Authorities have been trying for nearly a decade to acquire a 115-year-old building for city's new stadium. A legal battle to decide its future is about to kick off.
He set a date for a more substantial court hearing on August 21 and 22. Co-owner Roland Logan said they would take the case to trial if necessary, but hoped the Crown and council were “willing to negotiate a resolution to this issue” – either by incorporating it into the stadium design, or allowing them to shift it to another site at their own cost. “All we’re trying to do here is save one of the last heritage buildings left in Christchurch. “We are seeking a win-win scenario for the successful building of the new stadium, and the retention of an important iconic heritage building.”
STACY SQUIRES/Stuff
The fate of the NG building on Madras St is parlous due to plans for the new Christchurch stadium. (File photo)
The need to force acquisition of a more than century-old building on the site of Christchurch’s new stadium had become urgent because the owners refused to negotiate, a judge has been told. Land Information New Zealand (Linz) has given notice the NG building on Madras St is to be compulsorily acquired, but owners Sharon Ng and Roland Logan want it saved either by moving it or incorporating it in the new stadium design. It sits on the southwest corner of land earmarked for the city s multi-use arena.
In the Hutt Valley District Court, he was found guilty of doing an indecent act with intent to insult or offend. But a High Court judge has now reversed that decision, quashed the conviction, and said what Jessett did on that day, to that camera, did not constitute an indecent act. “That conclusion should not be taken by Mr Jessett or others as any form of approval of the conduct,” Justice Andru Isac said in his recent decision from the High Court in Wellington. Had the nature of the exposure been different, or the image of the act been clearer, the result of the appeal would likely have been very different, the judge said.
A key point is what Canada proposes to do with the revenue from the carbon tax. It s going to be divvied up evenly among Canadians and rebated back to them. So people with low carbon emissions will be better off, they ll get more back from the rebate than they pay in tax. But the high emitters pay more, preferably a lot more. This is the model used by British Columbia for quite a while now, and it has broad support there.
Another key point is that a carbon tax directly targets the behaviour we want to eliminate. None of the monkeying around trying to hide it as something else, or setting up weird trading schemes that imply some sort of right to pollute . Just the simple message that if you dump hazardous waste into the atmosphere, you have to pay, no ifs buts or maybes.