Lakes or ponds?

Kapi-Mana News - - OPINION/NEWS -


I re­fer to the Whitby Lakes di­rec­tor’s re­sponse ( KMN, Let­ters, June 21).

Ms Fos­ter’s per­sis­tence that be­cause she calls them lakes, they are, re­minds me of the Em­peror’s New Clothes ar­gu­ment.

‘‘There are . . . two large duck ponds,’’ says Mr Gim­pel, re­flect­ing the em­peror’s predica­ment.

With lo­cal gov­ern­ment min­is­ter Rod­ney Hyde call­ing for a de­ci­sion on the ‘‘su­per city’’ amal­ga­ma­tion of the eight lo­cal bod­ies, Porirua may be­come a non-city.

Akin to lo­cal hapu (de­ci­sion­mak­ing bod­ies of an iwi tribe), PCC may find it­self be­ing con­sulted af­ter the event.

What­ever the rule for defin­ing a lake or ascer­tain­ing and meet­ing the needs of a com­mu­nity, evo­lu­tion co-op­er­a­tion is a way for­ward for the re­gion.

I see the ben­e­fits of amal­ga­ma­tion if val­ues are de­fined and shared, goals are en­vi­ron­men­tally sus­tain­able, com­mu­ni­ties are val­ued, in­clu­sive and trans­par­ent, and hapu have an equal re­spon­si­bil­ity in all facets of de­ci­sion de­vel­op­ment, im­ple­men­ta­tion and out­comes. TIPENE TE ORO MAKATEA,

Taka­puwahia. (Letter abridged) en­thu­si­asm for de­stroy­ing many large, ap­par­ently healthy trees, was heart­break­ing.

I can’t un­der­stand the ap­peal of these open, de­nuded ar­eas, where be­fore, na­ture reigned freely.

I re­turned to Botham­ley Park on June 26 af­ter a surgery­im­posed ab­sence of eight weeks. My heart sank. Even more beau­ti­ful, large trees had been de­stroyed and the road/ track was a sea of mud af­ter be­ing cut up by earth-movers.

I feel dis­in­clined to re­turn, in fear of what the next round of con­trol will re­sult in.

SU­SAN BUL­TI­TUDE, Pa­pakowhai. have been pre­vented through pri­mary health­care ser­vices, such as Pa­cific Health Ser­vice.

Tak­ing such cru­cial ser­vices from vul­ner­a­ble com­mu­ni­ties in low so­cio-eco­nomic ar­eas is nar­row-minded and self­ish.

The Porirua com­mu­nity at least should have had a say upon proper com­mu­nity con­sul­ta­tion, which in a demo­cratic coun­try is poorly prac­tised.

On a pos­i­tive note, I had a fan­tas­tic day on June 23 on Par­lia­ment grounds as I joined Pa­cific Health Ser­vice and com­mu­nity on a pa­rade to Par­lia­ment. Many Pa­cific Is­lands rep­re­sented, flags, drums and all. It was heart­en­ing to see all the ma­mas and pa­pas of Pa­cific Is­land na­tions march­ing from Pip­itea Marae to Par­lia­ment.

Ge­orgina te Heuheu ac­cepted the pe­ti­tion on be­half of the gov­ern­ment.

It was great to see all Pa­cific Is­land MPs there in sup­port from both sides of the house – Sam Lotu-Iiga, Carmel Sepu­loni, Sua Wil­liam Sio, Charles Chau­vel and Mana MP Kris Faafoi.

Well done to all staff of Porirua Pa­cific Health Ser­vice. Thank you to Toetu, Tovila Foma’i, Ki­tiona Tauira, Eleni Ma­son and David Isaia for your lead­er­ship and stew­ard­ship and deputy mayor Liz Kelly for the tau­toko.

I be­lieve the cam­paign to keep Pa­cific Health Ser­vice is not over, and it is now up to gov­ern­ment of­fi­cials and Cap­i­tal & Coast District Health Board to do the right thing for Porirua City and its peo­ple.

To fol­low my blog on this, visit: tim­­cific-health­ser­vice.

TIM MANU, Can­nons Creek. in the canopy area. If Canopy Con­nec­tion is pay­ing a to­tal of $10,000 to­wards the $50,000 cost, who is pay­ing the rest?

Canopy Con­nec­tion is said to be funded by a tar­geted rate against canopy prop­er­ties (al­though PCC gives a much larger sum to the Cham­ber of Com­merce).

The $10,000 there­fore will be found from money paid by PCC to the Cham­ber (which may or may not be from the tar­geted rate). How­ever, it seems the re­main­ing $40,000 is to come from gen­eral ratepay­ers’ pock­ets. If not, would some­one please say so?

If true, why should the gen­eral ratepayer pay for the pro­tec­tion of busi­ness premises? How can this be ac­com­mo­dated within ex­ist­ing bud­gets with­out cuts to other ser­vices – or is it to come from the chief ex­ec­u­tive’s slush fund in a sim­i­lar man­ner to the mayor’s trip to Chicago last year (and seven months later, where is the ben­e­fit from that $50,000?).

Given that the ex­ist­ing cam­eras are said by po­lice not even to have been main­tained, why does Canopy Con­nec­tion de­serve more money?

BRIAN COLLINS, Pa­pakowhai. Porirua City Coun­cil chief ex­ec­u­tive Gary Simp­son re­sponds: Canopy Con­nec­tion is funded by a tar­geted rate levied on build­ing own­ers in the canopy area and does not re­ceive fund­ing from gen­eral rates. It has un­der­taken to con­trib­ute to up­grad­ing the city cen­tre cam­eras by pay­ing up to $10,000 over three years.

The Cham­ber of Com­merce does not re­ceive a grant from the coun­cil but is con­tracted to pro­vide ser­vices in sup­port of the coun­cil’s Eco­nomic De­vel­op­ment Strat­egy for an an­nual cost of $125,000. The pro­ject is ex­pected to cost $50,000 and the coun­cil will fund the re­main­ing $40,000 over three years, with the money com­ing from ex­ist­ing ser­vices and sav­ings. It will not be an ad­di­tional cost on rates.

The up­grad­ing of the cam­eras in the city cen­tre will not solely ben­e­fit busi­ness own­ers but will as­sist the po­lice and the gen­eral com­mu­nity in im­prov­ing the safety of the area and aid­ing the iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of any­one com­mit­ting crimes in the area.

As such, the whole com­mu­nity stands to ben­e­fit from the cam­era up­grade pro­ject.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from New Zealand

© PressReader. All rights reserved.