Is the DCC wanting too much control?

EVERY three years ratepayers and residents of our fair city have the opportunity to elect those of our fellow citizens whom we think will best represent us at the city council table. Some recent decisions by the council brings me to ask the question. Did we get it wrong?

Socialism is about regulation and control and the issues I have picked up on recently appear to be all about these issues. I have to ask, ‘‘do we have a socialist city council’’? I doubt that voters were intent on electing a council seemingly dedicated to regulation and control. Rather, I think we had hoped to elect a council intent upon sensible governance in the best longterm interests of all our citizens.

Take the seemingly ‘‘religious’’ dedication of some or all councillors to ban liquor sales, almost everywhere or anywhere in our city. I have to ask if they are living in the ‘‘real world’’ or are they remembering how they behaved in their youth?

The majority of young people today, certainly the ones I know and associate with, are responsible and don’t get boozed like my generation used to do. I have been involved with the University Rugby Club for over 20 years and have seen a dramatic change in attitude and liquor consumption over these years. They are much more sensible now as to how they celebrate and to the amount of liquor they consume.

But the council wants to restrict the liquor sales outlets, particularly in the North Dunedin area. Are council members so out of touch that they actually think liquor cannot be obtained from a supermarket?

The DCC in its wisdom (or lack of it?) is running the risk of driving students away from our great university by introducing restrictions on the young folk who come here to gain their degree. Dunedin is a student town and they love it here.

Try to understand that young people are ‘‘young’’ and need to have their fun. This means that at times we need to be tolerant and forgiving and understand that it will mostly be the ‘‘few’’ who make it difficult for the many. I might add the New Zealand police may well need to take note of these comments because they have had their hand in some or all of these decisions.

Bill Thompson

Mornington

[Abridged]

Lake weed benefits?

I MUST respond to the letters (ODT, 21.1.17) from Murray Neilson (Clutha Fisheries Trust) and Niall Watson (Otago Fish and Game) and suggest there is absolutely no benefit to having lagarosiphon in Lake

Dunstan. Otherwise, why are the authorities spending large amounts (we understand over $400,000 per year ) to try to rid Lake Wanaka of this terrible weed?

Lagarosiphon has no place in our lakes. It is an invasive weed taking oxygen out of the water and has little or no nutrient value, so how is it of benefit? We suggest the opposite as many areas in Lake Dunstan are now totally infested so are useless for recreational uses like fishing, boating, swimming etc.

We have never proposed eliminating the weed (as there is no current tool to do so) so control is the next best option. The weed grows up to 5m from the lake bottom so what we have promoted is cutting the weed about 1 to 2m below the surface. Your two correspondents worry me as it appears that they are more concerned with looking after the fish than with the many recreational fishermen who we thought they were representing.

All we, the Guardians of Lake Dunstan, are trying to achieve is a pristine lake for the enjoyment of everybody and unless this weed is contolled in most or all of the lake we will carry on with our fight for this to be achieved. We have no other objectives or ulterior motives.

Andrew Burton Chairman, Guardians of Lake

Dunstan