Not acceptable
Editor,
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.