It is time New Zealand's housing stock was considered a national good, allowing direct regulation.
Are there howls? Who cares?
The economy isn't working for a huge section of our society, who work zero hour contracts and never get anywhere.
It's time to remove the speculators and so called investors from the residential housing sector, ending its commodity status.
What about all those speculators who stand to lose out? So what? What about all those people who can't find anywhere to stay?
Don't they count? (As far as the governments, that come and go, are concerned, it is only the rich that should have their interests protected. We know that nearly all members of this Parliament own numerous houses as speculative assets, directly hurting the average person, who rents).
I propose a limit on residential property ownership, say two per married couple or single, maximum, no ownership for under 18s or trusts.
But what about the loss of money associated with forced sales? What about it?
Speculators can afford to lose out: that's why it's called speculation.
Society doesn't have a responsibility to speculators: they are a parasite, feeding off legitimate citizens.
This article (Daily Post, January 18) is full of the proverbial and is why cyclist and motorist don't get on.
The law of the jungle is biggest has right of way unless you have a death wish of course a cyclist sees a lot more than cars (no blind spots) and can quite safely zip in and out of traffic.
Sure you always have ride defensively but what's wrong with that, it's fun and gives me an adrenaline rush.
I don't agree
Ryan Gray (Letters, 19 January) accuses RDRR of scaremongering while, in my view, attempting to ingratiate the integrated business and political interests of a so-called not-for-profit company and a small but currently powerful group on council.
Had he read the responses to our Facebook posting on behalf of concerned members more carefully, which has reached 4532 people to date, he would have realised the weight of public opinion favours a far greater separation of the activities permitted on the bike slalom track and in the adjacent Tree Trust areas.
And the advice of highly respected one-time official Garry Page, who actually wrote the current Management Plan of Centennial Park, that it is "well overdue for review".
Instead of attacking the RDRR, alongside those with vested interests who demand control of consenting to their own ends, it is time for our elected representatives on council to trigger a fresh and politically neutral policy settlement process.
Since current demand for trees of reverence significantly exceeds supply, it could be timely to convert the long-disused bike slalom area to Tree Trust purposes. The equally legitimate demand for slalom cycling be accommodated at one of the other four sites under consideration.
And when the not-for-profit company repays ratepayers their outstanding subsidy of $132,519, and adopts a not-for-loss business plan, it be warmly welcomed to continue its partnership with council by acknowledging ratepayers' interests and help reducing its debt.
In response to Dave Donaldson's letter (Daily Post, January 17) concerning the Hemo roundabout sculpture, I'd like to ask a few questions and receive simple answers.
If NZTA is fronting up with only $150,000 (Daily Post, Dec 11 2017), where is the rest of the at least $500,000 coming from? (The final cost figure seems to be altered almost daily).
What has already been paid to Te Puia for the original design and intellectual property rights?
What has happened to council's original idea that sponsorship or private funding was to be sought for the balance of the cost, or has that been canned given it isn't something a private company or person could gain much mileage from?
What is the real total cost now, having included all that has already been spent?
What is the real amount to be paid by ratepayers as we know that NZTA isn't footing the total bill?
We need transparency and honesty from council on this topic as it seems that there is a bit of a cover-up going on.