I remember reading about how Peter Thiel's giant apocalypse-proof property there. Apparently he's agreed to share it with Sam Altman.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/feb/15/why-silicon-val...

NZ is a great country with wonderful people. But I wonder about the wisdom of apocalypse-proof property on an island that is prone to earthquakes. I have seen how far the waterfront receded in the 1931 Napier earthquake. [1] Christchurch has still not fully recovered from the 2010 earthquake. When you think of "geological" or "tectonic" shifts in the landscape, we are not used to thinking in the order of decades.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1931_Hawke's_Bay_earthquake#/m...

No love for Thiel or the mechanism by which he gained a NZ residency visa but the reality is the property in question is a sheep farm 3/4 of a square mile in size beside a pretty lake.

That article spends an inordinately long time speculating that there's an "everything proof" structure been built on it but (as far as I saw skim reading) provides no evidence for that at all. You'd be hard pressed keeping that sort of construction quiet in NZ, everyone knows everyone.

.75 sq mile is 480 acres. That is a truly large property, especially in this context.

If it’s good land you’d be pressed to run a hundred head of cattle on it. It qualifies as a tiny ranch.

It's not West Texas; it's Otago on South Island.

He has citizenship and at least one house in NZ.

have you watched BrBa? gus fringe fegured it out

I smell a hilarious post-apocalypse remake of The Odd Couple coming up!

If I lived in NZ I'd make a note of these dipshits' addresses. Worse comes to worse, they'll make for a great supply of resources to plunder. At least if you get there before their employees/body guards kill them and steal all their stuff first.

I've been wondering why there are so many weird patches of low resolution old satellite photos covering up lots of tiny chunks of Stewart Island and the surrounding islands.

Just seems really strange when one considers the stories of the obscenely rich. How much do those folks pay to have public mapping companies "hide" their apocalypse projects?

edit: just as an example: https://i.imgur.com/jg5dqji.jpg

10m satellite imagery from 2018-2019: https://data.linz.govt.nz/layer/103539-nz-10m-satellite-imag...

0.75m aerial imagery from 2005-2011: https://data.linz.govt.nz/layer/51934-southland-075m-rural-a...

I'm not sure what you think you're seeing in that picture, but it sounds like you've been listening to too many conspiracy nuts. Not many people live in or go to Stewart Island, so the demand for satellite/aerial imagery is pretty low. It's hardly surprising it's not as recent or accurate as, say, this 7.5cm imagery of Auckland: https://data.linz.govt.nz/layer/95497-auckland-0075m-urban-a...

You'll notice on that recent link that there's a caveat that wasn't included on the older link.

"This is a visual product only. The data has been downsampled from 12-bits to 8-bits, and the original values of the images have been modified for visualisation purposes."

If you zoom into the cities, buildings are nothing more than white blotches. Not really relevant supporting references.

As an aside, people should be able to make casual observations about patterns without the folks who don't see the patterns comparing them to the mentally ill.

Visual-only means no lidar or radar (most satellites just have cameras, so most of the satellite imagery is like that).

The resolution of that one is 10 metres per pixel, so of course buildings are blotches. 12 bit to 8 bit doesn't affect the resolution or hide anything significant, it just makes the brightness a bit more quantised, and the brightness will have already been adjusted to equalise between adjacent sections photographed at different times anyway (that's the "modified" bit). They also have the 12-bit data available.

I never mentioned any mental illness (I doubt most conspiracy theorists have one), and it's nothing to do with patterns, it's "apocalypse projects" that is conspiracy nonsense.

The point of the quote was to show that the image has been manipulated, it is not what came from the camera, and therefore isn't a useful reference in your post. It's useful for some things, but not this thing.

The mental illness you seem to have not realized you referred to is when you said "you've been listening to too many conspiracy nuts."

Now saying "conspiracy nonsense" is way more inline with reality. It's very much just idle thinking on my part with brief injections of conspiracy editorial provided by any of the articles found by doing a search for "billionaire apocalypse homes".

The raw unmanipulated imagery is not very useful, as it will be a messy patchwork. The colours are probably interpolated from a Bayer filter mosaic or something too. They are providing the much more useful aligned, equalised imagery that people actually want. LINZ would quite likely give you the raw imagery if you asked for it for some project - they're quite keen for people to make use of their data (hence the CC license), and I have a little.

"Conspiracy nut" is a noun, slang for "conspiracy theorist". If I had said they or you were "nuts", the adjective, then yes, that would mean "crazy" and imply comparison to mental illness; I didn't say that. I also said "it sounds like you've been listening to ...", so not a comparison to your mental state anyway.

This naturally happens on land which is steep and causes clouds to form as winds blow ocean air over them.

Since clouds form so regularly, mapping providers have a lot of difficulty getting a shot of the whole area in daylight with no clouds, so they end up using algorithms to stitch together the best image they can get from cloud-free parts.

In areas with snow, the problem is even worse, because an algorithm to separate snow and cloud is even harder.

Absolutely, and is a relevant explanation for many of these instances around the world.

However there are plenty of instances near disputed areas where resolution is lost, images are outdated etc, and it starts to become a pattern separate from what you're describing.

I mean just as the most obvious example of manipulation, look at the lack of 3D imaging in parts of Washington D.C.

It's not indicative of ill-will, and is obviously in support of operational security, but it's still clearly a decision made with non-scientific reasons.

The local council (QLDC) has online available high-resolution imagery of the entire of Thiel's Glendhu Bay property.

Honest question: what makes NZ safer than other countries? I assume it depends on the scenario? Political turmoil could make sense (I don't know enough about NZ politics), global warming probably less so?

They are remote, defensible, politically and socially stable, self-sufficient in food and many materials. NZ does not have nuclear weapons, or host nukes for anyone else so they're not a retaliation or first strike target. They're also in the southern hemisphere, which is useful in a nuclear winter scenario.

> [NZ is] remote, defensible, politically and socially stable, self-sufficient in food and many materials.

And easy to (mostly - except for satellite connections) cut off from internet, since there exist only few sea cables to NZ that have to be cut:

> https://www.submarinecablemap.com/

Interesting, but I’d actually view New Zealand as one of the countries on the hit list. If there was a nuclear war between the US and Russia/China, there are enough nuclear weapons that you’re not only hitting the US and UK (which you’re for sure fighting against), but also Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Because if you take the US out while also getting taken out but don’t take out the allies, you didn’t really “win” the war.

A nuclear winter is planet wide no? With which aspect being in the southern hemisphere helps?

Most nuclear targets are in the northern hemisphere and most atmospheric circulation follows lines of latitude or regional patterns.

While a full on nuclear winter would eventually have global effects, not everywhere would be impacted equally in terms of severity or duration. The most severe effects would be felt in the north. For a more limited exchange with regional or continental wide effects, there are few regions in the north not at risk of such a conflict. With a pattern of impact driven by latitudinal or regional weather patterns, the impact on the southern hemisphere of any regional northern conflict are likely to be minimal.

Isolated and well developed probably, and small nation.

They have effectively eradicated COVID, have you seen videos from their elections?

Auckland central candidate pulled off a drag show in their campaign. She won.

Citizenship is hard, residency takes forever and must be applied to from outside, and buying a place if you aren't either of the above is now quite difficult.

Not sure if you're rich, as Gabe is. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/29/new-zealand-ga...

That was under a government that played monopoly with our housing market. Bit different now

Why? It should be easy to immigrate to New Zealand and gain citizenship.

Why should it be easy? I live here and it was a PITA just getting residency.

Why shouldn’t it? I see lots of complaints about the US being difficult. But you and others are saying New Zealand is difficult too?

NZ is pretty tight about who they let in, similar to Australia. There's a high bar for an experience/expertise based visa and its limited to certain industries (digital graphics for example - movies are a big deal in the South Island). The only thing it's easy to bring in are seasonal workers from the Pacific islands to pick fruit / work the vineyards.

Otherwise it's sponsorship, marriage, or family.

Residency (not citizenship) needs to be applied to while outside the country, and the application can take up to a year to be processed (you get a dedicated case worker, you need medical checks, xrays and all kinds of evidence - I needed to submit photos of my wife and I to prove our relationship was legit as well as a bunch of tax records and existing residency proof - it was a lot - also, very expensive!), citizenship requires several years of actual residency.

The NZ passport is like the UK one and they can compel you to relinquish existing citizenship if you naturalise.

I don't think that will happen with Gaben, Covid has stranded many temporary visa holders here without work or without access to benefits so there's a large policy question about what to do with those that are stranded.

But anyone hoping to just emigrate over here because we seem to have our shit together (we don't) is delusional.

A big reason that they are so careful about handing out permanent residency is that permanent residents (not temporary visa holders), can vote in parliamentary elections. Which is awesome - no taxation without representation - but gets the local right riled up because any govt can boost their voter count by opening immigration up, which means in general, there's downward pressure on immigration from all sides.

Jeez. Sounds like it's even worse than the US!

hmmm, pretty bad bet for avoiding catastrophe, it's on a massive fault line.

How much is citizenship?

You can't really buy the citizenship. (At least officially) You still have to live there for years.

But the residency starts at $3M NZ if you're a recurring visitor https://www.newzealandnow.govt.nz/investing-in-nz/visas/inve...

Check out the new Global Impact Visa. It's a really unique visa for startup founders who get into an incubator-like programme. You don't need any money yourself (just the ability to attract investment) and it lets you spend lots of time outside the country but still get permanent residency in 30 months. https://www.newzealandnow.govt.nz/investing-in-nz/visas/glob...

I think the point is that there are unofficial routes: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/29/new-zealand-ga...

They're very much official routes. The US also has 'private bills' in which Congress can make anybody, even criminals and other individuals ineligible under the current INA, into US citizens. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1992-02-04-mn-1209-s...

After the epic shitstorm that Thiel's citizenship caused, I don't see any appetite for further dispensations of citizenship by Ministers.

Ha! That's not true at all. Having rich Americans come is actually a public policy option that was openly debated in the papers during the election.

Basically, New Zealand has turned into a real estate operation that sells milk on the side. Despite record highs all parties have made it their explicit goal to keep housing prices high. Having rich people come buy real estate is really considered a great idea. I'm shocked but that's the way it works here.

As @versteegen said, Thiel came in under Ministerial dispensation, not the usual visa program which has space for investors and skilled migrants.

I do largely agree with your real estate operation zinger. Since Europeans came here, it has always been thus. The New Zealand Company was set up as a flip scheme -- buy land from Māori at low price and sell high to settlers. The New Zealand Wars were fought to free up land for more such enterprise. If you're curious about the New Zealand Company, I can recommend Patricia Burns's "Fatal Success: a History of the New Zealand Company". (And, in general for NZ history, the "Black Sheep" podcast)

The Detail had a really good piece on the current state of NZ immigration, fwiw: <https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/the-detail/300122700/the-de...> I believe one of their interviewees made the point that previous governments have used immigration to prop up/grow the economy. I can see why: it's one of the few straightforward levers they have. (Which policy settings will create a Google in NZ? Dunno. Which policy settings create more domestic commerce and thus boost GDP? Easy!)

Don't quite agree.

The Immigration Minister can give out exceptions to the citizenship process but the point is they're not going to be giving out any more exceptions as extreme as the one they gave to Thiel, because noone was happy the Minister did that.

That's different from the above-board process for easing the path to permanent residency/citizenship with investment money, (residency visas for investors and entrepreneurs) which is considered a good idea.

Also how can you claim "all parties" want to keep selling real estate to rich foreigners when Labour outlawed it last term, and made a very big fuss about doing so? But other parties clearly want to be in that business.

So an American with $2M to invest and a desire to live in NZ can simply invest in equities, bonds, and real estate and become a citizen in 4 years?

And once you're a citizen, you enjoy unlimited social and health benefits indefinitely?

Can someone from NZ tell me why this shouldn't be my retirement plan?

If you seriously consider enjoying "unlimited" social and health benefits of NZ, you may just retire immediately with $2M in bank and lead more luxurious life in most places in the world no matter if you are 60 or 20 years old.

IIRC $2M is enough to "buy" a Swiss citizenship too, so that kind of money really enables you to live basically anywhere in the world and you need a specific retirement plan only if you want to spend a lot of cash regularly for the rest of your life. Personally I would not even think about working to get paid anymore if I had even $1M, but ofc that's just me and my modest living standards.

Not from NZ, but consider this: do you want to San Francisco-ize (multiply living costs, entrench a landlord caste & create weird incentives for local politics) the place? Because lots of foreign money simply walking into a heretofore sedate local real estate and business ecosystem is how you do that. Cf. Toronto, SF, Paris, London, Munich &c

> Not from NZ [...] sedate local real estate

Clearly! House prices here are very high already. See e.g. https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/money/2017/03/new-zealand-hou..., https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/83750475/nz-tops-imfs...

And I am a little hopeful (but doubtful) that might be starting to change. Massive numbers of houses have been consented to be built (especially in the last few years). But just building more probably won't be a permanent solution.

https://www.stats.govt.nz/topics/housing https://www.hud.govt.nz/news-and-resources/statistics-and-re... https://www.imf.org/external/research/housing/index.htm

Auckland already has one of the highest house price:median income ratios in the world.

Alot of people from China / India who get rejected in Australia, will go to NZ to do just that, because once an NZ Citizen, you can live/work in Australia.

Edit: Well maybe not alot, but when I lived in NZ 15 years ago, it was enough that Australia would complain about it.

Australia retaliated and now it is very hard for kiwis to become citizens of Australia or get the same benefits as citizens or permanent residents.

I think that's two different things tho.

Alot of kiwis were coming to Australia and going on the dole right away. So alot of the benefits only kick in after residing in the country for minimum 1 year. But the benefits still exist.

I was referring to those who were rejected for residency in Australia, gain citizenship in New Zealand, then move to Australia to live/work.

I believe if you were born in New Zealand, its still (relatively) easy to get Citizenship in Australia, but if you weren't born in NZ and have NZ citizenship, it's much harder.

> So alot of the benefits only kick in after residing in the country for minimum 1 year.

What benefits? I'm not aware of any benefits Kiwi's arriving post 2001 get, apart from some reciprocal medical care, and some allowances to buy property and so forth. Actual money-for-nothing benefits, not so much.

> I believe if you were born in New Zealand, its still (relatively) easy to get Citizenship in Australia, but if you weren't born in NZ and have NZ citizenship, it's much harder.

Assuming we're talking about the Skilled Independent visa (subclass 189) New Zealand stream [0], then it's easier than for people coming from other countries, but I wouldn't say easy. It's also about AUD$4000 per person.

[0] https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/visas/getting-a-visa/visa-li...

The dole. I don’t know what you call it in Australia. When you don’t work and government gives you money. It used to be you could apply after landing. But now you need to live in Australia without leaving for 12 months before you can apply.

We also can get the baby bonus. My sister got it when her son was born. That was only 2012 I think. Well after 2001...

We don’t pay for hospital. And Medicare can only be applied for if you stay for 6 months without leaving for any reason.

It's actually very hard for Kiwis to get citizenship, because the special category visa that lets them live here permanently isn't actually permanent residency, and so there isn't a path to citizenship.

(Source: Kiwi friend who was trying to get citizenship for himself and his kids who were born here)

Hmmm a few of the kiwis I went to school with all got citizenship.

It changed not long ago.

Ah ok yeah this was like 5-6 years ago. I haven’t lived in Australia for 9 years now so I donno how much has changed. Prob a lot! Lol

Australia complains a lot, about many things... ;)

Especially if kiwis are involved :D

You can do it for even less in most of EU countries. You just need to get a job or create a company to get a work visa, and then stay for 5 or 6 years, learn some basic language and that's it.

Indeed. Portugal has their Golden Visa which only requires a 500k EUR investment in real estate. You get temporary residency and potential permanent residency or citizenship after 5 years.

It's kind of interesting to dig into. The residency requirements are quite low - 7 days in the first year, 14 days for subsequent 2 year period). So by the 5 year mark, you'd only need to spend 35 days in country.

There are even companies that will find real estate for you, rent it out and guarantee 100% return of capital after 5 years. Turn key solution to EU residency! [1]

[1]https://www.artoncapital.com/global-citizen-programs/portuga...

If it social and health benefits, just relocate to any EU country with a local contract. You would beed a visa, si, but once here you are covered like everyone else.

Not NZ but in Malta it costs around 1-1.5mln eur. I imagine it could be more expensive than NZ as Malta's passport grants you free travel and work possibility across entire EU.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/01/business/dealbook/malta-o...

Just to add some colour... You don't PAY 1m, you INVEST 1m in a Maltese business and they GIVE you the citizenship as you still own whatever you invested in. Find a nice hotel you can buy a share of and you're laughing...

Malta has cancelled this programme because it was breeding ground for corruption.

They got pressured by the EU to cancel it, the corruption concern is not exactly new (or surprising).

Portugal is cheaper, just buy real estate for 350-500k€ and you'll get residency, just 5 years later you can get citizenship.

There are even some service that'll offer to "loan" you a property by buying at back for the price you bought it for after you got your residency.

Unsurprisingly, house prices in Lisbon and Porto have become unaffordable for the locals.

NZ starts at 3 m $ up to 10 m $ +. More $ gives more points. This is NZ $.