From Sue Grey
https://www.facebook.com/sue.grey.9469/posts/889118478310590
Government SNA landgrab..
Here's an extract from a template reply someone sent me.
This is a draft template for feedback on the attempt by local councils and central government, to take control of large portions of private land in New Zealand.
To CEO of Relevant Council -
In response to your intention to make claims of ownership upon my land under the guise of environmental protection in the form of an SNA; I strongly OPPOSE any form of centralised, bureaucratic management of private land for the following reasons:
1- The historic failure of regional and local council to protect the land and the waterways.
2- The past and continuing poisoning of DOC reserves and crown land with the toxic chemical, known as 1080.
3- The continuing promotion and use of known, toxic glyphosates in parks, schools, public places and along road verges.
4- The failure of government agencies to encourage landowners to reduce the use of toxic chemicals for pesticide and herbicide control.
5- The failure of Councils to incentivise landowners to transition to sustainable methods of food production and land management.
6- The well documented failure of DOC to protect wildlife in conservation areas from the toxic effects of aerial dropped, 1080.
7- The active encouragement of government agencies to induce farmers to clear native bush and plant mono-cultures of radiata pine with the ensuing degradation of the land, silting of harbours and increased flooding events.
8- The increased strangling of farmers with compliance regulations which stifles innovation, increases the cost of production and forces sale of land to foreign interests who have no cultural or natural ties to the land
I would also add:
9 - the proposed nationalisation of water services and once well respected habitat protection advocates such as fish and game, further dis-empowers important individual and community input into decisions which affect us all.
10- The centralisation of power removes important checks and balances on abuse of power
11-the international laws against expropriation of private property are further good reasons to stop this imminent land grab by our elected representatives without any social licence or public interest mandate.
https://www.facebook.com/sue.grey.9469/posts/889118478310590
Government SNA landgrab..
Here's an extract from a template reply someone sent me.
This is a draft template for feedback on the attempt by local councils and central government, to take control of large portions of private land in New Zealand.
To CEO of Relevant Council -
In response to your intention to make claims of ownership upon my land under the guise of environmental protection in the form of an SNA; I strongly OPPOSE any form of centralised, bureaucratic management of private land for the following reasons:
1- The historic failure of regional and local council to protect the land and the waterways.
2- The past and continuing poisoning of DOC reserves and crown land with the toxic chemical, known as 1080.
3- The continuing promotion and use of known, toxic glyphosates in parks, schools, public places and along road verges.
4- The failure of government agencies to encourage landowners to reduce the use of toxic chemicals for pesticide and herbicide control.
5- The failure of Councils to incentivise landowners to transition to sustainable methods of food production and land management.
6- The well documented failure of DOC to protect wildlife in conservation areas from the toxic effects of aerial dropped, 1080.
7- The active encouragement of government agencies to induce farmers to clear native bush and plant mono-cultures of radiata pine with the ensuing degradation of the land, silting of harbours and increased flooding events.
8- The increased strangling of farmers with compliance regulations which stifles innovation, increases the cost of production and forces sale of land to foreign interests who have no cultural or natural ties to the land
I would also add:
9 - the proposed nationalisation of water services and once well respected habitat protection advocates such as fish and game, further dis-empowers important individual and community input into decisions which affect us all.
10- The centralisation of power removes important checks and balances on abuse of power
11-the international laws against expropriation of private property are further good reasons to stop this imminent land grab by our elected representatives without any social licence or public interest mandate.
From Sue Grey
https://www.facebook.com/sue.grey.9469/posts/889118478310590
Government SNA landgrab..
Here's an extract from a template reply someone sent me.
This is a draft template for feedback on the attempt by local councils and central government, to take control of large portions of private land in New Zealand.
To CEO of Relevant Council -
In response to your intention to make claims of ownership upon my land under the guise of environmental protection in the form of an SNA; I strongly OPPOSE any form of centralised, bureaucratic management of private land for the following reasons:
1- The historic failure of regional and local council to protect the land and the waterways.
2- The past and continuing poisoning of DOC reserves and crown land with the toxic chemical, known as 1080.
3- The continuing promotion and use of known, toxic glyphosates in parks, schools, public places and along road verges.
4- The failure of government agencies to encourage landowners to reduce the use of toxic chemicals for pesticide and herbicide control.
5- The failure of Councils to incentivise landowners to transition to sustainable methods of food production and land management.
6- The well documented failure of DOC to protect wildlife in conservation areas from the toxic effects of aerial dropped, 1080.
7- The active encouragement of government agencies to induce farmers to clear native bush and plant mono-cultures of radiata pine with the ensuing degradation of the land, silting of harbours and increased flooding events.
8- The increased strangling of farmers with compliance regulations which stifles innovation, increases the cost of production and forces sale of land to foreign interests who have no cultural or natural ties to the land
I would also add:
9 - the proposed nationalisation of water services and once well respected habitat protection advocates such as fish and game, further dis-empowers important individual and community input into decisions which affect us all.
10- The centralisation of power removes important checks and balances on abuse of power
11-the international laws against expropriation of private property are further good reasons to stop this imminent land grab by our elected representatives without any social licence or public interest mandate.
