Sandspit marina debate continues

[wheels 543]

So went to marina sales office, got answers and walked away informed. Wasnt too hard.

You would kind of expect it to be even easier for someone that actually lives in the area. A lovely little walk down to the Office, ask the questions, get the answers and wander home again.

[shorebreeze 0]

I’ve been keeping an eye on the site to see if there were any answers to BP’s questions.

Black panther said; “So, did you ask whether someone buying a berth today would bear any financial responsibility for removing the sediment during construction and annually after construction?

If the answer to that is yes are those costs "fixed" to the extent that a contract has been signed for the dredging and dumping of said sediment at a firm price?

Not stirring, these are questions any potential buyer should ask as a matter of normal due diligence,

ALso out of curiosity what tenure does the berth holder have?”

And I wonder if you have to lay down your money as a potential buyer before you get any answers?

It's interesting that there are no replies from NZRat,( who knows everything but won’t reveal) and Wheels (who knows enough to be dangerous) re the sediment questions of Black Panther other than a somewhat sarcastic one from Summerbreeze who sees himself as a sediment expert. Summerbreeze said; "All the stations appeared to be at the channel edge rather than a standardised grid pattern. Not sure how this really helps understand sediment movement over an area the size of a marina." Cool answer Summerbreeze. Do you think there would be any changes if more than 100,000 cu metres of stuff was taken out? You sorta got a big hole at the end of a yellow river after that haven’t you?

Summerbreeze also talks about squid eggs....what do you mean by squid eggs. ... Are you meaning the sea snot that's been reported in the local paper?

Here’s a link for you….

A look at Whangateau Harbour Care site also talks about those squid eggs in much greater detail. Very interesting and scary.

Since you guys won’t give a straight answer about the dump site for the benefit of the wider public not just individuals, here's what we found out.

One of you suggested to go ask a CLG member about the dumping site. Having spoken to an official member of the CLG who says Maker insists the dredgings will be dumped offshore so what the hell is Nzrat talking about? Is he just stirring or attempting to hoodwink potential berth seekers?

And why is the misleading information re dumping on the Sandspit beach with Auckland transport's help still on the Sandspit marina site? They have known since 17 December last year, almost 2 months ago, that it isn't going to be even considered.

[ScarecrowR31 8]

SB

1)Check tide chart and date of squid egg comment. Yes they were squid eggs...according to a NIWA scientist .

2) Agree sediment issues unresolved..no one really knows But is based on available evidence both from within the spit and overseas. (yes my degree was some time ago and no I am not an expert but do have a graduate qualification in this area)

3) Again ask first hand and the publish what you are told by SYCMA

4) People can make up their own mind as to the projects risks/benefits and as such make their own decisions. There has been significant info. published

5) Have a good day

[shorebreeze 0]

Wow Summerbreeze...squid eggs you say? A bumper crop of squid coming our way soon? Oh excellent.

By the way, the name of the NIWA scientist you mention is....?

[shorebreeze 0]

Summerbreeze, I just re read your posting. Yes, we can certainly agree on one matter. Investors can make up their own minds as to whether they invest or not in a mud hole. There is no law, yet, in NZ to stop people throwing their money around in whatever direction they choose.

NZ is full of 'nothing can go wrong-boy do I have a good deal for you' schemes and then it entertains everyone later when the project goes sour and the case gets dragged out in some court or newspaper.

Thank heavens for that freedom we still retain.

[Guest]

Can someone please close the bloody door, this threads getting a bit breezy.

[Guest]

Can someone please close the bloody door, this threads getting a bit breezy.

 

Knot me! I like a bit of breeze

 

I just wonder what is more important ? Marinas or Enviroment?

 

MAYBE WE SHOULD HAVE A ENVIRO THREAD

[Steve Pope 243]

One sad mans NIMBY effort, nothing whatsoever to do with the environment.

[Black Panther 1,579]

The environment part is settled, right or wrong, not worth wasting time on it now. The only issue left is whether someone buying a berth tomorrow 1)will be left carrying a portion of the cost of dumping the sediment created during construction 2) is that cost predetermined or uncertain 3) will said purchaser also carry the cost of any necessary on going dredging.

 

As I said, all good questions for a buyer to ask. As yet unanswered on this forum.

[wheels 543]

I just wonder what is more important ? Marinas or Enviroment?

You are asking that here on a Forum for Boaties

 

I just wonder what is more important ? Marinas or Enviroment?

+1 from me too. He is just a Troll and as KM has already said, close the door to this. It is ridiculous that carry on.

 

As I said, all good questions for a buyer to ask. As yet unanswered on this forum.

Yes BP, questions for a would be Berth owner to ask of the SYC and I expect they would. You won't get it answered here because no one here is buying a Berth there.

[Albatross 0]

Hi guys,

I have been following this saga for some years now and I am disappointed at the state of progress to date.

There is a guy who says that 25 years ago somebody wanted a marina at Sandspit and that wish resulted in a fiasco that time. It seems to me that today’s Keystone Cops have been going around in circles trying to get a marina going again, but to no avail.

It looks like a lot of money has been spent on producing reports of all kinds and most of them have been successfully challenged or discredited by the opposition. As far as I can see the opposition has supplied more reliable, quantifiable and accurate data than all the paid for ‘experts’ thus far and that data has cost nothing to the Marina Society.

The opposition seems to be out there gathering information to shoot you down with all the time while you seem to be sitting on your hands delivering delaying tactics. For example, The Raudkivi report gave theoretical data while the opposition presented factual data which has been accepted and all you can do is try and discredit a reputable scientist and not challenge the data.

New information is now available about invasive species in the estuary. Such information is detrimental to the project as it can stop any disposal of dredgings from the site.

The only thing that the Marina Society can crow about is a piddly sign saying ‘Marina Consented’ and that was in 2012. What has happened since? A lot of hot air about not a lot.

Is a dump site available? According to Mr Maker it is sited at Great Barrier, also according to Mr Maker digging was supposed to have started on the 1st of February: YEA RIGHT.

Is money a problem? Show us the books. Why else is there nothing happening?

Any major development has always had a glossy prospectus full of information, so far all I have seen is a cheap pseudo prospectus called a memorandum of something or rather with a lot of fine print which needs careful scrutiny to see who can sell what to whom.

Guys, if you can’t deliver then give the money back while you can still look good.

[wheels 543]

Once again, Albatross, so why are you now posting about this? We have all said that this Website has nothing to do with SYC, no members of SYC are on this Forum, so your words are just wasted here. Take your arguments elsewhere. We have nothing to do with it.

[crux 0]

Of course there are people on this forum from SYC. I also have my berth allocated. It is just that it is not worthwhile responding to illinformed trolls with a biased political agenda.

[wheels 543]

Hi Crux and welcome. Sshhhh I was trying to get them to go away.

[Guest]

I don,t understand why people want stifle any comment from any side of this argument.

 

This type of stuff is the "spice of life" and peoples differing pinions ( right nor wrong) should not be policed by anybody if they fall with the rules of the forum and are not harming anybody.

 

Wheels, would you like it if someone/people ganged up on your comment and wanted you silenced.

 

This is a sailing website and this thread has more to do with this site than most/all of the threads in Small talk. I for one would like to know the full details and be assured there is no dodgy play and any berths are built without compromising the environment and berth holders access and berth depth

 

The Breezes have a right to voice their concerns for what they believe in and i think the fight for clarity and fairness over this topic is as dear to all our hearts as is having marinas for our boats.

 

The argument is not about banning marinas as much as it is about ensuring we do not damage a eco system and also that we leave the planet in good shape for the next generations.

 

Trying to Close down comment because you don not agree with someone is silly.

 

Just say someone did something dodgy next door to your home and they closed down your ability for complete disclosure/clarity and discussion on the issue! ... how would you feel.

 

So far the opposed have not produced one price of information in this thread that tell me they are right or wrong.

 

Now before you all start bagging me let me be clear.

 

I love marinas and think Sandspit would be a great spot for one. But lets make sure it's not another disaster that we cannot undo and it's not another West park "silt farm".

 

And... let's ensure people can have their say and not be treated poorly because they have a different opinion

[crux 0]

The arguments over this project have been ongoing for years. All conditions were met by the SYC in getting the resource consent. Do you know how hard it is to get a resource consent? Do you realise the amount of discussion, paperwork, investigation, consultancy that was required to achieve this. Now that is over and the digging is about to start.

 

Having taken the time to read all of the public documents and some of the supporting evidence, and attended the SYC and public meetings, I am satisfied with the project proceeding.

 

It is not for me to go again through the 1,000s of pages to argue the case.

 

But I have to say that fears of silting seem greatly exaggerated as my anecdotal evidence is that the dredging at the SYC wharf area done over a decade ago and which will be part of the project area, has not needed to be redredged and my boat that draws 2m still has at least .5m under its keel at low tide. Also the dredging is from an area which is not noteable for sea or birdlife and the spoil is going to an area with an existing resource consent.

 

As a local, I have an interest both in having a berth for my boat, but also in not polluting or 'fouling the nest' in what I consider to be one of loveliest spots in the area.

 

Unfortunately a few people cannot be persuaded with reason, and their arguments are thin and did not stand up to the critique of the resource consent hearings. The documents of which are available I believe are still available online.

 

I don't think it profits anyone to have simplistic arguments on a forum over such complex issues that have been already heard in court and a decision made.

[wheels 543]

I don,t understand why people want stifle any comment from any side of this argument.

Crux has pretty much summed up my thoughts, as well as worded them far better than I could have.

To add though, this "shorebreeze" fellow and now the "Albatross" fellow (which I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't the same character) are not providing valid points of argument. They are doing nothing but Trolling, Stirring and making completely invalid and inaccurate comments to create an argument. Plus, they have registered here with the one single point and view of nothing else than to make these comments on this site. I would have a completely different attitude to this Topic/Discussion if they had legitimate points to make. But they have their own personal agenda and are using this Forum to wave their Banner of Protest. Protests against the decisions that have been made after Study and then discussion and ruling in the Environment court, that have gone against the outcome they wanted. If they had concerns of how Tests were carried out, then that argument should have and surely would have been brought before the Environment court, not here.

Instead of me saying that there are no SYC members here, what I should have said to be more correct is that no one on this Website can have any influence on the SYC situation, so there is no point in posting comments that are simply Muck Stirring. If comments had been made that were simple concerns and Questions, then maybe these "Members" would have a very different response...maybe.

Sailor X, you should know as well as anyone that we Crew.org'rs are a passionate bunch of Sailors that don't take kindly to illegitimate crap from illegitimate posters being posted. To me, it's nothing more than a form of spam.

[Albatross 0]

Thank you Crux for your input and exposing Wheels for what he is; a misleading agent who has tried to get us off the scent.

Wheels you seem to be misinformed because the fine print on crew.org absolutely forbids anyone using dual sites for postings, perhaps it is a case of the pot calling thekettle black?

My original questions stand and need to be considered seriously. The current scuttlebutt says that some people have bought multiple berths, is this true? Does this scenario comply with the financial memorandum? I actually fail to see how this can benefit the Marina Society. As I see it is a bit like a vacuum cleaner salesman buying all the vacuum cleaners just so that he can achieve his sales figure. At the end of the month he still has to sell the vacuum cleaners or incur a loss. Given the current demand for berths at Sandspit this seems a risky strategy in a less than bullish berth market in that location, unless there is a plan in place to on sell the marina at a profit to some third party.

This scenario raises a further question as the pseudo prospectus states that this is a not for profit society. Wheels, perhaps you can shed some light on this conundrum given your self-confessed involvement in these matters.

Here are some questions that need to be addressed:

Have multiple berths been bought by single buyers and if so how many?

Is the above in keeping with the conditions of the financial memorandum?

Have building consents been applied for and if so have any been consented. Wheels at times you have shown that you need to be spoon fed so I will explain that a building consent is different from a resource consent.

Is the presence of invasive marine organisms in the marina footprint an obstacle to dredging/dumping?

I really would like answers to these questions Wheels and I would appreciate some straight talk about it for a change. Also can you shed some light on the vacuum cleaner salesman scenario as I am deeply puzzled by it.

[crux 0]

The above post illustrates the craziness of the opponents of the marina. Anyway, why are you asking us for the answers? The SYC marina socity is available to answer your questions if you ask nicely!

[banaari 27]

The current scuttlebutt says that some people have bought multiple berths, is this true?

Nooooo! Shock, horror, "abomination!"

Oh the humanity

 

Without straining my intellect TOO far, even I can think of one very obvious explanation for that...