SloopJohnB 322 Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Maybe Ports of Auckland should look to doing things smarter... What and have another council IT blowout. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dan O 0 Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Reading the POAL long term plan, they themselves note that they can increase truck TEU movement by double and train TEU movements by 6 fold using current infrastructure....seems like a no brainer to me! Geting more containers/cars/machinery off the port and out of the CBD and to destinations faster and more efficiently should be the current area of focus, rather than reclaiming more land to store them on. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
erice 732 Posted March 28, 2015 Share Posted March 28, 2015 herald does editorial slamming brown Editorial: No excuse for mayor's stand on port plans http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11423052 brown gets nervous Mayor Len Brown hopes Ports of Auckland will 'take a breather' on construction http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11424638 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
erice 732 Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 hehehe the letter contained an "iron fist in a velvet glove". If all else failed there was a "thermonuclear" option. A senior council officer indicated the "thermonuclear" option could see heads roll. The officer said the council was not impressed with the ports company or ACIL over the wharf issue. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11427067 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ScottiE 174 Posted April 2, 2015 Share Posted April 2, 2015 the same councilor who, at the last meeting where her and looney len voted to proceed, said she couldn't understand what the fuss was about because as far as she was concerned it was just a benign issue. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
John B 106 Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 I've written to my council representative and had a fairly ambiguous reply. What we need and what the people of Auckland need is a list of council representatives who support the megalomaniacs who want to take Aucklands harbour off Auckland and Aucklanders,New Zealanders for that matter, and we just vote them all out next election. Simple , One issue decides who you vote for . get rid of them and make sure they know that you're going to get rid of them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
erice 732 Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 apparently ports have offered to extend only the eastern wharf http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11441189 but lenny needs them to stop both if he hopes to get ratepayers to fund his train set AND another unfunded $25million hit http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11441041 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Terry B 71 Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 I think you'll find MB that "acting for the shareholders" entails maximising profitability. I have no idea what other conditions are in their 'constitution' but I guarantee profit heads the list. In the USA corporates can be sued (and are) by shareholders for not maximising profits above everything else (short of breaking the law ) The directors have a duty in law in NZ. The council makes the rules (amongst other bodies) that governs what they can and can't do - both in terms of rules of building/extending/consent processes etc and in setting the port company up in the first place - the port companys' constitution. I'm no fan of extending the port - but maybe we shouldn't blame the port company - they're just following they're mandate I would guess. It is a guess though. To me it's a classic case where these quasi state/council run bodies are set up at arms length by the governing bodies in order to either/or/or both maximise profit and to deflect any issues away from state/council. Shrug of shoulders - "hey it's not us, voters. It's those port company people!" Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Fish 0 Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 Boom! Court orders resource consents granted for the ports extensions be set aside. Judge concludes that the way the consents were put was unlawful. Ports of Auckland broke down the total work of extending the wharfs into multiple small consents, so that one consent application by itself would not need to be publicly notified. This is a bit like applying to build a motorway, but saying you will only excavate 50 m2 at a time, so as to not need an earthworks consent - completely underhanded and deceitful behavior by Ports of Auckland, and now declared illegal The interesting thing now, with the consents being set aside, means the POAL don't have consent for the wharf extensions, and will need to start that whole process again, but this time the consents will need to be publicly notified. I bet a good bottle of rum POAL will appeal. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11468031 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Black Panther 1,587 Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 Score one for the RMA. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Terry B 71 Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 And score one for the people of Auckland who got off their arses and kicked up merry hell. And I, ashamedly, did nothing. But congrats and thank you to those who did. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
John B 106 Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 Boom! Court orders resource consents granted for the ports extensions be set aside. Judge concludes that the way the consents were put was unlawful. Ports of Auckland broke down the total work of extending the wharfs into multiple small consents, so that one consent application by itself would not need to be publicly notified. This is a bit like applying to build a motorway, but saying you will only excavate 50 m2 at a time, so as to not need an earthworks consent - completely underhanded and deceitful behavior by Ports of Auckland, and now declared illegal The interesting thing now, with the consents being set aside, means the POAL don't have consent for the wharf extensions, and will need to start that whole process again, but this time the consents will need to be publicly notified. I bet a good bottle of rum POAL will appeal. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11468031 Sneaky ,underhand and manipulative. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SthnJeff 18 Posted June 22, 2015 Share Posted June 22, 2015 Boom! Court orders resource consents granted for the ports extensions be set aside. Judge concludes that the way the consents were put was unlawful. Ports of Auckland broke down the total work of extending the wharfs into multiple small consents, so that one consent application by itself would not need to be publicly notified. This is a bit like applying to build a motorway, but saying you will only excavate 50 m2 at a time, so as to not need an earthworks consent - completely underhanded and deceitful behavior by Ports of Auckland, and now declared illegal The interesting thing now, with the consents being set aside, means the POAL don't have consent for the wharf extensions, and will need to start that whole process again, but this time the consents will need to be publicly notified. I bet a good bottle of rum POAL will appeal. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11468031 Is there a bad bottle of rum? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Clipper 343 Posted June 22, 2015 Share Posted June 22, 2015 Is there a bad bottle of rum? Bundaberg 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Battleship 100 Posted June 22, 2015 Share Posted June 22, 2015 As someone who has sat in 40+ degree heat and enjoyed an ice cold Bundy and Coke I have to disagree. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Adrianp 120 Posted June 22, 2015 Share Posted June 22, 2015 Bundaberg Ditto! I've redistilled many of my mates bottles of Bundy and turn it into something drinkable! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Clipper 343 Posted June 22, 2015 Share Posted June 22, 2015 Can't say bounty rum is that flash either. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SthnJeff 18 Posted June 22, 2015 Share Posted June 22, 2015 Any port in a storm! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Island Time 1,235 Posted June 22, 2015 Share Posted June 22, 2015 Nah Bundy is OK. We once got given a bottle of rum that was absolutely undrinkable. I reckon it would take paint off. Apparently cost $4, but we used it for killing fish - one capful in their gills, lights out! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Steve Pope 243 Posted June 22, 2015 Share Posted June 22, 2015 Yeah!!! Bundy is definitely paint stripper, as for their OP stuff!! One of the best priced and tasting rums I have had in recent years was Tongan rum, nothing really special just good.. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.