Wind turbine decision causes mixed reactions
THANK goodness for our legal system (Environment Court) where facts are filtered from fiction, idealism and utter nonsense. The proposed Porteous Hill wind turbine, overlooking Blueskin Bay, has never been viable, nor has it ever had the backing of the Blueskin community, as claimed.
However, what we now know is the Ministry of the Environment, under the National Government , has been supporting this looney project for no other reason than to try to have a crack at weakening the Resource Management Act. Or better still, having an Environment Court case going in their favour, with absolutely no concern about the viability of the project or the effects on the landscape or the local community. The only benefit in their eyes is that there would be case law they could use to batter other communities in a similar situation.
To date, this project has been supported by the DCC energy committee, Otago Chamber of Commerce energy committee, the Green Party, University of Otago sustainability department, Otago Polytechnic sustainable department, and other fanatics who have failed to do their homework and believe anything renewable is great and good for the community as a whole.
Hopefully, these people are suitably embarrassed now that the real facts have come to light on this project. Unfortunately, some are so arrogant they will fail to admit they got it wrong and will continue to try to hoodwink those who don’t know.
This may be a good time to change the management of the country so that we do maintain a strong Resource Management Act, which works, as designed, to protect our rural people and communities , and achieves outcomes that are satisfactory to everyone.
Mark Brown
Waitati
I AM just reading Tuesday’s ODT while in Berlin. It is with disbelief that opposition to the Blueskin Bay wind turbine comes from many people who support sustainable energy etc. We have just driven through many of the countries that support the most Green opinions on the planet. It is strange, as for some reason they agree to and support these turbines often seen operating within city residential limits, the sea and on agricultural land . . . near city, farming and recreational areas .
Many are 50% taller than that mooted for Blueskin Bay. Stockholm has many within the greater city area. Today, on the autobahn from
Hamburg to Berlin, the landscape was alive with these. What is it with New Zealand? The rest of the world sees the benefits but we cannot? Cycleways perhaps will save the energy problem.
N.G. Smith
Maori Hill
Affordable housing
YOUR correspondent Bonnie Perry seems confused about the concept of affordable housing (ODT, 9.9.17). Her argument that the only way one can build an ‘‘affordable’’ house is to make a loss on the construction ignores the fact that statebuilt houses are not built with the aim of making a profit, merely of covering their costs — that alone allows for a lower sales price.
Add to that the cost advantages or buying building materials in bulk, using a variety of standardised plans and providing infrastructure like plumbing and power connections in bulk, rather than adding infrastructure for individual properties one by one, and it is not hard to see how a staterun system such as Kiwibuild could provide people with affordable newbuilt homes as well as having the benefits of increasing the overall housing stock that Bonnie Perry acknowledges in her letter.
Not all new houses need to be minimansions. We can provide practical, healthy, affordable housing for Kiwis who want to own their own homes. We’ve done it before, and we can do it again.
Beatrice Hale
Dunedin