Py­rol­y­sis sup­port could hurt come elec­tion time

Marlborough Express - - FRONT PAGE -

Stu­art Smith is right (Ex­press, No­vem­ber 30), and could I add a point or two. Firstly, we re­gard our bach as part of our home, just with that part in an­other lo­ca­tion. Sec­ondly, the coun­try part has a higher QV than the town part, so which is the ‘‘bach’’? Thirdly, we could dodge the tax by sell­ing both houses and while the pro­ceeds would buy a pass­ably up­mar­ket prop­erty in Marl­bor­ough, they would not buy so much as a chicken coop in Auck­land, so for us the ‘‘bach tax’’ be­comes a mak­ing-the-most-of-liv­ing-in-a-cheaper-lo­cal­ity tax. How much sil­lier does it get? If any­one out there wor­ries that our bu­reau­cracy, the ‘‘gi­ant ma­chine op­er­ated by pyg­mies’’ (Balzac) has been slack over the drug-deal­ing kick­boxer, re­lax. An item from last No­vem­ber’s news shows they can ac­tu­ally be very ef­fi­cient. Lit­tle Cait­lyn Davies, a blind and crip­pled South African, who with fam­ily had been liv­ing in Geral­dine for the pre­vi­ous two years, was kicked out of God­zone be­cause her con­di­tion would have been ‘‘a bur­den’’ on us tax­pay­ers. I wrote lit­er­ally beg­ging Ian Lees-gal­loway to step in, with zero re­sult as far as I know. OK, I ad­mit I’m not an ad­vo­cate for tak­ing in refugees but this case cried out for mercy. The Czech man will be cost­ing us $100,000 per year for his ac­com­mo­da­tion in the health farm, and I try not to think of the dona­tions we’ll be mak­ing to the law in­dus­try as he is helped through the labyrinth of ap­peals be­fore, if ever, he is sent back whence he came. Thanks Jonathan Cole­man and the bu­reau­crats for let­ting him in in the first place. Back to Cait­lyn Davies; this is, I think, the only oc­ca­sion when I have been bit­terly ashamed for our coun­try. We are – were – bet­ter than this. lodged for a plant on the same site near Bluegums Land­fill, for which sub­mis­sions closed on No­vem­ber 20.

The dif­fer­ence with this ap­pli­ca­tion is that the con­sent would al­low a smaller-scale oper­a­tion and ex­clude Cca-treated tim­ber to pre­vent the re­lease of ar­senic.

It seems like the Marl­bor­ough Dis­trict Coun­cil’s view is that there is a process to go through to get this fa­cil­ity built – not that there is a ques­tion about whether it will be built at all.

But there’s a po­lit­i­cal side to this is­sue, as we’ll likely see next year.

Boule­vard Park on Tay­lor res­i­dents pur­chased their sec­tions from the coun­cil, which de­vel­oped the land.

Now these ratepay­ers feel un­der­stand­ably ag­grieved by the coun­cil’s sup­port of the py­rol­y­sis plant by giv­ing the un­der­tak­ing that they’ll sup­ply the ma­te­rial that will be burned, so we’ve been told, up­wind from their homes. The plant would also be lo­cated on coun­cil land.

I have been ap­proached by a num­ber of con­stituents about this is­sue and asked for ad­vice on what to do next. That ad­vice is, with lo­cal body elec­tions com­ing up, talk to your coun­cil­lors.

Ques­tion them on whether they sup­port the plant and in what form, what they would do about the is­sue if it pro­gressed fur­ther, and then cast your vote ac­cord­ingly at elec­tion time.

This re­ally is a case of mak­ing your vote count.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from New Zealand

© PressReader. All rights reserved.