Negative return on investment
Now that Christchurch’s new stadium is under construction, it seems to hit our leaders that it’s going to be a costly venue to run.
I was shocked to read (City mayor goes cap in hand to neighbours over stadium, Feb 17): "In 2019 ..., a cost-benefit analysis estimated the local economy would only get back 87 cents from every dollar spent on the stadium."
It is essentially a negative return on investment. No sensible business owner I know would want to spend money on something that is going to forever make a loss.
How come this fact wasn't made more public at the time of the stadium referendum? Now we will have to bear those costs in our rates for who knows how long.
Alice Terrien, Sydenham
One council
The mayor of Christchurch is off to the surrounding councils wanting money for Te Kaha, the stadium for those who don't know what Te Kaha is or will be or just maybe because, as we are discovering with the cathedral, if you don't have the dosh, you might not get the lot, just some walls but no roof or seats.
There is a solution. We could get the Government to amalgamate all the councils into one super-council, just like happened with Auckland. Maybe not a super-council, more a biggie.
Christchurch’s population is about 380,000. Selwyn and Waimakariri each have about 65,000. We would crack the half million. Imagine that.
As for the cathedral, as a lapsed Anglican, I suggest they might consider a little amalgamation of their own, especially as they are looking at tithing.
The Catholics are in need of a cathedral, and there are probably more of them than Anglicans. It makes sense to me, given they only came into existence because the big Henry wanted a divorce. Just a few thoughts for the powers that be.
Phil Butler, New Brighton
Drone caution
Alas, it transpires that the suggestion to shoot down errant drones interfering with fire-fighting is not recommended.
According to an expert in the field our drone laws are almost a decade behind the times now and because the CAA is right into “copy and paste” it has simply assigned drones all the rights/privileges/ protections of manned aircraft.
Anyone who shoots down a drone could be imprisoned for a long time for “interfering with an aircraft” in the eyes of the regulators. Oops!
Ian Orchard, Papanui
Rakaia River
A short holiday prevented me from reading Wilco Terink’s letter (Feb 14) until Thursday, but he deserves congratulations for his challenge to ECan to publish its claim that his report did not pass scientific peer review.
There will be many who believe that organisational politics lies behind ECan’s refusal to release documents supporting its claims.
It also seems that the increased Lake Coleridge storage by Manawa (formerly Trustpower) since 2013 has not been subject to formal ECan consent processes, despite ECan’s 2014 advice that this was required.
Failure after failure it seems. There are miles to run on this issue yet, so it is best for all the information to become public.
Terink’s letter advises some of the questions for ECan to answer in that process.
He deserves thanks for that. It’s past time for hitherto silent councillors to take control of this issue.
Kerry Burke, Strowan
Taxed twice
Our Government is doing the exact opposite to what it professes.
To prepare for retirement, we bought a second-hand PHEV; it travels 30-40km on electricity – thereafter, it runs on petrol. After that first 30km, we contribute to roading by fuel excise like every other petrol car.
Now, our Government will charge PHEVs 70% of EV Road User Charge rates (plus admin costs) for every trip – whatever the distance.
This contradicts giving tax cuts to the squeezed middle - it taxes twice; it increases taxation.
It also increases red tape, adding administration costs.
The plan “to bring all vehicles into the RUC system” and charge everyone by distance and vehicle weight is a robustly fair one.
Initiate that, by all means; but don’t unfairly penalise PHEV owners in an illconsidered stopgap measure. The decision that EVs pay RUCs is equitable, but our Government should exclude PHEVs from its current plans.
Bosco Peters, Christchurch Central
Backward-looking
It’s a tragedy that the National-led Government, through its leader, is tackling complex issues with backward-looking tunnel vision.
How does it reconcile punishing and demonising people who have been out of paid work and in receipt of a benefit for lengthy periods, with a structural reliance on increasing unemployment via the Reserve Bank, combined with a lack of intensive case management, vocational guidance, and job matching to support people to find suitable work?
How can it bemoan the tragedy of more children experiencing poverty when at the same time it reduces the real income of people on benefits and supports casualised low-paid employment?
How can it ignore landlords who accept the taxpayer-provided accommodation supplement from tenants but provide cold, costly, damaged, and damp accommodation that worsens health and wellbeing?
A civil and fair society focuses on inclusion and care of all, through social investment based on a generosity of spirit, and recognition we are all in this together.
This, combined with economic development based on sustainability, will help step us through the tunnel and onto the braided pathways of the future. Vaughan Milner, Northwood
Fair share
I totally agree with Pat Nicholls (Letters, Feb 21), no doubt there are a few people who have found a way to stay on a benefit and rob from the average taxpayer.
An Inland Revenue investigation in 2021 found that the rich only pay 9.4% tax, compared with 20.2% tax as paid by middle-wealth New Zealanders.
As it has always been, the rich make the rules to maintain their position.
They also tend to become our politicians and continue the status quo.
It is as much a fact as climate change, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, not only in NZ but worldwide.
Until our politicians are prepared to make a stand and change this then nothing will change.
Robert White, Tai Tapu
Like get out
I write having read Joe Bennett’s column on February 21 and Don Hutton’s followup on February 22 regarding the word “get” and the variations of its use,
I can see that in spite of the variation, the meaning of the word still remains the same and that is to “acquire” or “receive”.
I would like to consider the word “like”, which means to “enjoy” or “approve” or “similar to”.
These days our younger generation are using the word like as a fill-in when the speaker is thinking of something else to say.
In the good old days people would use “ums” or “ahs” to fill these gaps.
Today we get young people saying things along the following lines: “I got up like ... at 7 o’clock and like ... had some breakfast before like ... I headed off to school. Outside it was like ... pouring down.”
The word “like” is a verb and can be adjusted to the various tenses.
But the meaning is unaltered. Young people today are missing the point.
Paul Carlsen, Opawa