Letters: Tauranga doesn't need more facilities

Tauranga is appealing enough with the "eight listed facilties", readers say. Photo / File

Mangroves vital

Meg Butler is mistaken in thinking that mangroves are spreading at the expense of birds.

The opposite is true.

Wading birds feed on the marine worms, crabs, and shellfish which burrow on the tidal flats. The mangroves enrich and protect this food source. Their leaf litter fertilises the open flats, and the mangrove plants intercept and settle the sediment and other land-based pollutants, protecting the burrowing animals from being smothered. This is why mangrove-fringed harbours support more birds than southern harbours where mangroves don't grow.

It is true that wading birds need open sand or mudflats to feed on, but mangroves are not usurping their space. The proportion of mangroves to open tidal flats is limited by tide and aspect. The birds simply feed out beyond the mangroves, which may inconvenience the bird watchers but doesn't bother the birds.

For the godwits and other migratory birds, New Zealand is a haven and food is plentiful.

The immediate threat they face is on their migration to the northern hemisphere, where many of their vital resting places are being drained and reclaimed. In the long-term, both the wading bird roosts and the mangroves are endangered by sea level rise.

And it's not just about wading birds. Our threatened and endemic banded rail is now dependent on mangroves.
Ann Graeme
Bellevue

Money better spent

The Strand at Easter weekend was a perfect example of where money should be spent, rather than on a museum. Hundreds of people - families, elderly all down enjoying the atmosphere and music, the stalls - so vibrant.

I wonder how many of these people would think it would've been better to spend the money on a museum and how many of these people would rather be there out in the sunshine. I know what I would rather be doing.

Janet Drake
Bethlehem

Tauranga's facilities

In Tauranga, we may not have the eight listed facilities that other similarly sized cities have (News, April 7), but we still have a huge demand for more housing and wider roads.

So people are moving here and like it here despite this. Maybe these facilities are not the things that the ratepayers want.

So why are we comparing ourselves and constantly looking at ways to make ourselves into a bigger, noisier, more crowded city?

That's not why I moved here.

Mark Windsor
Welcome Bay

More questions

Councillor Mason has had a comparative survey (News, April 7) but I would suggest that there are more important questions that could be raised relating to the eight cities shown.

How about these: What is the population? What is the percentage of the population increase in the past 10 years? What are the current rates for an average-priced property?

Do the rates include rubbish collection? How many staff are employed by the council? How many are paid over $90,000 a year?

The councillor noted he did not want his survey to descend into a debate about rates, but perhaps it should be more about "value for money" and "must have" rather than "spend up large and nice to haves".

Frank Stuart
Pyes Pa