zealand, and what they reckon about The Green's wanting to increase the school lunch programme.
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

Politics Friday with Matt Doocey and Dan Rosewarne on Pegasus Golf Course development denied fast track

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/6b23258f-37bd-4cf9-9d65-b4ac0187db92/transcript

Grass verges have had their day.

These are the areas of grass you see on streets, between the road and the footpath, where people sometimes park their cars.

I’ll tell you why I think they should go. But first, let me tell you about some residents in the Christchurch suburb of Somerfield who aren’t happy about the city council putting in a heap of red and white markers to stop people parking on the verge.

Rose Street is where 130 white and red markers, like the ones you see on state highways, have been put in. A move being described today as “ridiculous”, “hideous” and “stupid”.

Apparently, since the markers have gone in, some people are parking on the road, next to the markers, which is making the space for vehicles more narrow. Which is crazy, isn’t it?

I know Rose Street pretty well and it’s not off the beaten track. There’s a lot of traffic there at times because one of the entrances to Cashmere High School is on Rose Street. There’s a couple of rest homes. It’s a pretty busy street.

The council’s not having a bar of the complaints, though. The local councillor, Tim Scandrett, is saying that people parking on verges and damaging them has been a problem for about 40 years.

And so they have to try something to stamp it out.

Now I’ve had an issue with grass verges for quite a while. Ever since people started putting rocks on the verges outside their houses, because they were brassed-off with people using the verge as a parking area, and the grass getting damaged and all that.

I’ve had an issue with it because these busy bodies don’t own the verge, yet they carry-on as if they do.

Rose Street is one of the areas where people have put these blasted rocks. So the council’s intervened and installed all of these white and red markers.

The same council, might I point out, that has been perfectly happy to issue building consents left, right and centre for in-fill housing. Not just in Somerfield but across the whole city.

In-fill housing developments that, most of the time, don‘t have enough space for off-street parking. Which means more people needing to park out on the street.

So, instead of putting up markers and closing off the verge areas, the council should be getting rid of verges completely to create more on-street parking spaces.

Because the situation at the moment, where more and more people are needing to park on the street and all of this parking space is being chewed up by grass verges, makes no sense to me whatsoever.

LISTEN ABOVE

Grass verges have had their day.
These are the areas of grass you see on streets, between the road and the footpath, where people sometimes park their cars.
I’ll tell you why I think they should go. But first, let me tell you about some residents in the Christchurch suburb of Somerfield who aren’t happy about the city council putting in a heap of red and white markers to stop people parking on the verge.
Rose Street is where 130 white and red markers, like the ones you see on state highways, have been put in. A move being described today as “ridiculous”, “hideous” and “stupid”.
Apparently, since the markers have gone in, some people are parking on the road, next to the markers, which is making the space for vehicles more narrow. Which is crazy, isn’t it?
I know Rose Street pretty well and it’s not off the beaten track. There’s a lot of traffic there at times because one of the entrances to Cashmere High School is on Rose Street. There’s a couple of rest homes. It’s a pretty busy street.
The council’s not having a bar of the complaints, though. The local councillor, Tim Scandrett, is saying that people parking on verges and damaging them has been a problem for about 40 years.
And so they have to try something to stamp it out.
Now I’ve had an issue with grass verges for quite a while. Ever since people started putting rocks on the verges outside their houses, because they were brassed-off with people using the verge as a parking area, and the grass getting damaged and all that.
I’ve had an issue with it because these busy bodies don’t own the verge, yet they carry-on as if they do.
Rose Street is one of the areas where people have put these blasted rocks. So the council’s intervened and installed all of these white and red markers.
The same council, might I point out, that has been perfectly happy to issue building consents left, right and centre for in-fill housing. Not just in Somerfield but across the whole city.
In-fill housing developments that, most of the time, don‘t have enough space for off-street parking. Which means more people needing to park out on the street.
So, instead of putting up markers and closing off the verge areas, the council should be getting rid of verges completely to create more on-street parking spaces.
Because the situation at the moment, where more and more people are needing to park on the street and all of this parking space is being chewed up by grass verges, makes no sense to me whatsoever.
LISTEN ABOVE

John MacDonald: Grass verges have had their day

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/555aa9f1-d868-41ec-99a2-b4ad000741f9/transcript

If we aren’t all despairing at this revelation that the deadly Mount Maunganui landslide was preventable, then don’t expect anything to change.

Because the fact that consultant after consultant warned about the risk of a landslide coming down on that campground for more than 25 years and yet it still happened, shows how much of a buck-passing country we are.

Six people died in that tragedy in January this year. Six people who, I think it’s very fair to say, would still be here if these warnings hadn’t been ignored.

I think the retired judge who did this report which came out yesterday has done a very good job. But I can‘t accept his view that blame can’t be pinned on any one person and that it was the system that failed.

I can’t accept that. Because systems are only as good as the people who run them.

And I’m really concerned that this disaster is going to turn out to be another example of how brilliant we are here in New Zealand at letting people get away with what I would describe (in my honest opinion) as nothing short of negligence.

Whenever something like this happens, everyone talks about making sure it doesn’t happen again. Which I always take with a pinch of salt.

In this case, I would like to think that this kind of thing will never happen again. But we can’t say that, unless we are prepared to see people carrying the can if they cock up.

Let me share a little bit of what Judge Paul Davison says in his report.

“For more than two decades, one competent consultant after another identified the landslide hazard to the campground, located it on the very slope that failed, and explained, sometimes in stark terms, what the consequences of a landslide occurring could be.”

His report says: “As long ago as 1999, Dr Laurie Richards warned that the siting of fragile holiday accommodation directly beneath these slopes was imprudent and the risk to sleeping occupants was high.”

It gets worse. Another warning 20 years ago, in 2006, said a slip there would kill 21 people. And still, nothing was done.

If there is anything to be thankful for, it’s the fact that it was six people who died and not the 21 talked about back in 2006.

Nevertheless, this was a monumental cock-up. And, even though I get what the judge is saying about the system being the problem, I can’t accept that we’re just going to let faceless people get away with this.

Because all that’s going to do, is enable people to continue to get away with turning a blind eye time and time and time again.

LISTEN ABOVE

If we aren’t all despairing at this revelation that the deadly Mount Maunganui landslide was preventable, then don’t expect anything to change.
Because the fact that consultant after consultant warned about the risk of a landslide coming down on that campground for more than 25 years and yet it still happened, shows how much of a buck-passing country we are.
Six people died in that tragedy in January this year. Six people who, I think it’s very fair to say, would still be here if these warnings hadn’t been ignored.
I think the retired judge who did this report which came out yesterday has done a very good job. But I can‘t accept his view that blame can’t be pinned on any one person and that it was the system that failed.
I can’t accept that. Because systems are only as good as the people who run them.
And I’m really concerned that this disaster is going to turn out to be another example of how brilliant we are here in New Zealand at letting people get away with what I would describe (in my honest opinion) as nothing short of negligence.
Whenever something like this happens, everyone talks about making sure it doesn’t happen again. Which I always take with a pinch of salt.
In this case, I would like to think that this kind of thing will never happen again. But we can’t say that, unless we are prepared to see people carrying the can if they cock up.
Let me share a little bit of what Judge Paul Davison says in his report.
“For more than two decades, one competent consultant after another identified the landslide hazard to the campground, located it on the very slope that failed, and explained, sometimes in stark terms, what the consequences of a landslide occurring could be.”
His report says: “As long ago as 1999, Dr Laurie Richards warned that the siting of fragile holiday accommodation directly beneath these slopes was imprudent and the risk to sleeping occupants was high.”
It gets worse. Another warning 20 years ago, in 2006, said a slip there would kill 21 people. And still, nothing was done.
If there is anything to be thankful for, it’s the fact that it was six people who died and not the 21 talked about back in 2006.
Nevertheless, this was a monumental cock-up. And, even though I get what the judge is saying about the system being the problem, I can’t accept that we’re just going to let faceless people get away with this.
Because all that’s going to do, is enable people to continue to get away with turning a blind eye time and time and time again.
LISTEN ABOVE

John MacDonald: Why can't we finger point over six avoidable deaths?

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/8c4c9a97-77d9-43fa-b9dd-b4ac000fa65c/transcript

Sometimes, outfits like the Lyttelton Historical Society have to be told to get a grip.

And today is one of those times.

Because, in a place the size of Christchurch, how many museums is too many?

What’s happening, is the Lyttelton Historical Society is gearing up to ask ratepayers for $8 million to help pay for a new maritime and colonial history museum.

They want $8 million from the council to help build it and $300,000 a year on top of that to run the place.

It would be in Lyttelton, which hasn’t had a museum since the earthquakes, and would house thousands of items which are being kept in storage at the Air Force Museum, in Wigram, free of charge.

In the years between the quakes and now, there have been a few attempts to get a new museum off the ground in Lyttelton. But it hasn’t happened.

And I don’t think it should happen. Unless they can pay for it without running to the council.

Because, do we really need to shell out millions of dollars for a new museum in Lyttelton, when we’ve got Canterbury Museum just 20 minutes' drive away in town?

No we don't.

Do we really need to shell out millions of dollars for a new museum in Lyttelton, when we’ve also got the Okains Bay Museum on the Peninsula?

No we don’t.

The Okains Bay Museum which, by the way, is also telling us today that it’s planning a multi-million-dollar upgrade. No word yet, though, as to whether they’re also going to be asking the council for money to do it.

But we know, for sure, that that’s what the people behind this idea of a new museum in Lyttelton are going to do. And, in my mind, the council has to say no.

The argument that the Historical Society people seem to be basing their request on, is the findings of a feasibility study.

Which found that only 53 percent of “stakeholders” they’ve spoken to about it think they would have any chance of raising the money themselves.

And that 53 percent are dreaming.

But 100 percent of these stakeholders they’ve spoken to think it would be a worthy project.

Which is what always happens. Everyone thinks it’s a great idea but no one wants to pay for it. Or has any idea how to pay for it, apart from doing the usual thing and putting the hand out to ratepayers and taxpayers. And so they’re about to run off to the council to try and get $8 million.

They’ve drafted up a proposal document which claims a museum in Lyttelton would support tourism and education and create jobs.

Remembering this is the town where the locals complain about the cruise ships and say they do nothing for Lyttelton because as soon as they arrive, the passengers get off the ship and shoot straight through the tunnel into town.

Now, though, when it suits, they’re saying a multi-million-dollar museum would stop these cruise ship passengers in their tracks. Dream on.

What’s more, the council is already shelling out millions of dollars for the Canterbury Museum development. And, instead of shelling out more for another museum in Lyttelton, it should be telling the Lyttelton Historical Society that, if their collection is so important, then put it on a truck and send it to Canterbury Museum.

LISTEN ABOVE

Sometimes, outfits like the Lyttelton Historical Society have to be told to get a grip.
And today is one of those times.
Because, in a place the size of Christchurch, how many museums is too many?
What’s happening, is the Lyttelton Historical Society is gearing up to ask ratepayers for $8 million to help pay for a new maritime and colonial history museum.
They want $8 million from the council to help build it and $300,000 a year on top of that to run the place.
It would be in Lyttelton, which hasn’t had a museum since the earthquakes, and would house thousands of items which are being kept in storage at the Air Force Museum, in Wigram, free of charge.
In the years between the quakes and now, there have been a few attempts to get a new museum off the ground in Lyttelton. But it hasn’t happened.
And I don’t think it should happen. Unless they can pay for it without running to the council.
Because, do we really need to shell out millions of dollars for a new museum in Lyttelton, when we’ve got Canterbury Museum just 20 minutes' drive away in town?
No we don't.
Do we really need to shell out millions of dollars for a new museum in Lyttelton, when we’ve also got the Okains Bay Museum on the Peninsula?
No we don’t.
The Okains Bay Museum which, by the way, is also telling us today that it’s planning a multi-million-dollar upgrade. No word yet, though, as to whether they’re also going to be asking the council for money to do it.
But we know, for sure, that that’s what the people behind this idea of a new museum in Lyttelton are going to do. And, in my mind, the council has to say no.
The argument that the Historical Society people seem to be basing their request on, is the findings of a feasibility study.
Which found that only 53 percent of “stakeholders” they’ve spoken to about it think they would have any chance of raising the money themselves.
And that 53 percent are dreaming.
But 100 percent of these stakeholders they’ve spoken to think it would be a worthy project.
Which is what always happens. Everyone thinks it’s a great idea but no one wants to pay for it. Or has any idea how to pay for it, apart from doing the usual thing and putting the hand out to ratepayers and taxpayers. And so they’re about to run off to the council to try and get $8 million.
They’ve drafted up a proposal document which claims a museum in Lyttelton would support tourism and education and create jobs.
Remembering this is the town where the locals complain about the cruise ships and say they do nothing for Lyttelton because as soon as they arrive, the passengers get off the ship and shoot straight through the tunnel into town.
Now, though, when it suits, they’re saying a multi-million-dollar museum would stop these cruise ship passengers in their tracks. Dream on.
What’s more, the council is already shelling out millions of dollars for the Canterbury Museum development. And, instead of shelling out more for another museum in Lyttelton, it should be telling the Lyttelton Historical Society that, if their collection is so important, then put it on a truck and send it to Canterbury Museum.
LISTEN ABOVE

John MacDonald: How many museums do we need?

https://api.omny.fm/orgs/7784f840-c291-422a-924b-ad9000bbad71/clips/a1e61fdf-bc40-43af-81f7-b4ab0006d211/transcript

Politics Friday with Matt Doocey and Dan Rosewarne on Pegasus Golf Course development denied fast track

In 1 playlist(s)

Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips