- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Monday, September 12, 2011

Why is Len Brown handling public transport fiasco so poorly?



UPDATE: Gay Bashings in Auckland as well as public transport meltdown - who said the Rugby World Cup wasn't inclusive?

You know shit is messed up when right wing baby faced assassin Cameron Brewer is getting in hits over the RWC public transport fiasco.

I've been joking that Aucklandtransportisshit# would become the highest trending tweet on twitter for about a year now, the hate crime that is Auckland's poorly funded public transport system is just another fail mark against NZs attempt to be a first world country.

Central Government have taken $7 billion in transport tax from Aucklanders in 15 years, yet have only re-invested half of that back in Aucklands infrastructure. The Auckland SuperCity was supposed to wrestle this power back, but because National's candidate didn't win, it's Wellington once again robbing Auckland.

What makes right wing baby faced assassin Cameron Brewers attempt to place blame and thwart Len's attempt at restoration so audacious is that it has been his mates in power who have been doing all they can to underfund Auckland public transport while pouring billions into motorways.

Steven Joyce, the Transport Minister who when appointed as Transport Minister had to admit he had never caught any public transport as an adult, has gone amazingly quiet since the RWC fiasco hasn't he? Which is strange because until then he was always telling Auckland that public transport like the electrified rail loop wasn't a priority and that despite the billions he's wasting on roads no one will be able to afford to drive on once peak oil makes private transport as affordable as liquid gold, Aucklanders should stump up for their own rail loop even though Wellington owes us from decades of underfunding.

To have right wing baby faced assassin Cameron Brewer stomp and pout over public transport while his Government mates rip public transport to pieces is like Paul Henry bemoaning the lack of intelligent debate in current affairs.

By trying to grandstand and thwart Len, Counsellor Brewer shows once again the he doesn't represent Aucklands interests, he represents Wellingtons interests, and their interests are served by keeping Key, Joyce and McCully as far away from media scrutiny over service failure of Aucklands ridiculously underfunded infrastructure as an inner city bus is to keeping it's timetable.

Which is why Len's response to date is so mystifyingly weak. It isn't his fault that he inherited a busted and broken joke of a public transport and he has fought Joyce tooth and nail for an electrified rail loop. It was the same thing over the Statutory Maori Board, that was Rodney Hides fault, not Len's, yet the Mayors office never fights back. The meek might inherit the earth Len, but the bloody angry articulating public fury wins elections and a weak Mayor serves only one term.

Meanwhile, the report on this public transport fiasco is due out Tuesday, so expect it late Friday.

FACEBOOK
TWITTER

12 Comments:

At 12/9/11 11:16 am, Blogger AAMC said...

I have to say, with the current melt down of the global economy and the failure of neo-liberalism and with your example of the transport fiasco, the Left have been given serious opportunities to take hold of the narrative, and they consistently fail to step up.

It's time all opposed to the Corporatocracy exhibited some grit! If not now, when?

"Why are the failings of capitalism only being exposed by the right?"

http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/21/ed-miliband-capitalism-rightwing-critics?cat=commentisfree&type=article

 
At 12/9/11 11:55 am, Blogger mickysavage said...

Agreed Bomber. I think that there are two reasons why Len is handling it the way he is. Firstly he feels responsible. He is such a gentle soul and takes his position so seriously that he would not dream of wiping his hands and blaming someone else for what happened.

Secondly the negotiations with Wellington are intense. The inner city loop is still a possibility and he is holding the line on changes to the MUL. He is being extraordinarily discrete on this issue in the hope that he will be able to sway the Government with the quality of his argument and the dignity of his response.

Fat chance really ...

 
At 12/9/11 1:05 pm, Blogger bchapman said...

Why is nobody asking about the ridiculously over-hyped party Central and The Cloud?

Why was it chosen as Party Central, which we were all told to get down to, to drink and be merry when it was known that it could only a small fraction of those turning up.

What did they expect the remaining people to do? To stand around and marvel at the wonderful structure built by McCully on the other side of the red fence?

Len Brown cannot be blamed for this- it was adeal stitched up by Mike Lee/Key and McCully in secrecy (the old ARC councillors were not even told), when we all assumed the much larger and more appropriate Aotea Square was being designed for that very purpose. There is a lot more to come out over this.

 
At 12/9/11 5:48 pm, Blogger Candid said...

Actually Brewer represents rate payers. Do you pay rates bomber, or do you have a landlord subsidize your accommodation?

 
At 12/9/11 9:15 pm, Blogger Bomber said...

Oh Candid, I love you big brave right wing trolls the most, I bet you live in a gated little right wing world where you pretend the land owners dont factor rates into rents and argue the rich shouldn't be taxed either.

I think you would be better to stop hiding your identity and join the Tea Party movement.

 
At 12/9/11 9:36 pm, Blogger Candid said...

Actually bomber given that I pay over $3000 a year in rates yet you want to steal more from me to fund a train set I will never catch and get no benefit from please STFU.

And given that the Rent paid doesnt cover the mortgage on most investment properties, the land lord tops up the payment, leaving the land lord to fund themselves the rates.

rent = $400 pw
Mortgage = $500 PW
Insurance = $500 a year
Rates = $2000 a year

a massive loss to the land lord, who funds the rates themselves.

Who is really paying the rates? Take rates off property, and charge individual

 
At 12/9/11 10:27 pm, Blogger Bomber said...

Actually you right wing little Troll, people paying rents have those rates built into them, and those people who are living in urban areas forgo a car so public transport can maximize the productivity of motorways so really all you've done is prove the little gated world view right wing trolls like you inhabit.

I think we all love how you don't factor the capital gain in that equation. Only right National Party Shire Volk believe the type of Tea Party sanctimonious 'poor me' crap.

User pays theology has no place in the real world Candid.

 
At 12/9/11 11:36 pm, Blogger mickysavage said...

um Candid I pay about that in rates a year and catch PT very rarely. But I wish there was more PT, this would mean less clogged motorways. And I don't mind paying something to help my fellow kiwi. Times are tough and we should help each other.

 
At 13/9/11 6:58 am, Blogger Candid said...

Clearly you are not a property investor bomber.

Most rentals are run at a loss. that means that the money you pay in rent doesnt even cover the mortgage, let alone rates, insurance, repairs and maintenance, body corp fees, etc. The renter is not paying the full cost of their accommodation. Thus the landlord tops up with the necessary funds. So given that what you pay doesnt even pay the mortgage, the land lord needs to add sufficient money to pay the rates. No problem with this, there are people who cant afford a house.

My problem is what you are saying is you want 'other' people to pay more so you can use the trains. The capital gain argument is nonsense, we arent talking speculation here, and there has been no capital gain in auckland apartments for 5 years.

The only reason you dont want rates taken off property is that you arent prepared to pay more. Yet you call the right selfish.

 
At 13/9/11 10:51 am, Blogger Duval said...

Oh my, Mr Candid... those despicable tenants do so make ones skin crawl don't they! Thank heavens we have such salt of the earth philanthropic landlords as yourself to so generously subsidize the housing of filthy peasants. Lets not draw attention to the deliberate negative-gearing of these "investment properties" which allows those on higher incomes who can afford to "top up the payments" to offset their "losses" against their personal income tax, effectively yielding a tax free income, unless you're really savvy and your income substantial enough and you can actually get tax PAID to you as compensation of your "losses ...all the while still enjoying tax funded services such as law and order to name but one, although given it's always the poor who predominantly rent that seem to commit crimes it's only fair and just they're the ones picking up the tab for such "services" ...user pays and all. Not to mention the capital gains via the ever-increasing values on property is all the while steadily increasing ones nett worth and wealth culminating in an eventual freehold asset to either supply a steady stream of passive income, be sold for a tidy tax-free lump-sum, or be "re-leveraged" to continue the cycle. If attention were to be drawn to these indelible aspects of altruistic landlordism it would threaten the sanctimonious self-righteous elitist sense of superiority that only money can buy... and when you're caught in the grip of a neurotransmitter narcotic narcissism addiction such as this, one must protect ones opium supply! So who is really subsidising who here??

 
At 13/9/11 5:07 pm, Blogger Candid said...

Answer me this. Are you bomber prepared to pay more to fund public transport.

 
At 14/9/11 1:06 am, Blogger Frank said...

"Clearly you are not a property investor bomber.

Most rentals are run at a loss. that means that the money you pay in rent doesnt even cover the mortgage, let alone rates, insurance, repairs and maintenance, body corp fees, etc. "

What absolute crap. I've never read such drivel in my life. (Well, actually, I have, on right wing Forums, but never mind.

Yes, Candid, I have invested in property. Yes, I know what constitutes outgoings. And claiming that landlords don't factor in those outgoings into rents is absurd.

Who else pays the mortage/rates/insurance? Pixies?

It can't be the landlord - they couldn't sustain a haemorrhage of money for any period of time. And multiply that by factors of whatever numbers of properties a landlord owns - and they'd be bankrupted pretty fast.

As usual, right wing fantasists know very little about realities of commerce...

 

Post a Comment

<< Home