Gisborne letters on ward decision, forestry prosecutions, costs of greenery

One correspondent questions the council decision to keep the Māori ward and put it to a referendum, another asks how much ratepayers - or insurers – are having to pay for Gisborne District Council's forestry prosecutions. Photo / Liam Clayton

Letters to the Editor

OPINION

People voted on merit, not racially

The article by Roger Handford on Saturday, August 24 that showed how low voting was after a Māori ward was introduced made very interesting reading. It appears that an idea which was going to promote more enrolments and higher voter participation, had the opposite effect.

I moved to Gisborne in 2016 before the local body elections that year and attended several meetings to listen to candidates and speak to them in order to decide whom to vote for. I was impressed by the fact that I could talk to candidates and chose the ones I wanted as mayor and councillors regardless of their race, age or gender.

When the previous Government promoted the idea of dividing New Zealanders up by separating us racially at the ballot box, I did not think New Zealanders would agree with this. The column in Saturday’s Gisborne Herald not only showed the very low voting numbers in the Māori ward; the fact that the highest-polling councillor from the general ward is Māori shows that voters in the general ward – where the majority are non-Māori – chose to vote on merit rather than racially.

I am surprised that in light of the voting figures, the mayor and councillors decided to go ahead with an expensive referendum and the dividing-by-race policies of the last Government – instead of going back to city and rural wards like in 2016.

Tony Dobson

What costs are falling on ratepayers?

Re: “Who pays forestry fines?” August 24 story.

I am more worried about who pays the 75% portion of the council’s legal fees: ”Council chief executive Nedine Thatcher Swann said during a council meeting in June that for every $1 million spent on legal and investigation fees ‘you may get $250,000 back’.”

Do ratepayers pay for that remaining $750,000, or does GDC have some insurance to cover these expenses? If the former, maybe that is not a wise way to spend ratepayers’ money as the legal fees sting ratepayers more than the forest companies at fault.

How much has GDC paid in legal costs in these recent cases? How much has GDC paid in legal fees to date in taking forestry companies to court?

On the subject of legal fees, how much did GDC have to pay for the repairs of the Marina View apartments (total cost about $16m according to March 2022 GH story), if any? Did this amount come from ratepayers or from insurance? Was the GDC responsible for remedial work? What actions has GDC taken since to make sure such liabilities won’t occur in the future? Does GDC currently have insurance for such liabilities?

Simin Williams

What’s next?

As if Grey St isn’t bad enough, we are now getting a unisex toilet in a small, dark building in Peel St.

What do the GDC have in their cookies for smoko?

Another project going ahead without public consultation.

Tiny Thompson

The costs of greenery

Re: “Time to catch up with more green energy”, August 23 letter.

This letter highlights the misleading, not to mention misinforming, narrative that sadly many champion today. The referendum in question was non-binding, a people’s initiative, which only 43% of eligible voters participated in.

The writer should reflect on the six years of her Government that saw more dirty Indonesian coal and diesel burnt than ever before to keep the lights on. If she thought any of her ideas were good, they had their chance to implement them but chose not to.

The burning of money alone on failed transport projects and water infrastructure by the previous Government probably contributed more heat to the climate than any mass industrialisation could do. Green energy like wind and solar is not actually green. You could argue aspects of the generational side of it is, but not the manufacture, nor the disposal of the short-lived assets.

The earth is being dug up like never before in pursuit of “green options”. These options are highly unreliable with intermittent generation, requiring huge battery banks to be remotely practical. Due to their inherent failings, many times more generational capacity is required to replace reliable fossil fuel options.

One could also go on to highlight the environmental damage these green options impose, just from their implementation and operation alone – but that can wait for another day.

Iain Boyle

Of course they have

Many companies would take the opportunity to get their project off the ground with minimal scrutiny. Even those who have been rejected by the courts due to grave concerns.

How many of these projects will skirt around the consultation requirements of the Treaty?

What do you think about the Ōhinemuri River turning orange and potentially having arsenic and other poisons in it due to past gold mines?

Then there’s the guy wanting a subdivision down south who was turned down due to potential issues from being on a floodplain.

We’ve spent so much to remedy leaky homes and it’s still going on. We don’t need more like that.

This is what we face without proper regulation, and taxpayers will again bear the costs. That seems to be the norm – when the culprits are long gone.

Mary-Ann de Kort