Whinging Dunedin airport

The management of the airport in Dunedin are complaining about people avoiding parking fees by parking in the nearby village of Momona instead of in the airport car park. It turns out that Momona is a private village that is entirely owned by the airport, including the roads. While you might think that this gives the airport the right to whinge about people parking there, the article goes on to say that the airport is considering putting up signs in Momona informing people that it is private property. In other words, they have made no effort before now to inform the general public that the roads in Momona are not public roads.

I've driven to Dunedin airport many times (I used to live in Dunedin) and I know that there are no signs near or in Momona that say anything to the effect that Momona is private property, or that the parking there is for residents only. They are complaining to the newspapers and police without having made any effort to inform the public of the facts. This is like complaining that no-one came to my party when I hadn't told anyone about my party.

They should instead have put the signs up first, then, if people were still parking there illegally after several months, complained to the papers. This way they just look like idiots.

Children in drugs houses

Another article where police decry children living in a house where drugs are present. In this case, the drugs were cannabis plants.

But the thing is, the vast majority of children in New Zealand live in a house with drugs present: alchohol and tobacco. But despite the fact that alcohol and tobacco are much more harmful to users and society than cannabis, the police say nothing about it.

We need a national drugs policy that is evidence-based, that is based on reality rather than ideology. So many lives have been destroyed by the prohibition of a plant that is, on the balance of evidence, fairly benign, that we simply cannot continue as we have been. Something must be done, the drug laws must change.

MPs setting their own salary - in secret

Yet another thing to get grumpy about is the salaries paid to Members of Parliament (MPs). This article tells how the New Zealand parliament is investigating a bill that would put more power in their hands to set their own salaries. While this is already ridiculous (I wish I could set my own salary, unfortunately I can't and have to negotiate based on my performance - you know, actually work for my money) the hearing is being held in secret.Now, I'm all for paying MPs well, as a preventative measure against corruption (New Zealand has very low rates of corruption, which is one of the things I love about it), but as the people who employ the MPs, and pay their salaries via taxes, we have the right to hear what is being said when they set their salaries. We should have a right to have a say in the salaries directly, but in one of the few cases of consistent parliamentary unity, MPs have always retained that power for themselves.

Stupidity from the Immigration department

Will Ricketts is a member of the band The Phoenix Foundation. Despite the group being flown around the world to promote New Zealand music, Ricketts is being denied New Zealand citizenship. This is despite the fact that he has lived in New Zealand since the age of two. The reason? Over the last five years, he hasn't spent at least 240 days of each year in New Zealand. Because he was being flown around the world to promote New Zealand music. He has been told that he can pay $470 to appeal the decision, but the Immigration department will fight it anyway.

So, the government is happy to use him to promote New Zealand, but don't want him as a New Zealand citizen. This isn't just a case of the right hand not knowing what the left is doing, it's a case of the right hand belonging to a completely different person on a completely different planet! This is obviously a case where discretion should be applied, yet the idiots in immigration refuse to use it.

This brings to mind two of my favourite aphorisms:

1) Slavish adherence to rules and regulation is a sign that one has nothing better with which to occupy one's mind

2) You don't need common sense when you have rules

Police screw up, refuse to accept blame

A brief post about this story: the police obtained a warrant to search the computers of someone suspected of downloading kiddie porn; they waited too long to execute it, so even though they found illegal material, the guy has walked free because the search was illegal. Police refuse to accept that they were responsible for the stuff-up.

This is yet another warrant stuff-up on the part of the police, and yet again they are denying responsibility. If we are going to grant the police the power to destroy peoples' lives then we have the right to expect them to perform with the highest levels of competence. Otherwise, they are a threat to our liberty, rather than the guardians of it.

On another matter, I remember seeing Greg O'Conner on TV as the police association spokesman when I was in high school, and I'm closing in on 40 now: isn't it time for someone else to have a go at that job? Someone who has a bit more credibility than he does?

Car clampers

This article talks about a clamped motorist who turned the tables on the over-zealous clamper who put no less than three clamps on his car. Somehow detaching the clamps, he drove off, then texted the clamper saying it would cost him $150 to get the clamps back.

The motorist was charged by the police, but discharged by the court. Even the police prosecutor and judge said that three clamps on one car was over the top.

But this raises a larger issue of the point of clamping. Let's say that a car is occupying a parking spot illegally. Towing the car away frees up that spot for others to use (hopefully legally). But clamping a car has the exact opposite effect: the car cannot be moved without removing the clamps. This ties up the parking space even longer, as the driver has to contact the clamper, wait for them to return to the car, hand over the money (if they can even get the cash), then wait while the clamp is removed.

Clamps are entirely a mechanism for generating revenue.

Peter Tohu (the motorist in this story) is my Hero of the Week!

Moaning property investors

This article is about landlords complaining about how long it can take to get a hearing with the tenancy tribunal. They are asking for government action to protect their investments. I have a couple of problems with their argument:

Firstly, the article itself states that many complaints aren't forwarded to the tribunal because the complainants (the landlords) don't include supporting evidence. So, basically, the landlords just expect the tribunal to rule in their favour, because they ask them to. They don't seem to appreciate that it is a court of sorts, and therefore evidence must be produced.

Secondly, the landlords seem to be expecting the government to remove the risk in their investment choices. Let me make this very clear: the risk with any investment lays with the investor! Basically, the landlords are asking the government to transfer this risk away from them.

The idea that property is a low-risk investment is a myth promoted by greedy real estate agents and greedier property speculators. If you want a risk-free investment for your money, put it in the bank. In fact, the whole concept of property being a low-risk investment is what has driven the price of housing to unreachable heights, while simultaneously jamming the world economy in the toilet for the last four years.

Meanwhile, this article describes how some landlords are squeezing poor tenants and using the accommodation supplement to jack up rents: when the landlord finds out that the tenant is getting the accommodation supplement, they simply increase the rent by that amount. In other words, tax payer money is being used to enrich greedy landlords.

Can anyone tell me why we should listen to landlords' complaints of hardship?