No Tree Hill

Do the general public give a stuff about putting a tree back on Maungakiekie ( Central Leader, August 28)?

I’m sure I don’t – better a plaque explaining to tourists the history behind the lack of a tree on One Tree Hill.

The iconic tree is long gone, but as they say, ‘‘the memory lingers on’’ fondly in the minds of the older generation, and in pictures on living room walls.

Mayor Len Brown shares part of his vision for Auckland by imagining that it would require a ‘‘big hole’’ for the new tree, and states: ‘‘It will be a pohutukawa’’, ignoring the fact that he has to discuss it with Ngati Whatua first.

I strongly object to the great expense involved in pursuing this distraction, aided by my $80 a week council taxes with no guarantee that the expensive tree will survive.

The original tree was a tough colonist used to surviving the howling storms of the North Sea off the coast of Scotland, as well as its native California.

I say scrap the idea and put an end to all this grievance whinging. airport, Central Leader, August 21). Thank you for writing about this issue.

We disagree with what the operations manager Judy Nicholl says about the flights being low impact. They are low, noisy and annoying.

She says there have only been 11 complaints about the new flights out of 111 received. This is untrue, and we’re sure she knows this. The noise complaint phone line went unanswered for days when we tried calling it.

The council wouldn’t take complaints, forwarding us to the unanswered line.

The CAA said it would return calls left on its answer phone. They do not.

It wasn’t until the local MP Sam Lotu-liga got involved that we first managed to lodge a complaint.

We must have lodged half a dozen complaints since then despite the painful process, and in each of these complaints we listed more than one flight we objected to.

In short, there is no way they have only received 11 complaints as we alone must add up to more than this number.

The airport states in emails to us that there is no system whereby people can object to flight paths, and we can’t complain about flights that follow correct ‘‘noise abatement procedures’’ (whatever these are).

As ratepayers own a fair chunk of the airport we suspect that complaints to the council are the best course to take as there is at least a semblance of a chance of that angle succeeding in stopping this.

This is supposedly a trial. What kind of trial doesn’t count the views of those negatively affected?

And why is there no decent source of information on what they are doing? And given that it’s 10ish flights a day now, and it may be going up by a factor of 10, we believe that proper consultation and consideration is required.

Ms Nicholl tells us that there is no problem, which is hardly the perspective of someone with an open mind as to the outcome of the trial. 5.30am and going through past midnight on some days.

We have also complained at over 20 aircraft passing via the SMART approach on some days.

It seems that the Auckland Airport is ignoring complaints and submissions in order to paint a picture that suits them.

I look forward to hearing responses to these issues at the public meeting at the Royal Oak Baptist Church, September 12 at 6pm.

It appears that yet again the community is being ignored.

Auckland Airport and Airways New Zealand would be unwise to interpret a small number of complaints as evidence that these trials are not having a negative impact on the quality of life in our neighbourhoods.

Meaningful consultation is more than putting up a web page that people might trip over if they are lucky. If this issue affects you: Sign the Auckland: The Plane Truth Action Group petition

Provide feedback to Auckland Airport at http:/ /www.aucklandairport. co.nz/Corporate/ ContactUs.aspx

Phone them and let them know your views, phone 256 8133.

I write to assure the Auckland Council that there are other inhabitants of this neighbourhood who hold a different view.

The cows which inhabit Mt St John remind us of another feature of our history.

In my Massey Memorial Lecture delivered at Massey University in 1974 under the title The Grass Roots of New Zealand History, I showed that running cattle to help stamp out second growth was an important part of the technique of establishing introduced grasses to replace the pre-European vegetation, which was essential to enable us to grow into a major producer and exporter of pastoral products.

The cows on our mount are as valid and important a demonstration of part of our history as Maori pits, terraces and ridges.

Nor is it solely a question of the cows being welcome as living reminders of a vital part of our history.

The splendid sight of half a dozen animals grazing their slow way along the skyline is one of the sources of satisfaction from living in Dunkerron Ave which my wife and I feel.

Maori and perhaps archaeologists are influential pressure groups in New Zealand, but it would be unfortunate if the council is persuaded that the view suggested in the article is the only one deserving to be weighed.