With the Christchurch City Council about to do a deal with failed property developer Dave Henderson in the matter of Chancery Lane, its worth reflecting on his disgraceful behaviour back in 2001.

Henderson, who continually accuses other people of drinking at the public trough, threatened to close Chancery Lane if the Christchurch City Council did not contribute to its upkeep.

Asked if he would close public access to Chancery Lane if the Council didn't front up with the money Hendo said: "It could mean that. "It (the closure) might be in five years or it could be two years - it depends on redevelopments in there.'

Hendo wanted a lot of cash from the Council. Indeed Council property manager Angus Smith was moved to comment in a report that Henderson's demands were "considered excessive".

And Hendo engaged in more of his trademark bullying when he built an unauthorized wooden fence across the middle of Chancery lane, blocking access to the AMP building, to start the ball rolling in the process of forcing the Council to agree to his demands.

Now, in 2008, the Christchurch City Council are about to do business with the same man who employed standover tactics against them some seven years ago.

I'm reliably informed that the Council have decided to make a deal with Henderson and an announcement can be expected in the next few days.

Mayor Sideshow Bob Parker left Christchrch for Beijiing yesterday to spend a week at the political travesty known as the Olympic Games. So he may well be still out of town when the proverbial hits the fan. Funny that.


  1. Just a couple of comments and what i believe to be a clarrification of one comment. Your comment that the fence in chancery lane was part of Hendersons council bullying from my memory is not correct. One understands the fence was erected because the owner of the AMP building had reneged on an agreement to erect a roof at the cathedral square end of chancery lane, rather than bullying the city council. the other comment i have is that one doubts the sale of chancery lane, to whoever, in itself will save Mr G. It might buy him time to pay off those currently wanting to liquidate property ventures and this is Daves game, he plays it better than most and one waits with baited breath to see what Smiths cranes and others do in three weeks. However your first blog "its all over for Henderson" is probably correct but only time will tell. I also want to discuss your comment regarding the city council doing business with someone who attempted to bribe them. The council may have a sound business reason for purchasing Chancery lane. I find it a stretch to believe the council would purchase it for any other reason. Again only time will tell. The only other comment relates to the councils calling center being in a Henderson owned building. One would like to know whether they were already tennants when Dave purchased the building and if so it may have been practicle to continue as it might have been the most appropriate outcome. If they werent then one assumes the council considered, for whatever reason, it to be the most appropriate outcome. Regardless of the reason the council should rightly make there decisions based on business reasons rather than related to the political beliefs, whether they be right or left wing, of those they deal with. However that being said there is no doubt those with political beliefs similar to Hendersons did cartwheels when sideshow bob became mayor. It was the failure of those standing against sideshow to inform the public of his nutcase beliefs as i know a lot who now realise they made a mistake voting for him. Also your comment that Henderson should pay investors who lost money in Hanover, Dominion etc is blaming him for the failings of those lending him
    the money. Dave had a contract with the finance companies not the investors and the finance companies are ultimately responsible for the use of investors funds not those they lend to. I think this is a legal rather than moral or political argument. The real blame lies squarely at the feet of those running the finance companies and as we all know they will not be held responsible any more than those responsible for share market companies failures in the 1980s. Petrovich is the best example of this as he was also a 1980s failure and there is no way he should hsve been allowed to start another company. This is the governments falt as lack of appropriate law is responsible for this. You know as well as i that Hendersons beliefs and business decisions are pragmatic rather than political and that he is a theoretical rather than practical libertarian. Perhaps this is because we live in society which is far too complicated and libertarians cant be completely consistent any more than a Marxist could, if they want to function. The decision to increase concil tennats rents 24 percent reflect the right wing user pays ethos of Henderson, sideshow bob and those with similar beliefs. It has also resulted in the outing of councilors who up until the recent election had not shown there true right wing beliefs. I am refering to those voting for the rent increase. I always thought the model council flats were based on was social rather than commercial. Commercial being that they are self financed. To conclude Dave bankrolled George Ballanies failed mayoral attempt and one wonders whether he also financed sideshow bob.

  2. henderson is an aggressive shark but he has the right to be...hes not accountable to ratepayers...now the deal of buying his 5 properties is out in the open hopefully those who are accountable( the council) will be voted out. chch voters chose a slimey game show host in a sharp suit and got what they deserve...now ratepayers will pay for the sponsors... Bob has shown his true colours now so will we get fooled next time...surely we wouldnt vote in a moneychanger for PM?


Comments are moderated.