Not ac­cept­able

Kapi-Mana News - - OPINION -


I have just read the ar­ti­cle head­lined ‘‘Tough bud­get pro­posed’’ [KMN, March 20]. I to­tally agree that tough mea­sures are needed from the Porirua City Coun­cil.

What bet­ter way to do it than to pe­nalise the ratepay­ers and the rest of the com­mu­nity. Why not lose a li­brary. Who wants to read, study or do re­search? Put the money in the pock­ets of the garage own­ers, bus com­pa­nies and any­one else who will make money out of the peo­ple who will have to travel to Porirua. Why worry about peo­ple los­ing jobs?

The next great idea is re­mov­ing rub­bish bins. Why not? There is plenty of open space to drop it. Maybe the peo­ple los­ing their jobs at the li­brary can get em­ployed to pick it up.

I think the best idea is clos­ing public toi­lets. Af­ter all, there are plenty of bushes and trees around. We could all carry pooper-scoop­ers. Per­fect.

How silly would the coun­cil be to think about the wage in­creases they get. Af­ter all, how many of the peo­ple from Porirua and the sur­round­ing ar­eas would know what that is. They can slip those in on a reg­u­lar ba­sis. Af­ter all they are only think­ing of us. Not.

KATHY WHIT­TAKER, Els­don. sig­nalling that some­thing is not quite right. They are not in­tended to sig­nal to all within earshot ‘‘I’m com­ing’’ as those who need to know have al­ready been alerted by ac­ti­va­tion of the safety equip­ment in ur­ban ar­eas.

One reader has pointed out (KMN 14/2/12) ‘‘that Euro­peans are suf­fi­ciently in­tel­li­gent to fig­ure out the pur­pose of the safety equip­ment’’. The big ques­tion is, why haven’t we?

The an­swer would ap­pear to be the fierce op­po­si­tion to change by the present Ki­wirail man­age­ment. There is one ob­vi­ous so­lu­tion.

Have I got it wrong and am I just wast­ing my time try­ing to in­tro­duce some com­mon sense and ac­count­abil­ity to Ki­wirail?

Im­prove­ments do not just hap­pen. They need nu­mer­ous com­plaints in the right quar­ter. Since it is use­less com­plain­ing to Ki­wirail, as ex­plained in my let­ter (KMN 28/2/12), the next most ap­pro­pri­ate would be a lo­cal MP, or the Min­is­ter of Trans­port. How­ever, this may not be nec­es­sary as yet, if my forth­com­ing sub­mis­sion to the new Min­is­ter of Trans­port is more suc­cess­ful than his pre­de­ces­sor in 2010. C NIVEN, Lin­den. (Let­ter abridged) bet­ter views and so com­mand higher prices for prop­er­ties in the Aotea de­vel­op­ment.

Mr Shute of Car­rus Cor­po­ra­tion has en­deav­oured to give the mes­sage low im­pact but the tree re­moval il­lus­trates yet again the power of the dol­lar. This shel­ter belt took years to grow and has with­stood gale-force winds and the odd fire over time, so it is ridicu­lous that Mr Shute could sug­gest that they have al­ways been ear­marked for re­moval and are at risk of fall­ing down.

I ven­ture to say that ‘‘safety’’ has noth­ing to do with their im­ma­nent re­moval but that the res­i­dents in the higher reaches of Aotea have com­plained about the in­con­ve­nience of clean­ing up pine nee­dles. A sim­i­lar sce­nario to buy­ing a prop­erty be­side the air­port and then com­plain­ing about the noise from the planes.the pro­posed re­place­ment veg­e­ta­tion will do noth­ing to fil­ter the wind, which in the long term will se­verely im­pact on all res­i­dents in the area.

BAR­BARA DOYER, As­cot Park.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from New Zealand

© PressReader. All rights reserved.