The beach thing

I haven’t got excited over the beach buying thing.It won’t affect me, apart from the minuscule effect of Government forking out a few hundred thousand for it.

Good on those who campaigned and donated, they will be pleased with the result.

In the end it was a private-public partnership, with the Government doing a Morgan and getting a cheap (ish) bit of land thanks to public donations.

Is this a one-off or will it set a precedent for more attempts to purchase land, pushing for Government assistance?

The Herald says Beach appeal a triumph for crowdfunding – yeah, I guess, sort of, but what will be the next Nek Minit?

I don’t know whether the Awaroa purchase is a BIG THING or a flash in the sand.

Leave a comment

24 Comments

  1. Oliver

     /  25th February 2016

    This is just an example of compulsive shopping. People saw the pretty pictures and let their emotions get the best of them.

    The reality is that the land isn’t worth what they paid for it.

    How many of those that donated haven’t even been to that part of the country let alone that particular beach? And how many will ever visit that beach given the inaccessibility?

    My guess is less than .2 %.

    Reply
    • Patzcuaro

       /  25th February 2016

      I chipped $50 in, I’ve never been there & probably never will but I thought it was a good concept & the instigators deserved support.

      The government can’t purchase every bit of coastline that comes on the market and probably made the correct initial call on its conservation value.

      I happen to have been lucky enough to grow up by the coast and it pushed the right buttons for me. Taxation is compulsory this was optional. Well done to all those involved.

      Reply
      • Oliver

         /  25th February 2016

        Beaches can’t be privately owned. The entire coast belongs to public so all you bought was a small patch of goress Bush.

        Reply
        • mrMan

           /  25th February 2016

          Two words: Riparian Rights.

          Reply
        • Rod

           /  25th February 2016

          I gave $25 even though I will probably never visit it.

          Won’t DoC remove the gorse and plant the land with native trees?

          Reply
        • Oliver

           /  25th February 2016

          I would say it would be too sandy to plant trees and gorse is really difficult to completely eradicate. Also the DOC has so many other projects in the pipeline that it could be decades before any money is spent on this beach. I think a few people will be suffering from buyers regret.

          Reply
          • Patzcuaro

             /  25th February 2016

            You can’t please all of the people all of the time and some people you can never please.

            I think the country as a whole got a good vibe out of it, nobody was forced to contribute except maybe the government (taxpayer) in the end.

            $50 buys about 4 bottles of wine or 2 dozen bottles of beer, it would do me good to have a dry month.

            Reply
          • Oliver

             /  25th February 2016

            It’s too bad that people didn’t come together for a Nobel cause like climate change and inequality.

            Reply
          • mrMan

             /  25th February 2016

            Gorse is easy to deal with. In the hills around Porirua gorse used to dominate until DOC got the local schoolchildren to make mud balls filled with native seeds, when they were dry the kids whacked them into the gorse with tennis racquets.
            Gorse is a nursery plant, in that it protects seedlings as they grow , and then dies out as they take it’s light and water.
            See also the Rimutaka hills, used to be yellow, now they’re green. Granted there is still gorse growing, but nowhere near as much, and it’s not the dominant plant.

            Reply
        • kittycatkin

           /  25th February 2016

          The entire coast is not publicly owned, The Queen’s Chain is the strip between low and high tide, not the whole beach.

          Reply
          • Oliver

             /  25th February 2016

            Kitty you’re killing me 🙂 seriously 🙂

            That strip between the low and high tide is the beach lol.

            Reply
          • mrMan

             /  25th February 2016

            The queens chain, is a ‘chain’ length (20m) from the high tide mark, where it exists.
            The strip between high and low tide is the foreshore.
            And riparian rights stretch right to the waters edge or the centreline of a river.
            The property in question has riparian rights, I believe.

            Reply
          • Patzcuaro

             /  25th February 2016

            Riparian rights on costal land means that you own down to the mean (average) high spring tide mark. If you have riparian rights and you subdivide the land you usually loose the riparian rights as the council takes a 20 metre strip above the mean high spring tide mark.

            A Spring tide is when distance from low tide to high tide is greatest at the new moon & full moon. I found this article in the Herald.

            http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=3517579

            Reply
    • Pickled Possum

       /  25th February 2016

      Oh who cares Oliveer ….. if you don’t visit the beach after putting $$$ in the putea.
      lest we forget …….. It doesn’t belong to those people who made palm trees out of compacted sand floating in the moana and there may/can be some adultery going on as well.

      Your mokopuna might go there one day to see what happened when many different people had combined positive power.
      How a sand spit can be sold and brought is more the confusing scenario.

      Reply
      • kittycatkin

         /  25th February 2016

        Do you imagine that Oliver put anything towards this ? I don’t.

        Reply
        • Pickled Possum

           /  25th February 2016

          I can imagine anything I want kCatk this is the internet.
          Did you make a koha yourself ?

          WAtch out here comes ya Man. 🙂

          Reply
  2. There are undoubtedly positive things to come out of the ‘beach thing.’ We need those community feel good things. Had John Key realised the possibilities to piggy back in on it he probably would have been there. “Richie flies PM to golden sands” splashed over everything would have been worth mining.

    Advisers may have decided it was better to have a slight hands off at the moment and just chug along with Maggie. Maybe we can look forward to the fly in to a ceremonial signing over of the lode.

    An acclaimed special needs programme at a school in our region is doing so well it is attracting pupils from far and wide outside its zone. The heavy demand of resources to achieve its good work means less resources for the ‘not special needs’ kids – the ordinary kids from ordinary homes who like their trips to ordinary beaches.

    I wonder if those charged with being effective with those children and being prudent with the resources to achieve the best, think the money the taxpayers put into the beach is as it has been described – a “mere” $350,000?

    Reply
  3. kittycatkin

     /  25th February 2016

    The Government was probably damned if they did, damned if they didn’t-if they’d bought it outright, the nay-sayers would have squawked that it was poor use of public money, if they did nothing, the nay-sayers would have squawked because they let it fall into private hands. The mean-spirited are always with us.

    Reply
  4. Pythagoras

     /  25th February 2016

    I have no problem with a few people sentimentally giving $50, $100 or $1000 or whatever, because they like the images of sandcastles and the smell of sausages cooking at the beach.

    But do wake up NZ. While Awaroa is a nice beach, there are much more important issues about the ownership of land in NZ.

    Did many Chinese or other foreign purchasers put in tenders for this little piece of sand and scrub at Awaroa? My guess is that the serious overseas investors with a couple of mill to spend would be more strategic about purchasing land in NZ. Their preference will be for NZ’s productive land – farms, forests, power companies, etc. With such foreign ownership comes foreign control over the productive assets. And once sold to overseas buyers, the farms, forests, power companies, etc., may never come back on the market again.

    The answer is to lease the land, if you must, for 50 or perhaps 99 years. But do not allow foreign interests to own productive land in NZ.

    Reply
    • Tau toko that Pythagoras. And your comment is to say nothing of the Crown’s disputed initial acquisition of Awaroa from Maori, apparently for the NZ Company’s settlement of the Nelson district. From The Herald, Wednesday 17 Feb – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11591302

      The land would be better off if it were returned to Maori, he [Paul Morgan of Wakatu Incorporation] said, and it had been acquired dubiously by the Crown in the first place.

      Mr Morgan said the organisation kept an “enormous” archival record of the land and its history – including the property at Awaroa Inlet. [The issue of Awaroa Inlet was a good opportunity to debate the topic]

      He said he was currently before the Supreme Court disputing the way in which land in the area was acquired by the Crown back in 1841 for the settlement of the Nelson district by the New Zealand Company. “Awaroa Inlet is just a small element of a bigger issue.”

      The successful Give-a-Little campaign might set a precedent for Kiwis buying back publicly owned assets that successive governments have sold off, bailed out, sold off again and/or SOE’d over the last 30+ years. Since we still have moderate taxation here, thanks to GST and various cumulative taxes, he website can change its name to Give-a-Lot!

      Maybe the answer was for us Pakeha to lease the land too!?

      Reply
    • Oliver

       /  25th February 2016

      We stole the land from the Maori now the Chinese are stealing it from us whites. This is just the result of the free market isn’t.

      Reply
  5. Alan Wilkinson

     /  25th February 2016

    I’ve done the Able Tasman track but I didn’t donate. In a 60km thrre to five day tramp that little strip of private land is irrelevant in the scheme of things and there is plenty of beach access already. But it’s a feel good exercise except for the taxpayer.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: