tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7257493550531569180.post4921352609380888429..comments2024-03-26T16:16:22.535+13:00Comments on AGAINST THE CURRENT: IS SIDESHOW BOB GOING TO BAIL OUT DAVE HENDERSON?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7257493550531569180.post-33977548457356973632008-08-09T13:28:00.000+12:002008-08-09T13:28:00.000+12:00I would like to know what one needs to do to reach...I would like to know what one needs to do to reach your standard to be accepted as someone "revitalizing the central city".Mr G is the only developer i can name doing this and your political hatred toward him overrides your common sense and ability to give credit where its due. I dont need to list property developments Dave has been instrument in. You know them all and all the mayor and the chamber of commerce are acknowledging is Daves effort up until now. As i said in a more recent blog Dave is not resposible for the failings of finance companies. His contract was with the finance companies not the investors. The managers are directly responsible to investors for the allocation of their money.I have explained why their is no hypocracy between Daves libertarian beliefs and him not wanting competition from the city council in another blog. Dave can do what he likes so long as he doesnt break any laws and i for one dont blame him using Sargoods building as a lever against the council. What other option did he have, bearing in mind his libertarian beliefs which are consistent with his actions. To me it was David against Goliath.ray chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08034443090074637689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7257493550531569180.post-74674630104581405932008-08-03T20:47:00.000+12:002008-08-03T20:47:00.000+12:00FYI - Jenny May and Garry Moore's families were re...FYI - Jenny May and Garry Moore's families were recently joined through the marriage of a son and daughter of each. sounding more Italian by the minute - horses heads soon to been seen in the beds of chch?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11318020122074928757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7257493550531569180.post-14098315183446635652008-08-02T16:15:00.000+12:002008-08-02T16:15:00.000+12:00....and finally, the best quote of all, from http:.......and finally, the best quote of all, from <BR/><BR/>http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/urban/urban-design-case-studies-may08/html/page10.html<BR/><BR/>"The Council is supportive and encouraging of the project. Property Ventures Ltd has had a good relationship, in particular, with the former mayor, and with the leader of the Central City Revitalisation team."<BR/><BR/>Yes, an incredibly good relationshipUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01230629452243709332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7257493550531569180.post-77053965549055594042008-08-02T16:03:00.000+12:002008-08-02T16:03:00.000+12:00read all about the last similar bail-out, here:htt...read all about the last similar bail-out, here:<BR/><BR/>http://www.ccc.govt.nz/Council/Proceedings/2002/July/ArtsCulture/ProposedRequirementforaHeritageOrder.pdf<BR/><BR/>The property at 92 Lichfield Street is presently owned by D J Dickey (1/6 share), B A Hampton<BR/>(1/6 share), J Manning (1/6 share) and A A Brown and D J Boyle (1/2 share).<BR/>Officers understand that RFD Investments Limited, for which it appears Mr Henderson is acting, has<BR/>agreed to buy 92 Lichfield Street under an unconditional sale and purchase agreement.<BR/>According to the diary records, on 8 May 2002, Ms J May, Director of ‘Our City’ advised that Mr<BR/>Henderson had made it known that he was considering the demolition of 92 Lichfield Street. Mr<BR/>Henderson phoned on 14 May 2002 and stated that there was no threat of demolition of 92 Lichfield<BR/>Street. RFD Investments (for which Mr Henderson appears to act as agent) had in fact lodged a<BR/>Resource Consent for demolition of the building with the Environmental Services Unit on 13 May<BR/>2002. Advice was received of an application for demolition from ESU on 24 May 2002. This<BR/>application had been placed on hold because there was no assessment of environmental effects<BR/>included as required by the Resource Management Act. Mr Henderson had been advised of this<BR/>requirement regarding the consent application by Ms Melinda Smith, Senior Planner, Environmental<BR/>Services Unit.<BR/>Council officers understand that the resource consent application for the demolition of 92 Lichfield<BR/>Street is being sought because the applicant has previously sought certain assurances from the<BR/>Council that it would not become involved in student accommodation developments within the central<BR/>city. The Council has not given those assurances. One of the potential usages for the nearby<BR/>Turners & Growers site recently acquired by the Council is student accommodation.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01230629452243709332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7257493550531569180.post-89733582480978808652008-08-02T16:01:00.000+12:002008-08-02T16:01:00.000+12:00DEJA VU!Six or seven years ago the Chch Council we...DEJA VU!<BR/><BR/>Six or seven years ago the Chch Council were considering taking a role in the redevelopment of the old Turners and Growers site in Tuam Street, for mixed residential use.<BR/><BR/>Henderson already had his own avaricious eyes on taking a similar role, both with long-term and short-term residential in the same part of town.<BR/><BR/>He had recently (at a rock-bottom price of course) bought the old Sargood's building at 92 Lichfield Street, and saw the ownership of this property, which was part of a "character group of buildings" as a suitable lever with which to coerce Council into removing themeselves from involvement in a residential development which would compete with his own ambitions.<BR/><BR/>What came next? Minutes posted on the Council's own website confirm that Henderson applied for a demolition permit for the Sargoods Building, UNLESS Council promised him that they would not become involved with the Turners and Growers site. Moore was at the helm, and already doing deals with Henderson behind the scenes.<BR/><BR/>Surprise, surprise! Henderson decided not to demolish Sargoods buidling, and to redevelop it instead, and who was to be the first floor tenant paying a grossly above-market rate for the lease? Yup, The Council, whose own call centre moved in, and is still there now, paying the same huge rental.<BR/><BR/>The Turners and Growers site? Still an empty lot. Go figure!<BR/><BR/>Isn't it about time the activities of Chch's mayors, both present and immediate past, were subjected to an inquiry?<BR/><BR/>Once again, ratepayer's money is about to be diverted (behind closed doors) to prop up the financial incompetence of the mayor's mates and campaign supporters!<BR/><BR/>Is this NZ or Southern Italy?<BR/><BR/>Footnote - The Sargoods building is also seeking a buyer, but more discreetly than the other parts of Dave Ultimate's empire. I guess he doesn't want to be seen publicly to be selling a building which forms a part of "SOL Square", because that really would be the ultimate blow to the man's egoUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01230629452243709332noreply@blogger.com