Sensitive content
This media may contain sensitive content.
Video yükleniyor...
Video Yüklenemedi
[PUBLIC RELEASE] “Special Time” with Fleurdelys Updated Free DL (Public Archive) for all public releases + HQ versions available on my P-site! (Link in comments~) [🧊:SegsUltimate🔞|🎵:Evilaudio|🎙️:🩵KassioppiaVA🔞🤍] #WutheringWaves #Cartethyia #Fleurdelys #鳴潮
147,899 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce •via X (Twitter)
0 Yorum
Yorum bulunmuyor
Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek
![🚨 THEY POSTPONED THE SPRAY !! Now it’s time to keep applying pressure and make sure this nasty poison stays out of our waterways in Connecticut for good .. I’m out of my depth on that one.. but if people continue coming together like this, great things can be accomplished. At the end of the day, I’m just a concerned citizen who’s sick of getting poisoned on a regular basis with government approval. I’m sick of wildlife always getting the short end of the stick and suffering when there was always a better way forward. And I’m sick of being lied to. Here’s what Chat GPT suggested as the best ways forward to get Diquat banned in CT. The floor is open in the comments and beyond to anyone who has ideas, connections, or insight on the road ahead. Cheers, and happy 4th of July 🇺🇸🫡🕸 Petition Link : *** PHASE 1: PUBLIC PRESSURE (July 4–13) 1.1 Flood the Public Comment Period: •Submit to USACE: CTRiver-Hydrilla@usace.army.mil •Talking Points: •Diquat is banned in the EU for a reason. •Safer alternatives exist •CT residents were not properly informed. •We demand no herbicide spraying until a full ban is in place. 1.2 Contact Officials (call/email/post): •Governor Lamont •(860) 566‑4840 | governor.lamont@ct.gov •Brian P. Thompson (DEEP) •(860) 424‑3019 | brian.thompson@ct.gov •Keith Hannon (USACE) •(978) 318‑8833 | keith.w.hannon@usace.army.mil •Senator Richard Blumenthal •(860) 258–6940 | [online form] •Rep Tony Hwang (if local to you) •Tony.Hwang@cga.ct.gov PHASE 2: BUILD A PUBLIC DEMAND 2.1 Petition Push: •Link to petition front and center •Frame: “This isn’t just a pause. It’s our chance to end Diquat forever.” 2.2 Local Organizing: •Contact local environmental groups •Pool resources and continue to build an online community of people to put our heads together and figure out the best steps forward PHASE 3: LEGISLATIVE ACTION 3.1 Draft a State Ban Bill (Modeled on Paraquat Bans): •Introduce a proposal for CT to ban Diquat use in all public waters 3.2 Public Testimony Prep: •Prepare public comments and testimonials from citizens with environmental experience, health concerns, or water access issues 3.3 Leverage 2026 Election Cycle: •Get candidates on the record about their position on Diquat](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1941236931033170198/amplify_video_thumb/1941236637272260609/img/OClVaCBhPZhUT753.jpg)
![It would be great if the chair of Transparency International, Anne Tolley, had to answer questions about transactions which have contributed to local rate increases. In my honest opinion, decision-making under the tenure of the commissioners has raised concerns. For example, public land was sold below market value on terms favourable to buyers over broader interests of ratepayers. In contrast, private land was purchased above or at market value often with favourable terms to the seller, raising questions about the cost and value to ratepayers. I made this LGOIMA request this morning stemming from the Council's Public Meeting. I would like to thank the new Council and the mayor for being far more transparent than the former unelected (but selected) Commissioners: Hi The Local Government Act 2002 promotes transparency, accountability, and democratic local government. The Auditor General stated in 2021 that: “Public accountability is about public organisations demonstrating to Parliament and the public their competence, reliability, and honesty in their use of public money and other public resources” Accordingly, I am making a request under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (“LGOIMA”) regarding the property at 160 to 176 Devonport Road, Tauranga (“the Property”). Second Valuation At the Council’s public meeting on 3 March 2025 (“March Council Meeting”), the Mayor stated in regard to the Property that: “The thing that disappoints me … but it is that it is another example where we have paid towards the top of the range of what we could have paid. You know, I think, we have heard today that potentially HOBEC [Holland Beckett Lawyers] pulled out of it cos it wasn’t economic to do a development and, its, again we have underestimated the asbestos costs of removing a building. Potentially we have underestimated the geotech issues we are going to have with the site. We have been through this with 90 Devonport Road where we sold an asset for a similar value and had to reduce it to make it work. Yet we have decided to pay the $10,000,000.00 and I am sure we are not going to get back from the vendors the extra to make this work financially. So, I get we bought this as a strategic asset, but we need to look at our processes more. We need to do our due diligence properly and we need to start paying market values for properties not above and I know we have one valuation that justifies this cost but the other one doesn’t back that up. I think that going forward that value for money piece is that we need to get a bit smarter with some of these transactions that we do”. At a public meeting earlier this week, a ratepayer asked the mayor about the second valuation. I understand that the mayor allegedly stated that the second valuation came in around $8.6 million to the early $9millions. This raises question given the Council confirmed in a LGOIMA response to me dated 19 September 2024 (“September LGOMIA”) that: 1) The Council paid $10 million for the Property and spent a further $1.53 million in demolition and development costs for 100 open air carparks; and 2) The gross annual debt funding cost for the Property (land and development) was $556,000 as at the date of the LGOIMA response. The Council’s December 2022 Agenda states that: “…5. The properties are earmarked for commercial/mixed use redevelopment in Priority One’s CBD blueprint, which forms part of Council’s City Centre Action and Investment Plan. 6. With this property becoming available, staff have identified several facets of the Strategic Acquisition Fund which does not enable it to be used efficiently for acquisitions of this nature. Staff will review this policy, to enable it to be used more strategically and flexibly, while still retaining appropriate checks and balances.” Visual Barriers for Carparks By way of summary, Council staff and Councillors stated at the March Council Meeting that $10 million of public funds were used to purchase the Property; where existing retail and offices were demolished which resulted in lost rental and rates and increased debt. That 100 “visible carparks” were established based on “anecdotal demand” (on the fringe of the CBD) after a more central carpark around the Central Precinct Development was closed by the Council around the same time. In addition, the Council is losing money on the carpark. A Councillor asked: “ … was it of a mindset that the Commissioners did this without evidence or did the staff actually present them with the evidence, and did they override it?” A Council staff member responded, that while he was not employed by the Council at that time, he understood that: “Yes, Elizabeth Street [existing carpark close to the Property] always has plenty of … or pretty much always has plenty of capacity. However, there is and we have done some work and currently doing some work to remove that visual barrier of a going to use a parking building” LGOIMA Request I request the following information: 1)The second valuation for the Property; 2) An unredacted copy of the Telfer Valuation dated December 2022; 3)The financial loss for the carpark broken down into calendar months since the carpark opened in September 2024; 4)All information concerning the “anecdotal demand” to develop a carpark on the Property; 5)The previous work that the Council undertook concerning removing a visual barrier for carparking buildings; 6)The cost of the work noted at point 5; 7)The current work that the Council is undertaking concerning the removal of visual barriers for carparking buildings; 8) The cost of the work noted at point 7; 9) All information concerning the “geotech issues” for the Property; and 10) All information about the Council review of the Strategic Acquisition Fund following the meeting in December 2022. While I understand that the Council has 20 working days to provide the second valuation to me, I would appreciate it if the document was sent sooner given that the mayor has made reference to the document and its contents at public meetings. I am happy to wait for the full statutory time period for the remainder of the information (if such time is required by the Council). In regards to another matter, I request that the information provided to me in my privacy request be unredacted to avoid having to take this matter to the Privacy Commissioner and Ombudsman. I look forward to hearing back from you. Kind regards Kirsten Murfitt Please head along to the rally against the Rate Increases at Memorial Park tomorrow at 1pm. Links to the full Council meeting in comments. New Zealand First Sam Uffindell NZ National Party ACT New Zealand New Zealand Labour Erika Harvey Lobby for Good Sean Plunket The Platform NZ nzherald](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1923582479681847626/amplify_video_thumb/1923581780696731649/img/XZDgWX_PSrOI4Ph5.jpg)
