Pondering the state of some of Dunedin’s roads
I STROLL daily along Dunedin’s busiest road and what I observe has me shaking my head, similar to the toy dog seen on the rear window shelf of a vehicle.
Mail boxes, stuffed with old circulars and the weekly free newspaper, with the occasional letter lying on the garden beside the mailbox.
I often appear to be practising hopscotch, due to the frequent areas of deposited dog poo, and also have seen bagged poo dumped behind bus shelters.
Lastly, there are the seemingly uncontrolled drivers who persist in texting or phoning their very important messages, and the many drivers who still won’t or don’t know how to indicate at the roundabout.
Human nature in its natural state, how sad. Mind you, it would help if the council would place a few more rubbish receptacles on the footpaths. It might reduce the dog poo, the empty bottles and the discarded detritus seen along the ramble.
Tony Bradford
Kaikorai
Lindis group
THE article (ODT, 7.12.18) on the costs of the Lindis River Minimum River Flow appeal to the Environment Court contained an error. It was the Lindis Catchment Group which appealed against the Otago Regional Council’s Plan Change 5A decision, not the Otago Fish and Game Council. Fish and Game is defending the original ORC decision for a minimum river flow of 900 litres/second which came out of the ORC’s public notification and hearing process.
A minimum flow is intended to provide for a broad range of river values, not just trout. They include natural character, landscape, ecosystem functioning, fish (native and introduced), wildlife, as well as recreational amenity and cultural values. Ian Hadland Chief Executive Otago Fish and Game Council ...................................
BIBLE READING:
Anyone ... who knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, commits sin. James 4:17
Capital gains
THE considered Capital Gains Tax is misdirected. Personal homes are excluded from tax. Mum and Dad investors with two or three houses are not.
Many Mum and Dad investors have smaller capital value in their collective property assets than what the Prime Minister and her deputy have with their own dwellings.
So, one group will be taxed hundreds of thousands of dollars. The other won’t. How reasonable is that? Who’s for owning a taxfree multimilliondollar property?
Barry Nicholls
Dunedin