http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11808560
This won't help our tourism image, although these passengers will
probably have enjoyed at least part of their experience.
It does show that 2600 families in motel accomodation in Auckland is
having an effect on our capacity to accomodate tourists though.
But apparently the government didn't know about all these people -
having appointed other organisatons to look after parts of our wefare
system, they no longer know what is going on!
Still, some motel owners will be very happy - tourists don;t vote, but
they do!
On Tuesday, 28 February 2017 08:49:44 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:JohnO you are challenging Rich's Alternative Facts and his inability to use simple mathematics; sorry challenging is wrong, categorically refuting is better.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11808560
This won't help our tourism image, although these passengers will
probably have enjoyed at least part of their experience.
It does show that 2600 families in motel accomodation in Auckland is
having an effect on our capacity to accomodate tourists though.
2600 families were placed in motels over 3 months. That does not mean they >were all in motels at the same time.
But apparently the government didn't know about all these people -
having appointed other organisatons to look after parts of our wefare
system, they no longer know what is going on!
Still, some motel owners will be very happy - tourists don;t vote, but
they do!
The reason they were not put in motels is because they wanted to be kept in >the same place and there was no single venue that could accomodate all 50 of >them at once.
There certainly vacancies for more than 50 people in Auckland.
On Tuesday, 28 February 2017 08:49:44 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:were all in motels at the same time.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11808560
This won't help our tourism image, although these passengers will
probably have enjoyed at least part of their experience.
It does show that 2600 families in motel accomodation in Auckland is
having an effect on our capacity to accomodate tourists though.
2600 families were placed in motels over 3 months. That does not mean they
the same place and there was no single venue that could accomodate all 50 of them at once.
But apparently the government didn't know about all these people -
having appointed other organisatons to look after parts of our wefare
system, they no longer know what is going on!
Still, some motel owners will be very happy - tourists don;t vote, but
they do!
The reason they were not put in motels is because they wanted to be kept in
There certainly vacancies for more than 50 people in Auckland.
On Tuesday, 28 February 2017 08:49:44 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:were all in motels at the same time.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11808560
This won't help our tourism image, although these passengers will
probably have enjoyed at least part of their experience.
It does show that 2600 families in motel accomodation in Auckland is
having an effect on our capacity to accomodate tourists though.
2600 families were placed in motels over 3 months. That does not mean they
the same place and there was no single venue that could accomodate all 50 of them at once.
But apparently the government didn't know about all these people -
having appointed other organisatons to look after parts of our wefare
system, they no longer know what is going on!
Still, some motel owners will be very happy - tourists don;t vote, but
they do!
The reason they were not put in motels is because they wanted to be kept in
There certainly vacancies for more than 50 people in Auckland.
| Sysop: | sneaky |
|---|---|
| Location: | Ashburton,NZ |
| Users: | 28 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 129:26:04 |
| Calls: | 1,998 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 11,111 |
| Messages: | 943,060 |