At a time when the world is moving to reduce/eliminate the use of plastic packaging and plastic bags to stop them going into landfill, here we have local recyclers who will stop collecting glass from March 1, thus ensuring that lots of glass from our city is going to end up going into the landfill. Shame on them and shame on our council for not doing anything about it. After collecting glass successfully for many years, they have come up with a bunch of feeble excuses as to why not to, expecting people to drive miles out of their way to recycle their glass. I can see this being really successful - yeah right! Also, with less recycling activity, you would expect to see their charges drop - yeah right! They have just hiked their charges so, in my opinion, it's more of a money-making exercise at the expense of our environment.
Michelle Whitmore's wish to triple TECT's contribution to Tauranga's growth, and Bill Murphy's suggestion TECT use its wealth to compensate for local/central government underfunding (Letters, February 20) sound fine, but we're overlooking the elephant in the room. Consumers who don't support Trustpower don't contribute to TECT charitable distributions or community grants. TECT's proposal won't change that. Only Trustpower consumers will contribute towards Michelle's and Bill's vision of a bigger/better Tauranga, and under TECT's proposal, they will contribute more, in fact, everything. TECT's proposal is discriminatory, as it only disadvantages a captive group supporting Trustpower. All ratepayers should contribute equally to Bill's community assets and amenities, and while Michelle's concerns are praiseworthy, they should not be resolved by taking money from only one sector. TECT's proposal is also divisive, as one group foresees increased charitable distributions, another foresees increased community assets, and another is clearly saying "just a minute neighbour, that's my money". Trustees were said to be unanimous on the TECT proposal - time perhaps they resigned and stand again in the June election, make honest disclosure where they stand on this issue, and refrain on this occasion from flip-flopping.
D L Gibbs
Here's a better way of using our money: There are much better ways of finding out what the public want of a museum. Use the funds to build a brilliant virtual museum. This can be a frontrunner to the real museum to be built if it becomes affordable, or indeed if it is actually needed at all. Almost every home, school, and tourism-related business, has TV and AV equipment that allows instant search capability, and exciting interactive formats to enjoy, and learn, from our very own virtual museum. The greatest advantage of a virtual museum is as a public survey tool, along with inspiring views of what's happening in overseas virtual museums - the council will get direct feedback from well-founded questions entered on the museum site - easy eh? This is where the council will get all the answers they need, without the horrendous costs of setting up physical displays, or importing overseas displays and paying the large fees to have them here. Millions of dollars will be saved by getting it right at this stage with our virtual museum, and it may take 10 years to do so, but getting it wrong will cost many millions more.