Jump to content

Ports Expansion


Recommended Posts

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :oops: )

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!" :wtf:

Link to post
Share on other sites

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  :-D

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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  :-D

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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  :-D

 

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...