The cost of containers on wheels

Public transport loses (Jan 8), with the smiling Aaron Musgrove, is begging for real research on what cars cost society, while keeping their drivers in comfortable denial of public transport.

Car owners who do not keep their vehicle within the boundaries of their section seem to expect to have some space provided to park it for the 90 per cent of the time they are not using it. We really wonder who is paying for the spaces occupied by the thousands of parked cars on the road?

Some houses in my area have tenants using up to half a dozen spaces on the road every night. If I wanted to rent or use such spaces from the Wellington City Council for personal and private use, how much would it rightly ask for to pay the value of the common spaces occupied?

Even those many car owners who park off-road in front of their properties, on the indented footpath crossings, apart from breaking the law are using those spaces at a cost to all ratepayers. In fact, this really disqualifies the undulated footpath from being called a footpath, especially for children and the infirm.

Research could give interesting insights into the real cost of these containers on wheels, frequently only transporting one person while in use.

Paul Franken, Strathmore Park

I know it’s stating the obvious but we have several ways of getting around and we need all of them: cars, cycles, scooters, walking and public transport.

So why are modes of transport portrayed as a competition (Jan 8)? Don’t most car drivers realise that the more people walk, ride bikes, take buses, the fewer cars there are on the road? Isn’t that better for everyone?

Aaron Musgrove says he prefers to sit in road traffic for 45 minutes than to take a bus and train. Fine for his situation, but others enjoy reading a book, catching up with emails, and chatting to friends on the bus or train, as well as a short walk at each end of their journey.

The truth is we have too many cars for our roads so we have to encourage other ways of getting around. Let’s recognise that good public transport is essential in a modern city, and just get on with providing it.

Jenny Clark, Paekaka¯riki

Clarification of the law

The 1080 cases taken by the Brook Valley Community Group Inc – please note that it is an incorporated society– were to clarify the law, not just for the local issue (Jan 9). It was of national significance.

The Resource Management Act has several contradictions in its subsections.

The group maintained correctly that S13.d.1 should take precedence where it states that ‘‘no substance is to be deposited in around or under a waterway’’. The Nelson City Council policy on water purity echoes this.

Section 15 allows for exemption from this requirement under certain conditions. The group sought clarification as to which section took precedence over the other.

The High Court judge avoided this by refusing to accept that a poison bait was a substance in terms of the law. (How can a thing, having a physical presence, detectable by touch, sight and smell, not be a substance?)

The Court of Appeal recognised that a bait was a substance, but after trawling through the RMA, found a clause that allowed ‘‘depositing a substance’’ without notification as long as it was part of an approved poison drop.

The result of this is that effectively nobody has any real control over what goes into our streams and rivers, lakes as well.

Much of the blame for the situation can be laid at the feet of the former minister for conservation who used his political powers to counter any moves made by the group.

Michael Kidson, Nelson

Ill-informed view

Forest & Bird chief executive Kevin Hague’s arrogant, ill-informed putdown of the SPCA in its stand against the use of the poison 1080 reveals a fundamental lack of knowledge of the long history of a hugely respected organisation whose sole purpose is the care and protection of animals.

His dismissal of the case put by the SPCA to prevent predators dying long and agonising deaths from ingesting 1080 by working on other more humane solutions is unforgiveable.

Hague would do well to consider how other non-native species can be managed humanely. History shows that dramatic and toxic eradication programmes are not the solution and eventually so-called predators will return.

As humans we have an obligation to care for all life and with this in mind I would question having someone like Hague heading Forest & Bird, whose raison d’etre implies protection and care, not selectivity and destruction.

Judy Morley-Hall, Auckland