Lack of com­mu­ni­ca­tion

Kapi-Mana News - - OPINION -

Ed­i­tor,

In re­sponse to your ar­ti­cle ti­tled ‘‘Power to res­i­dents’’ [KMN, Fe­bru­ary 21], it ap­pears the is­sue is more one of the in­abil­ity of Porirua City Coun­cil and the Depart­ment of In­ter­nal Af­fairs to com­mu­ni­cate with each other.

It would be un­for­tu­nate if that is­sue ma­ligned the com­mu­nity rep­re­sen­ta­tive group which has come from res­i­dents within the greater Can­nons CreekWai­tan­girua area.

I un­der­stand that com­mu­nity group mem­bers were not present with the DIA of­fi­cial at the coun­cil brief­ing.

Let the politi­cians play pol­i­tics. That should not take away that there are peo­ple on the lead­er­ship group who have worked in the com­mu­nity and have earned solid cre­den­tials with their record.

If cen­tral gov­ern­ment is pre­pared to pro­vide a re­source and trans­par­ent process that can be de­vel­oped and which may de­liver pos­i­tive out­comes in a high needs com­mu­nity, wouldn’t that be ben­e­fi­cial for res­i­dents no mat­ter who pro­vided it?

The coun­cil has said many times within my earshot that they have limited re­sources so hence do not have a mo­nop­oly on com­mu­nity-led ini­tia­tives.

If Porirua City Coun­cil do not see a role for them­selves on the play­ing field, that only leaves them on the side­line. SHANE LAULU, Can­nons Creek

Coun­cil­lor Liz Kelly’s view on these mat­ters was they were ‘‘fic­tional’’.

A coun­cil of­fi­cer con­sid­ered that $30,000 which the doc­u­ment sug­gested would be needed to re­lo­cate an ex­ist­ing user was not rel­e­vant as coun­cil could just find that money else­where, as they do all the time.

No one ques­tioned how the two pro­mot­ing clubs (and pro­posed ma­jor users) could find the cash needed to pur­chase time on the park when their lat­est pub­lished fi­nan­cial state­ments show clearly their tight po­si­tion and de­pen­dence on public grants.

No one chal­lenged one of the pro­po­nents when he said that the ap­pli­cant’s Trust Deed limited use of sur­plus in­come to de­vel­op­ment of As­cot Park (which it doesn’t).

Only coun­cil­lor Ken Dou­glas voted against the pro­posal, be­cause he alone was con­cerned that ad­e­quate ev­i­dence of fi­nan­cial strength hadn’t been demon­strated.

And these peo­ple con­trol a $60 mil­lion en­ter­prise. BRIAN COLLINS,

Pa­pakowhai Wade-brown of­fen­sive [KMN, Fe­bru­ary 28].

I am not overly con­cerned that she flew a flag that rep­re­sents only a few Maori but I am con­cerned at her at­ti­tude that ‘‘I am the cer­e­mo­nial head’’ and thus does not need to con­sult.

She needs to re­alise that she is not Welling­ton City, that she was elected by a small ma­jor­ity of a small num­ber of vot­ers, and that she is only one vote on the Welling­ton City Coun­cil.

The rea­son many vot­ers did not vote was they be­lieved Welling­ton City Coun­cil does not be­lieve in mean­ing­ful con­sul­ta­tion with res­i­dents. How can they have faith that the Welling­ton City Coun­cil will con­sult with res­i­dents when the mayor will not con­sult with the other elected elected mem­bers of her coun­cil.

Too much of this ‘‘I don’t feel the need to con­sult’’ and she will be a one term, or less, mayor.

GRAEME HANSEN, Tawa through the booms?

The un­nec­es­sary use of horns in ur­ban ar­eas has been a pain long be­fore the Matangi units came on the scene. The Matangi horns are if any­thing less in­tru­sive than the oth­ers, and most of the driv­ers seem to give a short blip rather than some of the thought­less driv­ers who de­light in de­liv­er­ing long, pierc­ing blasts.

There sim­ply is no jus­ti­fi­ca­tion for horns in ur­ban ar­eas when there are booms bells and lights.

KEVIN CLARK, Plim­mer­ton

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from New Zealand

© PressReader. All rights reserved.