Is Tauranga City Council the only city council in the western world that is, if not actually trying to discourage recycling, at the very least making it very difficult for recycling to be carried out?
I have received a letter from my rubbish disposal company (whom I pay, this is not included in my very high rates) stating that as of March 1 glass will not be accepted for recycling. The majority of my recycling, and that of many of my friends, is glass.
Apparently, this has come about because Waste Management no longer wants to accept broken glass for recycling. Who does Waste Management contract to? Is it the council? Is it us, the citizens of this city? Has any effort been made to come up with an alternate arrangement for glass recycling? Many councils throughout New Zealand provide a separate plastic container for glass which seems to work perfectly well.
The letter I received states that Waste Management is proposing to locate free glass-recycling facilities around the city. It is now February 22, and I have not heard where these facilities are located.
Some friends have stated they will promptly cancel their recycling bins – remember, it is us who are paying for this service – if they are unable to put glass in the bins. Therefore all their recycling will presumably be placed in their rubbish bins.
I am appalled that this edict has come down in such a perfunctory manner, apparently without discussion, certainly without any notification from our city council.
I am disgusted with Hubbard's so-called humour.That, in my view, is character assassination at its worst. If one wants to knock a person's confidence, this is it. If Simon Bridges had a deformed hand or some other disfigurement would Hubbard have a go at that too? I see no humour in this "Joke" whatever your political persuasion may be. Almost calls for an apology in my opinion.
TECT cheque proposal
The reasons put forward by the trustees in support of their proposal have broadly consisted of negative comments about TECT's investment in Trustpower, and future issues they perceive will detrimentally impact on the wider electricity industry together with positive comments surrounding the proposed TECT Charitable Trust.
By way of example, comments such as ''the trustees are clear that this is a once in a lifetime transformational opportunity to effect meaningful change in Tauranga and the Western Bay of Plenty'' may be well-intentioned but do nothing in terms of demonstrating why the transformation to a wholly charitable trust is in TECT consumers' interests.
The trustees have a fiduciary duty to act in the interests of TECT beneficiaries (TECT consumers).
A reality the trustees must accept is that TECT consumers are the beneficial owners of TECT assets which the trustees wish to seize control of in return for a series of payments that, in my view, fall well short of the market worth of those assets. Is it any wonder that there is solid opposition to the proposal?
In the absence of a more balanced approach to any such proposal and one that properly takes into account the interests of TECT consumers, I intend to vote no and encourage other TECT consumers to do likewise.
Voting for change
How do you tell your TECT group that the future looks bad!
I raise this as our TECT group are being asked to decide the future of The Tauranga Energy Consumer Trust.
For instance, I believe, the TECT trustees know that the future for Trustpower Electricity is not good.
I believe, in a short time, new private solar power and storage batteries will make most electricity companies redundant.
I am voting "Yes" to the TECT referendum.