Housing that’s best of both worlds Investment boom
While I ameager and excited about the prospect of a new townhouse and what that’ll entail for Seatoun, I cannot help help but sympathisewith the concerns of Iain Macleod ( High anxiety over medium density (Dec 15).
When it comes to heritage sites and character areas, Wellington City Council has a long history of iconoclasm and neglect, seeming to prefer the cheapest option available rather than go out of its way to find a solution that satisfies both parties.
Please let me reiterate my firm belief that these townhouses would be to Seatoun’s benefit.
However, the fact that developer Kurt Gibbons andWellington’s new chief planning officer, Liam Hodgetts, seem to not have even bothered to do any form of community consultation (and instead unilaterally decided to go straight for demolition) smacks of the very same attitude they accuseMrMacleod and his compatriots of possessing.
If Mr Gibbonswere to simply redesign his townhouse plans to integrate the existing structure and its aesthetic design, I guarantee that he wouldn’t be facing the vitriolic resistancehe does now.
Rather than dismissing people’s concerns, wouldn’t it be far more productive toworkwith them and create something that is the best of both worlds? Luke Bonjers, Seatoun
Intensification concerns
High anxiety over medium density weighs the emotion and character of an area such as Seatoun against the perceived need for more housing.
It misses the far bigger story, which sits untold until investigative journalists lift the lid on council planning practice.
Greater Wellington Regional Council has had multiple reports and publications demonstrating Seatoun, Lyall Bay and Kilbirnie inhabitants are subject to high risk from tsunami, ground-shaking, liquefaction and seismic slope failure combined in the event of earthquake. These three areas should not be intensified.
Models show larger numbers will die if they are intensified. The planners have until now ignored this out of ignorance.
Let us hope they do not ignore it to follow the rhetoric thatwe need more houses at all costs. I say no to intensification in the unsafe areas.
I ama Nimby, specifically a ‘‘not in
Congratulations, ANZ – great leadership ( NZ’s biggest bank imposes stricter deposit requirements on property investors, Dec 15). Who else is seriously interested in the plight of first-home seekers? What is the point of blaming shortage of supply when the shortage is so significantly due to property investors?
Is it outside the Government’s ability to draw a sensible line between reasonable income from property investment and what is excessive relative to others’more fundamental needs? And a line between capital gains that could reasonably be tax-exempt and excessive gains that that ultimately deprive others?
Sure there would be arguments about where to draw the lines; but that’s no different from any other decisions related to taxation.
Peter Cullinane, Ashhurst
Warnings