A few days ago there was an article in the Press about a recent survey which suggested that house prices in Christchurch were too high, and that land-use policy being pursued by local government, which imposes an urban area limit, was effectively to blame.
The annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey appears to be a kind of lobby tool to support relaxed land-use planning rules – or in other words, it supports policies that allow unmitigated urban sprawl. If you wanted anymore proof of that consider this:
“Co-author and Christchurch resident Hugh Pavletich said that for metropolitan areas to rate as affordable and ensure housing bubbles were not triggered, housing prices should not exceed three times gross annual household incomes.”
Hugh Pavletich is or was a commercial property developer, so no surprises that he backs such concepts (a quick google search brings up a lot of lobbying for sprawl). Who wins when fringe land can be developed unhindered? More importantly, who loses? Who pays for all the infrastructure used by so few people, or the congestion that sprawling auto-dependent areas would cause?
According to the survey, the recovery in Christchurch has been delayed because authorities have failed to release affordable fringe land. I simply don’t see that as being the case. Apart from the fact that I don’t think housing affordability is actually what is ”delaying” any recovery right now, there are simply dozens of housing developments going on around Christchurch, particularly in the north-east, south-west, Selwyn and Waimakariri areas. I have never seen anything that remotely suggests that these developments can’t handle people shifting from red zones and expected population growth during the rebuild. Sure, there are possibly some issues with prices as demand goes up in some areas, but I see no link between availability and affordability overall. It appears that there is plenty of land within the metropolitan limits to develop for future growth, and there is enormous scope for urban renewal in existing suburbs. We should always be open to some tinkering of the limits where it makes sense (who is to say we got it right the first time or that situations won’t change, I guess) but they are actually there for a good reason.
Flexibility of the urban limits I feel can have some benefits, but unmitigated urban sprawl brings a lot of negative impacts onto the table, including increased infrastructure costs, increased transportation costs (in this day and age??!!), increased living costs, and overall poor planning outcomes. Urban limits were put in place for a reason, to avoid all of the above. Further, as I have already mentioned, I have yet to see any real evidence that there is a chronic shortage of land in Christchurch. Just because there is a limit in place, doesn’t mean there isn’t land that can be developed on the “fringes” (or are they more concerned with what land they can develop, and how much land they could make money off into their retirement years?). As previously noted, the evidence seems to show that there is plenty of land either currently being developed, or in the planning stages. Just look at the huge developments planned for Kaiapoi, or the Prestons and Highfield developments, or even Rolleston. Therefore, using housing affordability to justify unmitigated fringe development just does not cut it with me. Perhaps their definition of “Christchurch”, much like Statistics NZ’s, is a little more confined than reality (to suit their argument?).
I warned a while ago that the earthquake would be used by property developers to lobby for the relaxation or total abolition of urban limits. This seems to be yet another attempt to do just that. Perfect timing too as we currently have a local government crisis at hand, which makes it very easy to manipulate the issue as “just another Council cock-up”. We have good foundations in place (the Greater Christchurch UDS, the draft Central City Plan) that will serve us well in the recovery and rebuild period. Lets not mess with them too much, they were put in place for a good reason.
marsoe
jhumm
MrV
January 25, 2012
I think you have some of this backwards. It is not ‘lobbying for sprawl’. It is sound economics.
Why do NZ and Australia have some of the highest house/land prices, when we are some of the most sparsley populated countries?
We need to eliminate arbitrary development constraints, as well as things like minimum parking requirements, so the market uses land efficiently.
There are also issues as to why do you pay for all housing development infrastructure upfront? If the infrastructure is going to last say 30 years why wouldn’t you finance it with a municipal bond issue. This would provide opportunities for (Kiwisaver) for example to invest in our own communities infrastructure.
jhumm
January 26, 2012
Well that is a matter of opinion I guess (whether it is lobbying or “sound economics”) but at the end of the day the people pushing for this stand to gain financially.
I have to say though, “market uses land efficiently” does make my skin crawl a little.
Been Benuane
January 27, 2012
In Australia you’re seeing the trend long established (abroad) in its cities where property on land of high value is being built UPWARDS. How’s that for efficiency?
Been Benuane
January 27, 2012
You’re all going to hate me for saying this but NZ is a pretty backward country that lags social trends and Canterbury is a backward region of NZ. The thinking all seems very 1950′s to me, and of course they never looked anywhere else to learn anything.
Why not at least drop the pretence that NZ is “cutting edge” and progressive?
bismarck
January 27, 2012
You are right… your comments add nothing productive to this discussion Been.
You seem to be happy to denigrate New Zealanders and Canterbury as being backward. It’s a rather broad and all-encompassing statement that has no factual basis to quantify this other than your personal opinion (without stating what specifically gives you that opinion).
For the record, there are numerous areas where New Zealand actually excels in far ahead of other countries. Sure, I will agree that there are some areas infrastructure-wise where New Zealand has lagged, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that we are “backward” thinking – mostly, you can boil it all down to lack of money at the time.
Anyway, that’s a little off topic.
On this issue however, I think there are a number of correlations between property affordability and availability. As Jhumm pointed out though, we shouldn’t assume that one must go hand in hand with the other. There are plenty of other factors at play that affect pricing.
In the Christchurch context, we don’t have a shortage of land necessarily from the city as a whole, but in some areas we do. Much of the reason prices are high is all to do with compliance issues. Now that the quakes have turned the current building code on it’s head, the requirements are only going to get stricter and therefore the costs more expensive.
A house costs $X to buy – the four components of that are Materials, Labour, Compliance and Profit. I can’t see how it will be easy to decrease any of those components unless we bring in cheap chinese workers to build them.
The only other solution is to offset it by increasing wages for society in general… But how?
Been Benuane
January 27, 2012
This inability to take criticism constructively is very, very backward.
Along with Christchurch’s attitudes towards race, ideas about lifestyles….
And I can’t think of a single thing NZ excels ahead of any other country in.
Anyway, it’s getting off topic. So why is it Christchurch is still stuck desiring automobile dependency? oh but that’s right peak oil doesn’t exist (laughs).
MrV
January 28, 2012
Look at your own residence and see what the land value is versus the capital improvement.
MrV
January 28, 2012
I see no constructive argument in here. You’re not particularly articulate.
Care to define the deficient area?
Been Benuane
January 28, 2012
Getting well off topic here but:
I can’t think of a single thing NOT backward about Christchurch. Whether it’s the witch-hunt and accusations of pederasty of a childcare worker on the sole evidence of him being gay and different, or the anachronistic institution-schools and the pervading attitudes they nurture.
Oh, and the assumed belief that despite its lack of vibrancy and quite apparent problems with crime and poverty it’s somehow better than other places… …like Oakland CA.
MrV
January 28, 2012
As with anything in economics it is the ‘seen’ and the ‘unseen’. The seen is always obvious. Let’s enforce a greenbelt, so we have a nice greenbelt around our city.
But, what are the unseen consequences of this policy of trying to artificially strangle land supply, and to force business owners to provide land for a certain minimum amt of cars?
Are these consequences worth it?
MrV
January 28, 2012
WOW, you’re going to generalise an entire population down to those particular things?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the entire population of Chirstchurch was hardly against Peter Ellis.
Are Chch instituion-schools differenct from institutional schools anywhere else … you are drawing a long bow.
Well if you insist Chch has a problem with crime and poverty, I’ll take that compared to the crime and poverty Oakland has on display under motorway bridges any day of the week.
Been Benuane
January 29, 2012
Well maybe not EVERYONE was against Ellis, but enough were for something very disturbing and backward even by the standards of the rest of NZ. Those same standards that find Rangi-ruru girls school and Christs college something obsolete by over 100 years.
Have you actually been to Oakland CA? you won’t find your state of mind disturbed by some young hoon with a big exhaust. Or skinheads eyeballing you. You just might be more impressed with the place than someone from Oakland would be with Christchurch.
MrV
January 29, 2012
I’ve been through there or through there on at least 4 occasions in the last 15 years. It’s better than it used to be (as I acknowledged before), but I can’t sayI found the place particularly remarkable especially compared to surrounding areas (Berkley/SF etc).
To be honest haven’t noticed any of these ‘skinheads’ to what you refer (my view is that it is one of those stereotypical memes simplified NZ media uses so as to put each place in a nice little prepackaged box). I don’t doubt they exist as everywhere has criminal elements of one type or another, but is it the issue its made out to be?
I also haven’t noticed any more ‘young hoons’ than you would find anywhere else in NZ/Australia.
Also the comparisons you are trying to make are meaningless, trying to compare a metropolitan area of 5million+ to Chch? There are plenty of derogatory remarks one could make about most places if you so desired, but why bother, I’ll leave the low quality arguments to you.
Been Benuane
January 29, 2012
If you think Christchurch’s problems with boy-racers aren’t noticeably worse than the rest of NZ (which is definitely worse than any other country including Australia) and if you haven’t noticed any skinheads or generally rough people then it seems to me that you’ve got your head in the sand.
As for “low-quality arguments” I find it amusing you haven’t factored NZ’s property prices as being falsely inflated.
MrV
January 30, 2012
“If you think Christchurch’s problems with boy-racers aren’t noticeably worse than the rest of NZ (which is definitely worse than any other country including Australia) and if you haven’t noticed any skinheads or generally rough people then it seems to me that you’ve got your head in the sand.”
Rubbish, certainly no worse than anywhere else, and unlike Australia our teenagers aren’t yet arming themselves with knives. Anyway I’m sure in your mind Chch will never live up to the urban utopia in which you reside so why bother arguing.
“As for “low-quality arguments” I find it amusing you haven’t factored NZ’s property prices as being falsely inflated.”
Well aside from the very first comment on this blog post.
Been Benuane
January 30, 2012
Do you think it’s no worse than anywhere else becuase you haven’t been out of Christchurch or are you just pretending?
So why does it have this reputation amongst the rest of NZ? has any other NZ city seen such a crackdown from authorities?
And I challenge you to actually compare the stats for Christchurch youth crime to most of Australia.
And it’s people like yourself living ins smug denial that’s caused it and isn’t doing anything about it.
“Sound economics”, yes it’s having such a positive effect on NZ’s macroeconomy isn’t it?
MrV
January 30, 2012
““Sound economics”, yes it’s having such a positive effect on NZ’s macroeconomy isn’t it?”
NZ govt debt position is relatively good internationally, albeit cen. govt needs to get spending under control over time to bring tax/spending into balance. Private debt is high, but thats an inidivdual problem and not everyone is overindebted.
Tell me why NZ/Australia have some of the highest land/property prices in the world, yet particularly in NZ’s case we have mediocre incomes to fund it. Must be a policy problem, espcially when we don’t have a large population or a land shortage.
In the same breath you think Chch can fund a new fantasy railway station in the middle of the CBD requiring massive land repurchase.
And I challenge you to actually compare the stats for Christchurch youth crime to most of Australia.
Enlighten us.
And it’s people like yourself living ins smug denial that’s caused it and isn’t doing anything about it.
And I suppose you are doing something from the ivory tower in which you reside?
Been Benuane
January 31, 2012
Why should I the one to enlighten you when I haven’t made any outlandish claims about youth crime being worse in Australia than Christchurch?
Why should I do anything about Christchurch’s ignored festering shortcomings (which you suddenly seem to have given up pretending don’t exist) when I don’t even live there? it’s no skin off my nose anyway. I just wish you’d drop the silly, smug and completely unjustified attitude.
And you’ve completely misunderstood what I meant. You haven’t appreciated the wider effects of NZ’s absurd over-investment in property such as; NZ’s chronic underinvestment in productive business? the contribution to inflation? or the brain-drain?
NZ’s luck in being isolated from much of the GFC has nothing to do with anything.
MrV
January 31, 2012
“Why should I the one to enlighten you when I haven’t made any outlandish claims about youth crime being worse in Australia than Christchurch?”
I was referring to random violent offences (stabbings etc). Having lived in Melbourne and family in Sydney I can assure you many neighbourhoods are not as safe as here, which can restrict things you let young kids do on their own.
Why should I do anything about Christchurch’s ignored festering shortcomings (which you suddenly seem to have given up pretending don’t exist) when I don’t even live there? it’s no skin off my nose anyway. I just wish you’d drop the silly, smug and completely unjustified attitude.
Then why do you bother commenting if you are so clearly uninterested in the subject of Chch?
“And you’ve completely misunderstood what I meant. You haven’t appreciated the wider effects of NZ’s absurd over-investment in property such as; NZ’s chronic underinvestment in productive business? the contribution to inflation? or the brain-drain?”
I understand this completely, if you had paid attention to other comments on this blog regarding unintended consequences of misallocation of capital toward property.
bismarck
January 31, 2012
Your arguments make no sense at all Been – And I might add that your comments are waaaay off topic.
Back towards the general direction of the discussion… Yes I’ll agree that Christchurch does have some shortcomings… but in the day that the decisions were made… take the city centre’s one-way street system for example… they were installed (early 1970′s) in a day when the automobile was king and was seen as being the future of modern mankind’s way of travelling about. In the 1960′s transportation plan for Christchurch, there was a rather elaborate “American-style” plan for motorways all across the city. They started building these in what is now known as the Northern Motorway near Kaiapoi to the north of the city.
Was New Zealand “backward” then? No… we were doing nothing different to what American cities were [still] doing, and nothing different to what European and Australian cities were doing either. That was what we did then. There is nothing “backward” about this because we didn’t have the benefit of hindsight.
In the 1980′s, most of those “motorway” plans were either cancelled permanent, downsized or deferred. And by the time the Mid-1990′s came about, it was thought that pretty much none of the original 1960′s plan for motorways would ever be needed due to changing traffic patterns and the growing influence of public transport.
So if Christchurch was “backward” as you put it, we’d have revived the transport plan from the 1960′s – we’re not… we are building modern highways that are far more sensitive to the urban and semi-rural environment around them, they are built with local ecology in mind – not like the “backward” years of the 1960s.
As for urban sprawl, there will always be some demand for greenfield land, and therefore we’ll always have a need for some amount of urban sprawl. But if you have a look at the last 20 years of urban development, you’ll actually find considerable amount of “infilling” of those larger “backward” quarter-acre sections. Many will have been divided in half, while others will have a whole set of as many as 10 townhouses. There is nothing “backward” in this, and it’s developments like that which will actually help to increase the likelihood that Public Transport will gain some traction.
So Been, you are completely ignorant if you think that Christchurch is backward… Sure, it’s not perfect, but Christchurch has a far better urban development policy (since the mid-2000′s) called the “Urban Development Strategy” than what it has ever had – It’s a blueprint for the city development for the next 30 years. Yes, some of that will need adjusting now that the quakes have changed some things, but the frameworks are still there. And you’ll be surprised to see that much of this is directed at “containing” urban sprawl rather than letting it go wild. Again, there is nothing that is “backward” in this other than your self-serving opinion.
So I’d challenge you to find something in the city’s Urban Development Strategy that is what you call “backward”. Just because we build a motorway, it does not mean that we are backward. I can almost guarantee that I could look at any sizeable country in Google Earth and find a “motorway” development that has been built in the last 5 years… Does that mean they are all backward?
And as for your comments about crime and poverty – For the most part, you’ll find Christchurch’s crime rate relatively low compared to most western cities, and reasonably favourably in most regards to other NZ cities too. I challenge you to prove otherwise (and I don’t expect you to come back with a ‘single’ figure quoted from a single year either – show us figures that show recent historic averages over say the last 10 years).
Been Benuane
February 3, 2012
I’m not going to bother continuing this tangent these small-minded Cantabs keep dragging- out, except to say that it’s very hilarious how Bismark is unaware of the fact that the USA and Australia (especially) are by the standards of Europe and the Orient also quite socially backward. Or that he think backwardness is only due to motorways (and really NZ’s roading infrastructure is actually generally pretty good).
Or how oblivious he is to his own obvious backwardness and ignorance about the wider world. Oh yes NZ excels, in exactly what again? economy? nope. Science and Technology? nope. Politics and social trends? nope. Lifestyle and living standards? nope. Music, the arts, cuisine, cinema, literature, any cultural? hahaha definitely not.
I mean migrants from other countries were so disillusioned with Christchurch and what it really is (as opposed to the delusion of what the resident there would have you believe it is) that they’ve started up a forum and a weblog to rubbish all of NZ.
MrV
February 3, 2012
Oh I see the “standards of Europe”.
Are these the same europeans who have basically been fighting each other for the last 400 years, in recent history being propped up by the so called “socially backward” USA.
And will requiring propping up again financially over the future of the euro.
What other nation of only 4 million people has/is/have been:
* First to Split the atom.
* First to give woman the vote.
* First to Climb Everest
* Invented (Hamilton) Jet, Britten motorcycle etc
* Win/Defend Americas Cup using homegrown sailing technology/skill
* Produced a film trilogy grossing over $2.5 billion (saving New Line cinema in the process).
* Highly regarded internationally for work ethic.
Plus a legion of other achievments:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand%27s_Top_100_History_Makers
To say we have no culture, and for a young country (less than 200 years) I would say our culture is progressing quite well.
You seeking to compare us to the 700 million populace of Europe or 3.5 billion populace of Asia which are both far more ancient civilisations is quite odd really.
Been Benuane
February 3, 2012
How is Europe more “propped up” by the USA than NZ? what an enormously ignorant statement, and one that ignores that NZ was propped up by the UK prior to 1973. How is 400 years ago relevant? face it: today Europe is at the cutting edge of social zeitgeists while America is comparatively backward.
* When Rutherford split the Atom NZ was a Domain of the British empire, as it can be seen as as much British. That was over 100 years ago, anything recent?
* Giving women the vote is more reflective of the shot-gun frontier state NZ was than any social progressiveness. Also over 100 years ago. When the USA was founded it was founded by men at the cutting-edge of social trends, liberals and Deists. Now they’re stuck with religious fundamentalism and prudishness.
* Hillary was part of a British expedition. Could NZ do the expedition alone? of course not!
* The Jet boat is a genuine, but the Britten motorcycle is a joke mention. So that’s ONE invention. Many others? compared to most nations?
* America’s cup is in one sport that is at best middle in most country’s and minor in the vast majority. Scraping the bottom of the barrel there.
* WORK ETHIC?! hahahaha would this be why many Aussies and Brits won’t hire Kiwis anymore? what a load of hilarious rubbish, I know of few places slacker and more “laid back” than NZ. Falling academic achievements and standards and mroe and more lost souls as youth. Germany, South Africa, Eastern Europe have reputations for work ethic not NZ. Oh but I know, as with Christchurch’s general poor social stats you’re going to pretend otherwise.
Less than 200 year history? what a cheap cop-out! Australia has its own cultural identity, as does Singapore, Canada, South Africa, etc. But instead NZ just adopts someone else’s culture, currently USA and Australia, previously the UK. Because NZ society lacks the confidence to be so brash and instead focuses on sports of minor wider importance like Rugby. Face it; even NZ’s best offerings in food is an adaption of British pies and Fish-and-chips.
Been Benuane
February 3, 2012
Sorry meant to say:
“is at best middle in some country’s and minor in the vast majority.”
MrV
February 3, 2012
“face it: today Europe is at the cutting edge of social zeitgeists”
Ah ha ha ha ha ha. Great laughs. Lets stay tuned to see what happens to their insolvent banking system shall we?
Needless to say I’m sure the youth are enjoying this ‘social zeitgeist’. All very well if you are part of the elites in Europe, but its not the full picture is it?
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2012/02/youth-unemployment-across-europe.html
I didn’t say 400yrs ago, I said ‘for the last 400 years’.
I mean just look at some of the madness Europe is resonsible for.
Anyone being honest here would see many of them as savages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe#1900-1945
I see you’re just going to dismiss virtually anything a NZer has achieved … OK
I would say NZ has far better acceptance/acknowledgement of its culture compared to Australia and its Aboriginal population. (Although we are not perfect by any stretch.)
For starters there are no ads on TV to sponsor children for $1 a day like World Vision does with aboriginal children.
Been Benuane
February 4, 2012
I’m wondering if MrV and Bismark actually understand what backwardness is.
How does the financial crisis (caused by US banks) change the fact that the USA is socially backward compared to Europe? does this mean that suddenly the death penalty, sexual prudishness, desire to see evolution banned from schools and widespread bigotry/intollerence will suddenly disappear from the USA?
And I seem to detect an anti-European attitude from you? could you have a chip on your shoulder?
And what has Australia’s record on indigenous rights got to do with anything especially considering how much NZ mimics Australia now? and is NZ’s record of treatment REALLY anything to be proud of? “not as bad” still admits that it was bad doesn’t it?
MrV
February 3, 2012
Just back on topic (for once).
You need to correct your article, Hugh Pavletich ‘was’ a property developer, retired from commercial property work mid-2004. Spent 8 yrs doing public policy work voluntarily.
See comment.
http://www.interest.co.nz/property/57746/department-building-and-housing-recommends-policy-changes-make-it-easier-build-medium#comment-668479
jhumm
February 4, 2012
Interesting. Amended slightly.
While I am here, can we please take this ridiculous debate somewhere else? This is not directed at you MrV, but is a general request. It is well off topic, completely idiotic and painful to read through.
bismarck
February 5, 2012
Been you have no idea what you are talking about – Europe is at the Cutting Edge of social zeitgeists…
Europe has had way more than it’s share of woes socially over the years – Both the World Wars were started in Europe… hardly something to show off as a showcase to Europe’s advances socially…
The only thing Europe is ahead of is that of how not to run an economy… Show me a Eurozone country that basically isn’t rooted economically. (and NO, Europe’s current woes have NOTHING to do with the US – The previous “GFC” in 2008 was certainly attributed to crappy US banks loaning out money to people to buy houses they couldn’t afford to pay for – something that many European banks weren’t much better at either)
Yes, I’ll agree that the US is backward too in many ways – but the fact they are still to worlds largest economy still leaves your opinion that they are backward otherwise.
Been, you still haven’t (after many comments reminding you) managed to state anything positive and constructive on this blog other than being critical about how backward we supposedly are. Why are we backward? How are we backward? What to other countries do that is better that would help Christchurch?
Oh… if you think I am ignorant Been, I would remind you of the fact that I lived in the UK for a couple of years (and no, I wasn’t living in Shepherds Bush in London), and travelled extensively throughout most of Europe for over a year. As since this blog ‘is’ about Transport, I’ll agree that Europe for the most part has an excellent public transport infrastructure (UK is crap though) and yes, light years ahead of New Zealands, Australia’s, the US or Canada’s. – But that in no way reflects on NZ being backward because NZ’s demographics and geography are completely different to Europe. I’ll say that yes, NZ does need better passenger rail services in parts of the country, but to simply say that NZ is backward without really quantifying your opinion is pretty immature and pathetic really. At least “I” have put up my comments and arguments and their reasons, and it’s your choice as it is for others to choose to agree or disagree – You haven’t put anything up on this blog that actually makes any sense at all.
Been Benuane
February 6, 2012
No it’s you has not clue what you’re talking about (typical insular Cantab). And that’s probably why you’re confused by what I’m saying, it’s too far outside the square for you.
The USA having a large economy has nothing to do with backwardness, and neither does anything from 100 years ago.
We’re talking about NOW, and now the USA is backward for example abortion is still illegal in many states. It is noticeably more backward than Europe (and the wealthier oriental nations) and the more intellectual Americans recognise this. And who does NZ copy (with faux anti-Americanism)?
And yes Christchurch is a backward place and the attitudes to urban planning and lifestyle reflect this. Christchurch is backward by NZ standards, and NZ is by first-world western standards a culturally backward country. I saw in the paper that NZ is now getting the SUV craze… …ten years after Australia and the USA and the reports that they’re actually dangerous and uneconomical. If that’s not backwardness then how would you describe it?
Rationally there is no reason why you should have such a problem with this. Frankly; you need to grow up and face this instead of being so hyper-sensitive and showing such false pride. I have given good examples of how and you keep dragging this out refusing to accept this point (and not backing up a thing you’ve said).
MrV
February 6, 2012
Theres no anti-European attitude from me, but your claims Europe is somehow socially superior is just so laughable given the true history.
The way europe actually functions, especially the European parliament out of Brussels is going to lead to some more bad outcomes in the future I’m afraid. The only thing the Europeans can agree on is to have another meeting, unfortunately this can kicking can only go on for so long.
Been Benuane
February 7, 2012
I never used the word “socially superior”, I said the USA is more cukturally backward as is NZ.
If you think it necessarily means the same thing then it might explain why you’re bringing up your warped version of the “true history” and this rather odd and inaccurate anti-European rant.
bismarck
February 6, 2012
Been… grow up – What has abortion got to do with this blog?
Come on… state your reasons why Christchurch is a backward place? Why is having the lifestyle that we (I) have so backward? I don’t have a problem with your comments, I’d just like you to back up your comments with some substance as to why you have this conclusion. So far, you haven’t really come up with anything.
How about I put it this way…. I grew up in a relatively poor, state house with a solo parent. Today, I’m 37 yrs old, have my own business which I think I work pretty hard at and employ 6 others. I live on the peripheral area of Christchurch on a lifestyle block and drive about 35 mins each way to work. I have an enjoyable lifestyle and enjoy the ease of access to Skifields, Hiking trails, beaches and other activities in my SUV… I have an above average income (about the 85th percentile, so not outlandishly high), married with one child, and have only low debt by NZ household standards. I’ve never had a single dime of inheritance and everything I own is because of the work I’ve put in to get me there. All of which I’ve had since 2004 when I moved back from the UK with only about NZ$5000 to my name.
In 2002-2004 when I lived in the UK, I worked hard there too, but found that the hard work wasn’t paying the rewards… only modest pay, ridiculously high taxes, high transport costs, high cost of (good healthy) food, crappy Cafe’s – the list goes on. On the other hand there were some excellent museums though. My 50 minutes I spent each way going to and from work was mostly spent crammed into a tube train like sardines with my nose buried in someones armpit. Yuk!.
All I can say is that Europe can have all the culture it likes, and all the trains and fancy public transport transport system they like… whichever way you gloss over the facts that Europe being so far more advanced, I personally (for the career choice I’ve made) enjoy a far better lifestyle that what I could achieve on a similar income almost anywhere in Europe.
Feel free to call me selfish or whatever you like… I don’t actually care… I have my conscience and that is that I work hard to enjoy the life I have and I pay my fair share of taxes in the process.
I will admit there is only one thing I don’t like about NZ is that it’s so far away from Europe as I do really enjoy Europe as a place to “visit”.
All the best Been – I’ll be thinking of you stuffed in that train while driving my BMX X5
Been Benuane
February 7, 2012
Bans on abortion are a good example of how culturally backward the USA is. And who does NZ emulate?
It doesn’t bother me that you’re dragging this out. You’re only making yourself look stupid and showing up your utter insularity and lack of intellect.
bismarck
February 8, 2012
That is an opinion of yours… not a fact. There is nothing right nor wrong with abortions… it depends entirely on context and more importantly your point of view.
I have my personal opinion on abortions too – but unlike you it seems, I actually open my eyes to both sides of the story. I understand and accept the viewpoints people have in support of abortion, and I also understand and accept the viewpoints people have against abortion too.
It doesn’t stop me from disagreeing with them in many cases, but I accept that they have an equal right to their own opinion and that their opinion isn’t “wrong” but “different from mine”. In this regard there is absolutely nothing wrong or backward in their thinking.
You should also remember that what might be acceptable in one country does not mean its acceptable in another. The use of the “C” word (slang) isn’t terribly offensive it seems in the UK where many people use it freely, but in the US, it’s still considered extremely offensive (hence it is rarely used). Again, there is nothing wrong with that. If anything, despite what you see on TV, Americans in many regards I hold a much higher opinion of and are generally much more polite and friendly than many Europeans whom I find quite arrogant and rude – like yourself come to think of it.
Been Benuane
February 10, 2012
How can anyone think Christchurch isn’t backward with stories about Oriental people being called “chinks” in public and people joking within earshot that they should be executed.
That wouldn’t even be socially acceptable in the North Island’s provincial cities.
MrV
February 11, 2012
Gee theres never been any racists in the NI either? How much of the vote did Winston and is merry band of racists get up there over the last decade.
Hell, Tauranga used to be his stronghold.
bismarck
February 10, 2012
I agree, calling Oriental people “chinks” in earshot isn’t acceptable at all and is a disgrace that people would even consider behaving like this. In that regard, this is very backward indeed. Of course it’s one thing to say such things, but its another to act upon such hate (such as in the case of the Nazis during the war etc… but that is a completely different story).
But a couple of stories on the net about this sort of behavior doesn’t really reflect the general behavior of the population here. The actions of these sorts of people are no different to rather similar incidents toward migrant and minority populations in most western countries…. Pakistani’s in the UK, Nigerians in France, Blacks in the US…. the list goes on. Of course it doesn’t stop their either… appalling behavior like this is often directed at all manor of minority groups including gays, anti-abortionists, greenies, you name it – None of which is acceptable in my opinion.
Still, I think that if you use this sort of argument as your entire basis for us being more backward then I think you are being a little short sighted.