Stadium can’t fund itself
Alice Terrien (Letters, Feb 26) decries the predicted return of 87c per dollar spent on the new city stadium, noting that no business would plan to invest in a permanent loss-maker.
But this is a public amenity, not a business. Our sports centres, libraries and the Botanical Gardens also make losses, but help to make the city an attractive place to live and work.
The new stadium will also be an important (and well overdue) amenity, but realistically it cannot be expected to fund itself.
Nigel Ellis, St Albans
Save mature trees
It was heartening to read on Saturday (The quietly radical plan for a leafy city) about our plan to create a truly leafy city and to be reminded of the many advantages mature trees bring to urban ecosystems and human health.
Conversely it is dismaying to learn that despite Christchurch being known as “The Garden City”, our city ranks very low globally in terms of its overall tree canopy coverage – the 2018 measure of 13.5% put us in the lowest quarter of 120 cities worldwide. Auckland currently ranks higher, at almost 20%.
Planting lots of trees to mitigate the effects of global warming at a microlevel seems an obviously excellent thing to do. However, not mentioned, is the importance of retaining the mature trees we already have. We cannot be complacent about our existing “leafy suburbs”. Established trees and gardens are disappearing at an alarming rate as property developers wield their chainsaws indiscriminately. The best tree is the one already there.
Lorraine North, Chair, Canterbury Arts and Heritage Trust, Merivale
Upgrades long due
Those of us who have been involved in school maintenance know the disregard for the education environment that many politicians, from all parties, have had for many years. Christchurch was lucky that the earthquake created an urgent need for repairs and upgrades.
It is ridiculous, and echoes Donald
Trump and Vladimir Putin, to suggest that our most recent government was the cause of overspend in schools.
The need for upgrades has existed for maybe 40 or 50 years because it is easy for governments to ignore kids. Let’s remove the BS from the equation, please.
Doug Hitchon, Mahana
Widening gulf
It’s a pity the Government’s desire to sanction the “dole bludgers” on job support doesn’t extend to the tax bludgers in the black economy, who stiff the Government of, at best estimate, $7 billion annually, our entire annual health bill.
The cost of the relatively few freeloaders who aren’t trying to find a job as enthusiastically as the Government would like pale into insignificance against this backdrop.
But of course, there are no extra votes in sanctioning those people.
If IRD was armed to truly tackle this part of the economy I might see equity in seeking out those who are genuinely able to work but don’t.
When you throw in the many untaxed capital gains on land and property, no wonder there is a widening gulf between the haves and have-nots, and a lack of funding for essential services and infrastructure.
Mr Luxon might find a little more empathy and assistance, and a whole lot less hypocrisy, useful.
Peter Carey, Strowan
Elderly nomads
The “Red Zone” - what could be happening there? I’ve made submissions before to the council that part of the zone could/should be set aside for tiny homes, or an artists’ village.
In my reincarnation as a nomad whose home happens to be a caravan - I’ve been astonished at the size of the mobile motor home community.
In Reefton this weekend, a thousand or more motor caravanners - exceeding the local population of 900 - gathered for their annual rally. A beautiful site for a mass gathering of the predominantly elderly.
As an interested party, I’ve been looking at other locations where nomadic caravanners could settle, pleasantly, for a longer term than most sites allow. Mostly they’re in the less attractive areas of towns.
But in Christchurch - with a vastly under-utilised red zone - why couldn’t a portion be designated a campsite for the mobile elderly?
Susan Wauchop, Motor camp, Reefton
Unforgettable event
I commend the Electric Avenue 2024 festival organisers for their exceptional efforts in hosting an unforgettable event in Christchurch. The festival’s unique appeal to a younger demographic underscores its significance as a beacon of our city’s resilience post-2011 earthquake.
Through strategic use of social and traditional media, the organisers effectively showcased Christchurch’s revival to a wider audience, both nationally and globally.
The meticulous planning and execution of the event, coupled with the diverse line-up of talented acts, contributed to its overwhelming success. Attendees praised the thoughtful hospitality arrangements and the festival’s overall organisation. Additionally, the proactive measures taken to ensure safety, including the presence of police and drug staff, are commendable.
The festival captivated thousands, showcasing Christchurch’s resilient spirit. Kudos to the organisers for their exceptional accomplishment, and a nod to the numerous attendees for their orderly exit.
David Lynch, Merivale
Unacceptable noise
When I live at least 4km from a venue and have to turn my TV up inside my house to hear it over the loud beating noise from a “concert” in town, that is totally unacceptable.
Electric Avenue may pull money into the city, but I’m sure the volume doesn’t have to be so incredibly loud that you can hear the base booming so far away.
L McInnes, Upper Riccarton [abridged]
Road user charges
Bosco Peters (letters, Feb 26) bemoans the double taxation of PHEVs once road user charges are introduced from April 1.
His argument, whilst true to some extent, is probably a bit exaggerated and depends on how regularly you make longer trips above the electric range and hence how much petrol you use overall.
We have a PHEV which does about 40km on a full charge. We have just completed about 5000 km and our usage is mainly within Rangiora environs with a number of trips into Christchurch. So far we have used 1.1 litres of petrol per 100km of travel, according to the onboard computer. So we would have incurred an extra 85 cents per 100km on the tax in the price of the petrol we have used on top of the $5.30 we will have to pay on the new RUC per 100km.
At the same time we have used 17.7 kW of electricity per 100km, costing us $3.36 per 100km.
If we were paying for petrol even at, say, 7 litres per 100km, that would have cost about $20.
w Obviously if we went on long trips or commutes and didn’t keep recharging on the way we would be paying a good bit more extra petrol tax but we don’t do that too often.
Hopefully the new Government will bring in RUC’s for all vehicles reasonably soon so this minor anomaly will go away.
Wayne Hawkyard, Rangiora