Tim C 23 Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 Interesting Marina debate: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/artic ... d=11111034 Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 HMB marina was just dredged. I guess it's hard to find good deep bays to build them in. Waiheke is facing the same problem. Matiatia requires no dredging but it's such a beautiful bay, maybe to beautiful for a marina. There are other options but require dredging. Link to post Share on other sites
Grinna 2 Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 What I find interesting about that article is that they quite correctly point to shonky catchment land management practices as being the cause of estuarine sedimentation and then continue on as if marinas are the problem rather than the shonky land management practices that cause issues not only for marinas but resulting in the infilling of our ecologically important estuaries and harbours. Wouldn't it make sense to actually attack the source of the problem instead of ... oh, I don't know .... taking a poke at the rich w^&#$@r boat owners??? Link to post Share on other sites
Island Time 1,211 Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 This was an interesting response; The proposed Sandspit Marina has been approved after very thorough review by the council and Environment Court, with plenty of input from Mr Taplin. Opponents have used every underhanded trick in the book, including sending deceptive anonymous emails to Sandspit Yacht Club members. The developer is the local yacht club, not a corporate or wealthy individual looking for a profit. So having dragged the process out for years, and finally lost, Mr Taplin now has "new evidence"? Why am I not surprised? This latest effort looks like an attempt to scare off potential buyers of berths. Those buyers will have to make their own assessment, but considering the tactics used by Marina opponents to date, I wouldn't rely on their "research" Personally I know nothing about it! Link to post Share on other sites
Deep Purple 511 Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 I always thought the Goldsworthy/Scandretts plan was a better idea anyway but i'm not up with the play on costs/benefits/issues regarding that Link to post Share on other sites
marinheiro 352 Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 check out http://www.sandspitmarina.co.nz/More/Pr ... pdate.aspx, 8 August entry. Taplin is the leader of SOSSI mentioned therein. He and his friends have stretched out the environmental approval process to the max but when it was time to put up in front of the judge they could not come up with anything. Link to post Share on other sites
shorebreeze 0 Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 First, Mr Taplin is not the leader of Sandspit SOS Inc. The Herald article is not a SSOSI article. Mr Taplin was the Chair of the Sandspit Ratepayers association before it was hi-jacked by those who want a marina berth and their supporters.It no longer represents the community. Unlike the marina society each Sandspit resident is capable of thinking for themselves. Dr Roger Grace QSM is an independent marine biologist.He is not in any way paid for his investigations at Sandspit and Whangateau harbours. One can read the article he wrote "What happens when you dig a big hole in an estuary" on the Whangateau Harbour Care website.The fact that SYCMS was able to pass off theoretical estimates to the ARC commissioners and got away with it is a scandal. Dr Grace's empirical data shows the reality of this highly unsuitable site. It is the first sedimentation data recorded. It is claimed that the developer of the controversial Sandspit marina is the Sandspit Yacht Club. Why then, are yacht club members not allowed to raise any questions regarding the marina - at the SYC AGM's? If the marina is to be constructed, then it would be the biggest thing that ever happens to the yacht club - yet open and transparent discussion within the membership - is not allowed. There is also reference to "deceptive anonymous e-mails to the SYC members". It would be interesting to now review these so-called "deceptive" e-mails - they might actually be more prophetic than some are comfortable with. The marina was originally proposed as a facility for yacht club members. Why then is this project being aggressively marketed outside of the membership? The ugly truth is that this is a parasitic development – since what facilities do the marina society actually own – nothing without the yacht club. And what is the real cost of this development? It is being touted as a $13million project. However, the number of berths x the cost per berth – would bring in over $23million. There is a difference of $10million – where is that going? Advice? Buyer beware! Link to post Share on other sites
RedCatRunning 0 Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 I agree with Grinna on ‘shonky’ land management practices and their adverse effect on what Grinna terms “ecologically important estuaries.” But surely sinking marinas in such estuaries only further compromises them. Does it make sense to first pollute the estuary with run-off and sediment and then dig out that, often toxic, sediment and dump it offshore in otherwise pristine waters? A practice which, in essence, causes two environmental disasters. If Grinna is seriously concerned about the ecological value of New Zealand’s estuaries I am sure s/he would balk at the idea of polluting them with the high concentrations of diesel, copper and other biocides leached from anti-fouling paint that are the inevitable by-product of marinas. Link to post Share on other sites
Grinna 2 Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 Please RCR, tell me more about what I think based on your own biased views of how the world should work. By all means ignore my point and twist everything to reflect your paticular one-eyed opinion. I agree with Grinna on ‘shonky’ land management practices and their adverse effect on what Grinna terms “ecologically important estuaries.” But surely sinking marinas in such estuaries only further compromises them. Does it make sense to first pollute the estuary with run-off and sediment and then dig out that, often toxic, sediment and dump it offshore in otherwise pristine waters? A practice which, in essence, causes two environmental disasters. If Grinna is seriously concerned about the ecological value of New Zealand’s estuaries I am sure s/he would balk at the idea of polluting them with the high concentrations of diesel, copper and other biocides leached from anti-fouling paint that are the inevitable by-product of marinas. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 If Grinna is seriously concerned about the ecological value of New Zealand’s estuaries I am sure s/he would balk at the idea of polluting them with the high concentrations of diesel, copper and other biocides leached from anti-fouling paint that are the inevitable by-product of marinas. I don't know anything about the topic being discussed, but could someone explain how GH is chock a block full of sea life? Link to post Share on other sites
Fish 0 Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 I do believe the primary cause of GH being full of sea life would be due to the wide spread presence of sea water. Link to post Share on other sites
Fish 0 Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 I think in the context of the debate though, which I am not interested in getting involved in, is that GH does not have silt laden tributaries going into it, where as Sandspit has a massive silt laden catchment up stream without a catchment management plan, or any effective way of controlling silt run off. This is the same country that is causing the Kaipara to silt up badly, endangering the west coast snapper fishery... Link to post Share on other sites
RedCatRunning 0 Posted August 24, 2013 Share Posted August 24, 2013 Oh dear, Grinna. Did I touch a nerve? You're beginning to sound like one of those "rich w^&#$@r boat owners." Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted August 24, 2013 Share Posted August 24, 2013 Yep, a rich w^&#$@r boat owner with a graduate degree in marine ecology. Link to post Share on other sites
RedCatRunning 0 Posted August 24, 2013 Share Posted August 24, 2013 Crew Ogre: And your point is..? Link to post Share on other sites
BNG 44 Posted August 24, 2013 Share Posted August 24, 2013 Oh dear, a new batch of trolling fukwits hell bent on driving more of the users away. Every society needs some sort of policing, time to step up to the mark Ogre. Link to post Share on other sites
RedCatRunning 0 Posted August 24, 2013 Share Posted August 24, 2013 Seriously guys. Is it sooooo hard for you to stick to the actual debate?! Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted August 24, 2013 Share Posted August 24, 2013 Looks like, but they are only interested in this one topic so I'll leave a watching brief for now. So I read the original article. Grinna is correct, they identify the problem as the land mangement practices than never mention them again. My point in nentioning GH is that marinas per se don't have that much of a negative effect on the creatures living there. So if a developer builds a marina and it silts up, and they can't dredge for whatever reason, the devloper and/ or purchaser/s will lose money. Where's the problem? Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted August 24, 2013 Share Posted August 24, 2013 RCR- would you like to declare your interest? Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted August 25, 2013 Share Posted August 25, 2013 I find it disappointing the Yacht Club has chosen knot to support NZ marina builders and gone with aussie stuff, which is generally inferior to the stuff made here. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.