No towncountry divide over proposed water tax

THE first reaction to Bill English fanning a towncountry divide over water tax was, what about the capital gains aimed at townies? Second was, hang on, aren’t lots of cockies basically in it for the capital gains? The divide is between those, rural and urban, who getrich scheme and those with vocations. Realpolitik dictates we accept folk have bought with legitimate reason and in good faith based on the current rules — but it’s got to change. At least we must school the schemers with such taxes on what’s bought in the future. Urban sprawl is desertifying cities and their surrounding arable land due to the wealthy ‘‘nimby’’ influence over urban housing density. Our sacred land and water is being desecrated by militarised agrarian chemists — aka, the chemical fertiliser religion and its blind faith devotees. There’s no towncounty divide, just a spectrum of human personal motivation ranging from wise connection/contentment or ignorant independence/advancement.

Peter Small

Dunedin

IN response to the comments made by Elizabeth Hinton (ODT letters, 20.9.17), among others. I was under the impression that all properties, including businesses, pay rates to their local council which includes a proportion for ‘‘water rates’’, which is to cover the cost of water supply and its removal through the sewerage system. Therefore, the businesses to which Ms Hinton refers are already paying for their water use, so why shouldn’t largescale irrigators pay at least a small charge for the additional water they use? Presumably any water rates that these farmers pay to their council is only to cover the normal domestic use and/or stock supplies, not vast quantities for irrigation.

Chris London

Milton

Today is the last day for ‘‘election mailbag’’ letters.