The Government encouraged first home buyers, many with young children, to take up residence in the commuter town of Ōmokoroa, courtesy of Kiwibuild.
But now it has cancelled the roading improvements that would have made it safe for these new residents to commute, via the only exit out, a treacherous intersection on to SH2 with just a stop sign and a thin, painted white line between them and potential carnage.
The children of the new housing developments in Ōmokoroa are all zoned to attend schools that require them to be transported out of their town and along this same state highway, either by car or a school bus with no seatbelts.
Baybus provides a limited weekday, daytime-only service to Tauranga central that suits only a few.
With thousands of vehicles, many of which are fully laden trucks on their way to the port, this intersection at the brow of a hill, and the entire highway from there to Tauranga is a disgrace. There have been zero improvements for Ōmokoroa residents.
A feeble attempt to affix a few orange plastic sticks along the turning lane was made, however, these soon came to grief and have not been replaced.
Sue Kurtovich
Tauranga
Desperately need commitment
We need houses and jobs, or does the Government just want us all on benefits, lazy on dope to make sure we are too dumbed down to complain, and all owning bikes so we only need wheelbarrows and shovels to work on our roads?
People want to live here, Ōmokoroa is planning for 12,000 people, and people are entitled to know when the Ōmokoroa interchange will be built.
We desperately need to have the commitment for the road to Ōmokoroa from Loop Rd where the first stage of the Northern Link will finish, and already that is five years late.
Well-designed state highways are safer to drive on. People want to live here and to think our committed plans with the Government are now ignored so spoilt cyclists can have a separate bridge to the North Shore.
Crazy.
Margaret Murray-Benge
Bethlehem
Māori speeches tedious
In reply to Rob Beilby (Letters, May 7). If someone presents something that is important enough to be aired at a public meeting and it is obvious that a significant percentage of the audience do not understand it, then I think it is only courteous to offer an interpretation.
Otherwise, what is the point of saying it in the first place?
I recently attended an academic graduation ceremony in Porirua. Despite a large percentage of non-Māori attendees, many of the speeches, some quite lengthy, were delivered in Māori with no interpretation.
Apart from the highlight of seeing our granddaughter receive her award, I felt the whole occasion was a tedious exercise in patience and that a lot of what was said to the audience must have been pretty insignificant.
Ian Young
Pāpāmoa Beach
I am confused
I am confused. Can someone help me understand the logic of when someone who calls for non-racial democracy and treating people on the basis of their character and not their colour or tribal affiliation, they are racist.
But when someone calls for Māori Health, Māori wards and other benefits linked to ethnic identities they are non-racial.
There is, in my view, some linguistic gymnastics escaping my understanding.
John Clements
Katikati
The Bay of Plenty Times welcomes letters from readers. Please note the following:
• Letters should not exceed 200 words.
• They should be opinion based on facts or current events.
• If possible, please email.
• No noms-de-plume.
• Letters will be published with names and suburb/city.
• Please include full name, address and contact details for our records only.
• Local letter writers given preference.
• Rejected letters are not normally acknowledged.
• Letters may be edited, abridged, or rejected at the Editor's discretion.
• The Editor's decision on publication is final. No correspondence will be entered into.
Email editor@bayofplentytimes.co.nz