Park crit­ics noisy but few of them

The New Zealand Herald - - Editorial -

Last Satur­day night I was at Eden Park at the top of the South Stand at the G9 Golf. I am a vol­un­teer and at­tend al­most ev­ery event held at Eden Park. Ev­ery time a race started at Western Springs, the noise was deaf­en­ing, and we could not hear each other speak.

I love the Speed­way, but where was the flood of com­plaints in the Herald about the noise? Ev­ery time some­thing is on at the park, the sub­ject of new sta­di­ums, shut­ting down Eden Park etc is aired on this page.

At var­i­ous events, I have spo­ken to many lo­cals who say the com­plain­ers are few but seem to make the most noise. The prob­lems that Eden Park have mak­ing money are di­rectly re­lated to the Auck­land Coun­cil’s de­sire to have its own sta­dium. Maybe it is time the coun­cil took no­tice of the ma­jor­ity and not the mi­nor­ity just be­cause it suits their cause. A few more events like the G9 Golf would go a long way to mak­ing Eden Park for it­self.

Even if we even­tu­ally get a new sta­dium, by the time the coun­cil gets it­self into gear and ap­proves any­thing, Eden Park will likely have fallen down any­way.

Tr­ish Heikoop, Paku­ranga.

Sta­dium part­ner­ship

Si­mon Wil­son quotes Liane Nga­mane of the In­de­pen­dent Ma¯ ori Statu­tory Board as be­ing dis­ap­pointed there was “no ac­knowl­edge­ment of the Treaty part­ner­ship” in plans for a new sta­dium. My un­der­stand­ing is that the Treaty is be­tween Ma¯ ori and the Govern­ment. The cit­i­zen-elected body that is the Auck­land Coun­cil is not a party to the Treaty and has no le­gal li­a­bil­ity to­wards Ma¯ ori as dis­tinct from other cit­i­zens.

Cer­tainly there is no “part­ner­ship” and while Ma¯ ori cul­ture and art should fea­ture in ac­tiv­i­ties of the coun­cil, there is no good rea­son ev­ery pub­lic ac­tiv­ity needs to be sub­ject to the ap­proval of un­elected Ma¯ ori. Trevor El­win, Half Moon Bay.

What dig­nity?

Your ed­i­to­rial tells the House Democrats to “do what they can to show the US is dig­ni­fied, re­spected and great again”. Huh? The vi­o­lent ri­ot­ers of the anti-Trump “re­sis­tance” and the rab­ble pro­test­ers, along with the #MeToo women screech­ers, are sup­posed to present a dig­ni­fied model for con­duct? Trump's com­par­a­tively [forth­right] language was a re­lief after PC jar­gon and plat­i­tudes, plus the slanted re­portage lingo of the me­dia.

Anne Wilks, Devon­port.

Ours is no bet­ter

I find it strange that peo­ple can crit­i­cise the US elec­toral sys­tem when our own, with two elec­toral sys­tems, one for Ma¯ ori and one for the rest, leaves much to be de­sired and our own Govern­ment was not even elected by a clear ma­jor­ity. Like it or not, the US Con­sti­tu­tion guar­an­tees cer­tain free­doms, whereas we have none, but rely upon the hon­esty of our politi­cians and the power of the vot­ing booth to do the right thing. And Trump, like or hate him, is elected by his own peo­ple not by us so our views should be put aside in the name of good re­la­tions with the US. Bruce Wood­ley, Birken­head

Need­less loss

I am some­what con­fused about the pro­fu­sion of me­dia sto­ries on the Le Ques­noy battle. World War I was by all ac­counts one of the great­est wastes of hu­man life in the 20th cen­tury. The sol­ders were fight­ing to pro­tect an im­pe­rial po­lit­i­cal sys­tem long past any use­ful pur­pose. In the end they fought as or­dered by mostly in­com­pe­tent lead­ers and for their friends in the trenches. The last point be­ing the main re­deem­ing qual­ity of the war. They showed courage in the face of the aw­ful re­al­ity of in­dus­trial war­fare.

We should not cel­e­brate Le Ques­noy as a great vic­tory but com­mem­o­rate it as a tragic last battle with 140 New Zealan­ders dead, that a week later would not have been needed as the ar­mistice be­gan. It is true the town was spared de­struc­tion, which was amaz­ing.

Let’s get a full and bal­anced pic­ture of our war ef­forts and not try to paint events into some ver­sion of the truth that our sol­ders would not recog­nise.

Bill Car­lin, Glen­dowie.

Abor­tion law

The ed­i­to­rial on Tues­day stated that “any of the op­tions pro­vided by the Law Com­mis­sion for abor­tion would be an im­prove­ment on the present regime, bring­ing the law up to date with real life”, and claimed op­tion one, for ter­mi­na­tion on re­quest at any stage of preg­nancy, would prob­a­bly be pre­ferred by Labour.

Is there any­one who would so ca­su­ally sup­port abor­tion of a fully-formed child at 22 weeks ges­ta­tion and be­yond, be­cause that would bring the law “up to date with real life”? What sort of cul­ture do we have to­day if in the ser­vice of “real life” the life of the un­born at an ad­vanced stage of preg­nancy can be ter­mi­nated at will? Sounds more like a hor­ror story than “real life”. June Kear­ney, West Har­bour.

Ba­bies needed

An ap­palling ed­i­to­rial on Tues­day. Women have am­ple op­por­tu­nity to pre­vent preg­nancy if de­sired. Think first and be re­spon­si­ble. New Zealand needs these chil­dren. That is what they are from day one of preg­nancy.

Heather Lynch, St He­liers.

Good old days

Your correspondent Dave Mor­ris claims Roger­nomics pro­vides a plen­ti­ful sup­ply and va­ri­ety of hard liquor and all the dinky lit­tle phones we could de­sire. Fair enough. I just wish keep­ing warm in win­ter didn't cost so much, de­cent food wasn't so ex­pen­sive, wages and rents didn't have to be sub­sidised by the tax­payer and a dereg­u­lated build­ing in­dus­try hadn't cre­ated so many leaky homes.

Still, there's prob­a­bly noth­ing wrong with Roger­nomics, as it has come down to us, that a com­pre­hen­sive cap­i­tal gains or wealth tax couldn't fix, and if any rightof-cen­tre party were to adopt such a mea­sure it would have my sup­port.

More sadly, the will to find a way of re­duc­ing the gap be­tween the haves and have-nots has found lit­tle pur­chase amidst all the virtue-sig­nalling, PC rhetoric of what now passes for the left.

Kerry Craig, Mt Eden.

Rapid re­form

In re­sponse to David Mor­ris, I agree Mul­doon’s were not glory days but they did not por­tend the hellish years that fol­lowed. Sub­se­quently, many com­mu­ni­ties suf­fered 20 per cent-plus in­ter­est rates, dra­matic in­creases in sui­cide, post of­fice and bank clo­sures and in­creases in in­ter-gen­er­a­tional un­em­ploy­ment. We lost free ter­tiary ed­u­ca­tion, high hous­ing lev­els and free med­i­cal care in ex­change for an in­crease in colour choices of new toys.

The ar­chi­tects of this “shock doc­trine” re­ceived hon­ours, knight­hoods and awards. Now we strug­gle with the fall­out. The cor­po­rati­sa­tion of demo­cratic in­sti­tu­tions and their man­age­ri­al­ism ap­proach has con­tin­ued, in­clud­ing colonis­ing the language of pro­gres­sives, sus­tain­abil­ity and en­vi­ron­men­tal­ists to sell their eco­nomic prod­uct. What cost to sub­se­quent gen­er­a­tions has been Mor­ris’ in­creased “range of good whiskey”?

Grant Gil­lon, Devon­port.

Hos­pi­tal­ity jobs

The need to train Ki­wis has been dis­cussed for years. Un­for­tu­nately while we give out the dole to many able-bod­ied young peo­ple who can't be both­ered get­ting out of bed in the morn­ing, let alone try for work in an­other town, this will con­tinue. Most cafes, restau­rants and bars are full of young North­ern Hemi­sphere peo­ple who have get up and go, speak good English and work hard. Most of those I have met have man­ners and love to chat about their home and coun­try so it's a twoway learn­ing curve.

Su­san Lawrence, Ko­hi­marama.

Shoul­der tackle

I may have missed it but I have been look­ing for the of­fi­cial word from World Rugby ex­plain­ing the dif­fer­ence be­tween the no-arms tackle by SBW in the 2016 Li­ons se­cond test which led to a red card and a sub­stan­tial stand-down, and the high no-arms tackle by Far­rell of Eng­land last week­end which did not even re­ceive a penalty. I think rugby fol­low­ers world­wide would like to know the dif­fer­ence in these seem­ingly iden­ti­cal events.

R. C. Bell, Sil­verdale.

Not in­ten­tional

There was noth­ing con­tentious at all with Owen Far­rell’s hit on An­dre Ester­huizen. See­ing his arms flip back from the clash shows he in­tended to wrap him up ball and all. If you go in half-hearted you will be the one hurt.

I’m look­ing for­ward to see­ing who has the widest smile, though, Sun­day morn­ing: Ed­die Jones or Steve Hansen. Hope it’s a hard, clean cracker of a game.

Glenn Forsyth, Taupo.

Con­tinue the con­ver­sa­tion ... Leighton Smith New­stalk ZB 8:30am-Noon

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from New Zealand

© PressReader. All rights reserved.