Why can’t stadium users walk?
Reflecting on last week’s woes, heritage is again an issue for developers with Carter Group again threatening to spit the dummy and not develop a central city site due to the Blue Cottage (Heritage ruling may halt project, April 20).
They bought the land in 2021 for $10 million or so but seem to have missed the cottage being there? Bit careless, one would think.
Anyway, it looks a bit of a wreck and does not seem to have had much care in the three years Carter Group has owned it. Do the two trees have to go too? Would be an unusual Christchurch development if they stayed.
Te Kaha streets development $34m… really? Surely our mayor must call out this as gold-plated? I am reminded of a privileged visit to Arles where the Romans built a colosseum, it is surrounded by very narrow streets except for one point where the posh folks’ chariots, lions and Christians were delivered; everyone else walked to the show.
So, based on a generous three (?) major events a year at Te Kaha, how about a simple drop-off zone on Barbadoes St for the posh folk, then simply close off the existing streets so the rest (well, those lucky few who can afford tickets) can walk there? Problem solved and $34m saved. Russell Wenn, Waitikiri
Inefficiency irksome
It is disconcerting to know ratepayers will have to keep paying a lot more for city council works expenditure when the council, in my view, obviously wastes a large amount of what it spends already.
Everyone can see around the suburbs examples of ridiculous so-called enhancements to roads and intersections, such as access restriction, curbs stuck out into the street, fancy new paving surfaces, signs all over the place. This on top of plenty of barely justifiable attempts at real safety improvements.
It’s as if the council has departments which are allowed to do what they like, because they are the so-called experts.
Much worse, however, is the obvious inefficiency plainly visible on large roadworks. To anyone who cares, it is obvious that labour and valuable machinery utilisation rates are truly awful.
Where this work involves council departments, action is up to the council.
Where this work involves large private contractors, their inefficiency while still making money brings into question the real competitiveness of the whole tendering process.
John Nichols, Somerfield
Modern learning
We read, with disappointment but no surprise Brett Kerr-Laurie’s article (Fail for modern learning, April 16) about problems with the operation of modern learning spaces in schools.
Concerns relating to learner distraction, collaboration difficulties between pupils, noise transmission in large, open spaces and learner discomfort ought to have been anticipated and addressed by advocates of modern learning environments, we believe.
That they weren’t - or were underestimated - is reflected in Tim Grocott’s conclusions (as Shirley Boys’ High School principal) that modern learning settings are “[based on] very poor policy and philosophy” and have “a negative impact on learning”.
His observations deserve a comprehensive response from those Ministry of Education officials and others who advocated vigorously for the introduction of modern learning environments.
As historians of education and education policy researchers we maintain that the modern learning “philosophy” has several deficiencies and may contribute to learner disengagement. Regrettably it is but one example of many “philosophies” we have studied over several decades that have been based on fads and fashions, many of which have been imported from overseas and applied to Aotearoa New Zealand settings uncritically and with missionary zeal.
Modern learning policies and other educationally dubious strategies are likely to remain unchallenged unless politicians and influential education officials begin to engage seriously with scholarship in education history, policy, and philosophy. Professor Gregory Lee (formerly University of Canterbury), Professor Howard Lee (formerly Massey University) [abridged]
Sick students
Pseudoephedrine has been reclassified by the associate minister of health as suitable for purchase over pharmacy counters without needing a doctor’s prescription, despite Professor Michael Baker’s warning that taking the drug to mask symptoms and then “soldiering on” at work or school must inevitably spread cold, influenza and especially Covid viruses.
And again from the associate minister, “children should go back to school if they have just a sniffle or a cold”.
Little heed should be taken of medically unqualified politicians without children, dictating to parents how to manage the health and wellbeing of their own kids. Parents, with the help of medical professionals, are the ones who will decide whether or not their children are well enough to attend school.
Rod Lewis, Sumner
Appointed councillors
I share Sir Kerry Burke’s disquiet about appointed councillors (Letters, April 19). The oath sworn by councillors requires them to “… faithfully and impartially, and according to the best of my skill and judgment, execute and perform, in the best interests of the [region or district], the powers, authorities, and duties vested in, or imposed upon, me as [mayor or chairperson or member] of the [local authority]…” How can this square with councillors being appointed to advocate for the interests of one sector of the community?
These days many Māori are being elected to councils and bringing Māori knowledge and perspectives to their council tables, just as other councillors bring their knowledge and skills. If a council finds itself without Māori members able to assist it to meet its obligations in relation to matters of particular concern to Māori, there are several ways to get advice. In-house expertise is probably the best, followed by consultants, or convening public hui to discuss particular issues.
Appointing councillors to advocate for Māori just contributes to the growing “them and us” attitude in New Zealand society.
David W Collins, Governors Bay
Argument fails
Kerry Burke’s argument for rejecting Ngāi Tahu’s two ECans councillors fails on three counts.
Firstly, he’s disappointingly discriminatory as, in health board elections, our democracy has been broad enough to include specialist unvoted-for voting appointments. Tellingly, tribal electors vote for Ngāi Tahu’s councillors. Would Sir Kerry also abolish Māori parliamentary seats?
Secondly, since they were begun in 1876 until recently, and despite Treaty guarantees to the contrary, local councils totally excluded Māori tribes from selfdetermination over their own local affairs and any formalised participation in local council decisions affecting their tribal interests.
Thirdly, Ngāi Tahu are demonstrably the only tribe within ECan’s area, so are entitled to represent all Māori interests.
Like Mike Yardley’s suggestion Ngāi Tahu’s representation be reduced to two non-voting “mana whenua advisors”, Sir Kerry’s viewpoint takes our race relations back 50 years.
Gary A Clover, Richmond, Tasman
Linguistic abuse
The Kiwi capacity for the casual misuse and abuse of the English language appears boundless. Happily, it may also be equally amusing.
On enquiring lately of my local supermarket as to the absence of my favourite brand of plunger grind; I was told that it had “probably become completely deranged”.
The imagery this conjured has since kept this otherwise sad old man entertained.
The possibilities are endless.
John Richardson, Loburn [abridged]