|
Post by Brent George on Jun 11, 2018 20:14:57 GMT
I am not surprised at this 'development'. Stuff - 11-June-2018
Other than the political aspect of pressurising tardy landowners from clearing up their post-earthquake ruined properties, there are other 'benefits': - steady income stream for Council (=easing some burden on the ratepayers)
- making the landowners out to be the bad-guys
- flushing out the reasons behind putting the barriers in place?
- to protect the passing public?
- to delineate the danger zone
- to highlight the un-repaired building?
- to deliberately inconvenience the passing public?
- to enhance the income of the temporary fencing providers?
[li]distracting the public from the real argument (Council approval process delay?)[/li][li]keeping post-earthquake issues in the media spotlight?[/li][/ul]
But is it clear that Council have the right to force the issue limiting temporary occupation within "their" road reserve?
|
|