Stormwater plan forgets Manukau

There has been much publicity on the century old infrastructure of the old Auckland suburbs — Herne Bay, St Marys Bay and others — accounting for the pollution of nearby beaches and hence the Waitemata Harbour. Mayor Goff’s piece this week and the interview with Andrew Chin illuminated the harbour’s pollution and what to do about it.

A proposed solution is the billion-dollar central interceptor taking stormwater from those old suburbs to Mangere, a longoverdue infrastructure upgrade. So far, so good. I count myself among Auckland residents who agree that we must clean up our act, and am prepared in principle to put my levies where my mouth is.

But here’s the catch. The council’s Swimsafe website shows four active alerts on the Waitemata and 10 on the Manukau Harbour, seven on the northern and populated side of the Manukau muchloved by its communities. How will the central interceptor transporting stormwater from old Auckland to Mangere for disposal improve the quality of the Manukau Harbour beaches?

What will be done to that water once it reaches Mangere? Will it be drinkable after treatment? What solutions are proposed by the council with Watercare to give our Manukau beaches the green tick? These concerns need to be included in the consultation on the proposed targeted rate. Nicola North, Oratia.

Residents’ fault

Phil Goff says we must spend $1 billion with a levy on all ratepayers to clean up our wastewater problem. He refers to mixing stormwater with sewer water. Many people blatantly allow their stormwater to enter the sewer. I know of one person who proudly stated he had a problem with a muddy section as he had no wastewater drain. He channelled his stormwater into the nearest gully trap. Multiply this action all over Auckland and we see the result.

An instant fine, say $1000, for all residents with stormwater entering the sewer would fix this. Of course this would need section inspection and enforcing. As is the case with dogs on beaches and cellphones in cars, we are not good at enforcing bylaws. Vince West, Milford.

Evidence against Watson

Several letters to the Herald say Scott Watson should not have been convicted of murdering Ben and Olivia. Also the recent TV programme and Herald articles focus on so-called dubious witnesses. Would any of these have been sober in the wee small hours of New Year’s Day?

The jury were unanimous in their decision that Watson murdered the two unsuspecting young people, who were probably quickly overwhelmed. Nowhere in the recent publicity has there been mention of the cutting of chunks out of seat squabs. And what respectable yachtsman does not have an anchor? (Most we know have more than one.)

The finding of hairs from Olivia was just one item in a myriad of evidence. I suggest an investigative journalist interview longterm residents of Great Barrier Island about the disappearance of an American woman several months before the Sounds murders. Rachel Lewis, Takapuna.

Rich lister

Liam Dann misses the two most important points in his soft commentary on Graeme Hart and his $6.4 billion increase in wealth last year. First, it was the workers in the factories Hart owns who made the extra billions for him and second, we have no idea how much tax Hart paid. Is Hart in the 50 per cent of rich listers who the IRD tells us declare incomes of less than $70,000 a year for tax purposes?

Taking income tax and GST together, workers on the minimum wage pay the highest tax rates in New Zealand and the lowest rates are paid by the likes of Graeme Hart and his wealthy mates. That’s the real story here, rather than how many superyachts Hart can afford to build. John Minto, Christchurch.

Foreigners in jail

What is the matter with our governments, both Labour and National? Are we really spending $33.7 million a year to keep foreign prisoners in our jails? Imagine how many children and pensioners could be lifted out of poverty with that money. Learn a lesson from Australia and deport them whence they came with a ban on their passports so that they are not allowed to come here again and will be deported if they do.

Deporting them will be much cheaper. Here is Labour’s perfect opportunity to do as it said it would do, raise people out of poverty. This would be a much wiser use of our tax money. Gail Webster, Greerton.

Fixing stormwater

New builds now have to include a buffer tank to reduce overflows in peak rainfall periods. Instead of expensive macrosolutions, why not subsidise retrofitting buffer tanks to all dwellings? And why not slow-release the stored water on to the sections to soak into the subsoil, evaporate or be evapo-transpired into the atmosphere via tree plantings in place of lawns? This would humidify Auckland air and increase rainfall.

Of course the population’s American/ European mindset of sun-worship might not approve of increased cloud cover and precipitation, but it has the beneficial effect of cooling the ground.

In Japan, as in most big cities, they have removed most of their urban tree cover, the result of which is baking concrete deserts.

Recent relaxing of tree protection rules for development will cause Auckland to heat up. James Westaway, Hillcrest.

Income-related fines

Correspondents’ responses to Jarrod Gilbert’s piece on income-adjusted speeding fines are mystifying. Are they being deliberately obtuse? A fine is supposed to be a punishment and a deterrent. Few would think that of a cup of coffee or a cinema ticket. Nor is it a matter of “envy the rich”, but rather of providing a realistic penalty and deterrent. I wonder whether what is being dismissed as “envy the rich” is really “despise the poor”. R. Porteous, Balmoral.

Passing hazard

Jon Addison is right that you should be allowed to drive at 120km/h in the passing lane to be safer. This allowance is especially needed as often the car you followed at 80km/h in the 100km/h zone for 5km or more will accelerate to 100km/ h at the start of the passing lane and drop back to 80km/h at the end, so no car can pass legally. The frustration caused to the drivers of the queue of cars behind the slow car can lead to risky passing at times, adding to our already high road toll.

Murray Hunter, Titirangi.

Headscarf confusion

The image of a young Iranian woman protesting without the obligatory Islamic headscarf has become synonymous with the Iranian people’s fight for freedom against a controlling and brutal regime. It seems incongruous, then, that some Western feminists have instead embraced the headscarf as a symbol of freedom of choice. Which is it to be? Is the hijab a garment that expresses the wearer’s choice and personal freedom or is it, as this image suggests, an item of clothing imposed on women by Islamic law to subjugate and control them?

Susan Nixon, Glen Eden.

Embassy move

Tony Kaye of Hamilton is wrong to say moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem is an action of President Trump, “not the USA”. The US Congress on May 31, 1995, passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act with a landslide majority and it passed in the Senate, 95-5. The embassy was to be built by the end of 1999. The act was not implemented because of a six-monthly waiver clause that allows a President to defer action on national security grounds.

Trump signed one waiver and as the end of his first year approaches on January 20, he has acted to implement the act. George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Barak Obama all campaigned on moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem as Trump did. Only Donald Trump honoured his pledge. John McCormick, chairman, Hawke’s Bay friends of Israel.

Eye openers

John Galvin’s argument that Lorde’s noIsrael-tour decision has compromised her forever, and her concert would have built bridges, ignores that most Palestinians would be unable to attend concerts. I was in Israel for six weeks last year on an archaeological dig and took a US history professor and a van-load of archaeologists to visit Bethlehem university on the West Bank. New Zealander Kevin Bray has been vice-chancellor there for nine years.

As we toured the campus the Americans were surprised to learn their university had the same number of students and the same proportion of females, 70 to 75 per cent, for very different reasons. Also a revelation, they could see on the opposite ridge settlements on land the parents and grandparents of the Palestinian students had owned for at least five generations, with many there as day labourers.

Whatever the justice of Balfour Declaration promises or we-were-herefirst, God-said-so rights, all these citizens have been compromised by leadership failures on all sides. Given existing apartheid in Israel, a negotiated solution for concerts in both communities may indeed goad leaders out of their present compromised positions. Maybe we could offer to host them? Steve Liddle, Napier.