Joke???

[markyw]

Reading through this thread made me think of this.....

 

[Dunwaters]

When you take something of tangible value, without paying for it, that is not progress. That is thievery.

What is it when your refusal to accept change adversely affects my quality of life and property values?
Theres always going to be conflict between development and those that want to keep things exactly as they are.
Why is it alright for you to deny me the opportunity of developing my asset?
That would also meet your definition of theft, would it not?

 

[jthyttin]

Why is it alright for you to deny me the opportunity of developing my asset?

Nobody's preventing you. It's only that you cannot get the maximum value out of your asset, since you've chosen to purchase it next to something that lowers the value (and benefitted from that when purchasing the asset).

You cannot go on brow beating people into submission. Yes it has happened, in large scale, and will continue to happen. But it doesn't make it right.

 

[User00056]

They can and will force you to change precisely because everything else has changed.
It’s called “progress”, and one selfish, intransigent little shite wont be allowed to stop it.
It works on the same principle all over the planet, get over it.

'The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man'

Personally, I fine your attitude slightly distasteful and patronising. Why should any established business and landowner be forced to change his entire way of life simply to accommodate the wishes of a developer to make money? If my lifestyle was to be subject to some bullying establishment that you seem to admire, I would certainly become that 'selfish, intransitigent little shite'

 

[Dunwaters]

Nobody's preventing you. It's only that you cannot get the maximum value out of your asset, since you've chosen to purchase it next to something that lowers the value (and benefitted from that when purchasing the asset).

This is precisely what the planning process is there to resolve.

You cannot go on brow beating people into submission. Yes it has happened, in large scale, and will continue to happen. But it doesn't make it right.

'The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man'

Personally, I fine your attitude slightly distasteful and patronising. Why should any established business and landowner be forced to change his entire way of life simply to accommodate the wishes of a developer to make money? If my lifestyle was to be subject to some bullying establishment that you seem to admire,

I find your attitude simplistic
Following your logic NO major infrastructural plan or development could take place as long as there was a single objector, No airports no railways and if you back a bit, no canals either, so no Industrial Revolution and no Great Britain.
All development comes at the cost of displacing someone or something already there.

I would certainly become that 'selfish, intransitigent little shite'

 

[jthyttin]

I think most constitutions protect the property, and in most societies there are laws how to break that protection.

But it will go through court of law and, again I think, has to be related to public interest not private one.

That is quite different than your way of dealing, which effectively is saying "go away" for the person whose activities are seen as problematic by some other person (that is basically pursuing personal benefit on the cost of robbing the first person by his rights/benefits/property).

 

[User00056]

All development comes at the cost of displacing someone or something already there.

And look at where that's got us

 

[Dunwaters]

And look at where that's got us

Okay, where do you want to freeze it?
Before or after your own personal dwelling and business premises was developed?
How far back do you intend to go to make restitution and how do you suggest that future developments are managed?

 

[Taff]

How far back do you go ? Well if you are mauri, the 1500s, when you believe you landed in NZ ( date is unsure) you then make a claim against anyone who owns the property you believe was sold stock cheap or taken without true discussion,
If I understand you belief, everyone should bend to the latest development?, so if a rehab/ new release centre was built next to your property, you would have no problem with it ?

 

[Husky]

Yous can all feck off, I'm not moving

 

[75]

I find your attitude simplistic

Oh the irony.

What is it when your refusal to accept change adversely affects my quality of life and property values?

But it's ok to force change on others in a way that impacts their quality of life and property values? If you don't want a house near a clay ground / farm / whatever then find another house to buy.

Don't buy it and then wish it was somewhere else.

 

[Dunwaters]

Oh the irony.


But it's ok to force change on others in a way that impacts their quality of life and property values? If you don't want a house near a clay ground / farm / whatever then find another house to buy.

Don't buy it and then wish it was somewhere else.

You can’t encase the whole planet, or even a portion of it, in an acrylic block and freeze everything as it is forever.
Change is constant, you can’t stop it, you can’t control it, you have to live with it and adapt to it.
One house near a clay shoot, maybe you can work around it and stay open, 50 houses or a hospital on the boundary and you’re going to be closed down.
The needs of the community will always trump the preferences of the individual.

 

[Taff]

We are having this problem in Whangārei at the moment, the pistol club has been there the same time as the hospital, with no problem, a new housing development of high end houses has been built close bye, now they want the club closed.