|
Are you a This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| homeowner |
|
39 | 22.41% |
| renter |
|
69 | 39.66% |
| stupid peace of poo poo |
|
66 | 37.93% |
| Total: | 174 votes | ||
|
klen dool posted:How loving tone-deaf do you have to be to use Pink Floyd to promote trumps ideas?!?! Like Trump, Pink Floyd is mostly enjoyed by old white men who long for the old days that may have never even existed.
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 02:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 22:10 |
|
|
It's a song about walls and Trumps builds 'em. What's not to get?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
BARONS CYBER SKULL posted:Is their sorting hat also a oval office? No, because it likes Peanut Piston.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 04:36
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Yup, school absolutely annihilated any sense of respect for authority I had. Same, except it was more the common masses. Rules and authority figures never beat me around the head with a brick or broke my fingers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 07:03
|
|
|
BARONS CYBER SKULL posted:Like Trump, Pink Floyd is mostly enjoyed by old white men who long for the old days that may have never even existed. well, good point....
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 07:40
|
|
|
BARONS CYBER SKULL posted:Like Trump, Pink Floyd is mostly enjoyed by old white men who long for the old days that may have never even existed. Pretty sure pink floyd is mostly enjoyed by stoners these days.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 10:23
|
|
|
My favourite is the "I like the Donald!" badge. I imagine someone saying this while a thin rope of drool creeps slowly out of the side of their mouth.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
klen dool posted:How loving tone-deaf do you have to be to use Pink Floyd to promote trumps ideas?!?! ♫ We don't need no education... ♫
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 01:27
|
|
|
ahahaha if you live in auckland and don't own property you are hosed
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 07:41
|
|
|
Nude Bog Lurker posted:ahahaha if you live in auckland and don't own property you are hosed What's happened, have they finally made land owners into feudal lords? Is all the other property in the region owned by John Key and his network of undeclared secret trusts? Is 100% of currently unowned land being bought to give away to some git from a country John Key wants to sell milk to?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 08:17
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/bernardchickey/status/702312698566971393 https://twitter.com/bernardchickey/status/702312828338700288 https://twitter.com/bernardchickey/status/702323541430005760 https://twitter.com/bernardchickey/status/702325138658762756 https://twitter.com/bernardchickey/status/702325768173416448 great stuff
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 08:18
|
|
|
In some cases, it should be legal to kill people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 08:21
|
|
|
We'll only find utopia when cunty old people get recognised as the disease they are and dealt with accordingly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 08:24
|
|
|
As someone who maybe hopes to live in Auckland some day this makes me sad. Tho in 30 years I'll inherit a share in my baby boomer parents' house in central Auckland which will still be surrounded by other low density houses. So at least I've got that going for me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 08:41
|
|
|
Lorde bought a house and she's young. Case closed
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 08:44
|
|
|
Wish she'd bought the farm instead.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 09:14
|
|
|
I've been trying to buy for a year now. Great market if you want to rent out a slum to immigrants. Not so much if you want to live there for less than the price of land in the suburbs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 09:21
|
|
|
The weird thing about both Wellington and Auckland is that they are geographically constrained — Auckland is about 10 meters wide and Wellington is surrounded by loving mountains. So you'd think it would be in both cities' interests to have high-density housing (and public transport) where space is at a premium, then have larger quarter-acre suburban places out in far-flung suburbs for families. Especially where you are projecting Auckland's population to grow by a million or so people in the next 5 years. Instead, there are townhouses and mansions about 5 minutes' walk each way from the city centres. Why would you sell or support high-density housing, if you have a house in Mount Vic or Parnell?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 09:47
|
|
|
That's essentially Auckland's problem in a nutshell - it's constrained on two sides by the natural barriers that are gentrified 'character' suburbs surrounding the inner city hub, by the harbour itself, and finally by the massive motorways running out of its rear end in a top hat to service the sprawl. It can't feasibly go up very far because of sunlight protections and in Newmarket, where it's managed to squeeze some development out past Parnell nimbys due to the insulating Domain, there's a mandated viewpoint of Rangitoto that sets a severe height restriction across the entire length of the motorway section out to the water. Although it is slowly making its way down Great North. The only answer is to intensify in the suburbs, which can't be serviced by the existing transport infrastructure and are fought on every single level because of pearl clutchers who think a three-story apartment complex will devalue their asset that's only worth what it is because the market dictates it should be intensified, and it would have years ago if the constant answer from central government weren't to simply release more land for more sprawl because it's easier than explaining to people that their rates are so high because there are so few people living in so much land that's increasingly inefficient and that's why even the beautified areas of the central city that the council is so proud to spend their money on look like a loving dump six months after construction.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 10:04
|
|
|
If you wanna live in auckland soon, buy in Hamilton now
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 10:36
|
|
|
Maybe if they want to do something about Auckland's housing market without building new houses they should implement some sort of capital gains tax or something I'm just spitballing here
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 10:52
|
|
|
I think that would basically be putting a fire out by putting a large log on it. You're still in the situation where you have a growing populace, really lovely building controls and popular opposition to intensification, and a bunch of people at the top who made out large with big property portfolios. The problems are still there, you've just made it so they can't burn as easily for a while by flipping houses - instead they'll simply increase their rents as the competition for housing increases due to the shortfall of new homes, and if they're unlucky might have to sell one to cover mortgage adjustments. Capital gains alone will do nothing but slice off a piece of the pie for the government. That slice either needs to go straight back to Auckland in first-home affordable housing schemes, or they need to prohibitively impede portfolio owner's access to financing for homes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 12:47
|
|
|
Just kill anyone who owns more than one home.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
In other news, Don Brash remains slimy racist/sexist oval office: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11595081 "Was she not charged because she was a woman or because she's Maori? I don't know, but she thought it was a huge joke and was delighted when she wasn't charged." "Does Don Brash have sex with animals? I don't know, but he's awfully cagey about it and hasn't directly denied it."
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
If that was true it would be the only time being Maori results in someone not being charged.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
Taitale posted:If that was true it would be the only time being Maori results in someone not being charged. But but but... reverse racism, the m-ow-rees get everything
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
Maybe she wasn't charged because it was funny and Brownlee isn't a crybaby. Not everything is a conspiracy by Minorities.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
She wasn't charged because she is a national hero, and as we know from the ruggers, national heroes don't get in trouble.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
Which one of you fuckers called in a bomb threat to my school?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 03:11
|
|
|
All I said was that Max Key was going to be DJing there this afternoon.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 03:40
|
|
|
To divert the conversation a little, anyone else find it a bit hypocritical that the Aussies are complaining about the NZ crowd being "too abusive" after they a) had 2 players fined during the last test for being aggressive towards an umpire & b) are ok with sledging the Black Caps because they're "too nice"? http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/cricket/77277090/david-warner-opens-up-on-derogatory-and-vulgar-crowd-abuse-in-new-zealand
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 04:49
|
|
|
Vagabundo posted:Which one of you fuckers called in a bomb threat to my school? Seems to be the thing these days. All of the international schools where I am have had bomb threats phoned in. It's an automated message, same one to all of them
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 05:03
|
|
|
BARONS CYBER SKULL posted:Just kill anyone who owns more than one home. Does a Bach count?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 05:37
|
|
|
I flat in Parnell, I think I'll go out and scream wordlessly at some wealthy old people on the street. I can't get over the claims that this is a victory for democracy, how the gently caress does that work? I bet if you put it to a citywide vote most people would see the sense in increasing housing density and would vote accordingly; that would be an actual victory for democracy. Needs of the many etc. In any case I think people are too loving self-interested to be trusted with having a voice in the growth of a whole goddamn city especially when they have a vested interest completely counter to what is good for the city's future. I have bile in my mouth and a headache from reading some of the retarded opinion pieces that have come out in response to the council's decision.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 05:53
|
|
|
People are too self interested to have a voice in anything that concerns them even indirectly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 05:59
|
|
|
Ghostlight posted:All I said was that Max Key was going to be DJing there this afternoon. LOL. Part of the housing problem is there seems to be very low standard as to what an apartment is. No one wants to live in a poo poo shoe box, but that's what is getting pushed. I didn't mind that too much when I was in Japan where they had the public transport infrastructure to match, but with every poo poo box you are going to need a parking space on top. Half the building is going to have to be a parking lot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 06:00
|
|
|
Trompe le Monde posted:I flat in Parnell, I think I'll go out and scream wordlessly at some wealthy old people on the street. I can't get over the claims that this is a victory for democracy, how the gently caress does that work? I bet if you put it to a citywide vote most people would see the sense in increasing housing density and would vote accordingly; that would be an actual victory for democracy. Needs of the many etc. In any case I think people are too loving self-interested to be trusted with having a voice in the growth of a whole goddamn city especially when they have a vested interest completely counter to what is good for the city's future. I have bile in my mouth and a headache from reading some of the retarded opinion pieces that have come out in response to the council's decision. I've noticed that there is a tendency for landowners to refer to themselves as 'ratepayers' and therefore they think they have more of a say in things the local and regional government does, because they pay rates. They think that democracy means democracy of the landed gentry only, which of course makes it... not democracy. They're completely wrong, because anybody who lives in a house and pays rent pays rates, because they pay rent to the landlord, who in turn pays the rates on their behalf.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 06:03
|
|
|
Trompe le Monde posted:I bet if you put it to a citywide vote most people would see sense Vous must bez joking!
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 06:55
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:LOL. Nah this is the argument that gets trotted out all the time and it's bs. Increased density doesn't mean everyone will have to move into 20 sq meter apartments. It just means a 2 storey height restriction in an inner city suburb is ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 08:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 22:10 |
|
|
It's kind of weird that the scenario from logans run is now almost the only viable solution to 90% of the world's problems
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 08:36
|
|