Letters To The Editor: Council leasehold policy loser

Council leasehold policy loser
After reading the NCC Annual Plan Summary and its proposal for a "Lagoon Farm Business Park" I wonder how many of the empty/for lease properties in the existing industrial Onekawa area are on leasehold land.
Every one of those empty buildings represents a business that isn't operating and jobs that don't exist.
If one casts a critical eye over industrial Onekawa, one will note that most of the buildings are at least 30 to 40 years old.
If one also looks around Hastings' equivalent areas, one will see many relatively new buildings and developments.
An astute businessman is not going to "buy" a leasehold property in Onekawa, where in some cases the lease is being revalued every seven or so years, when there is the opportunity to buy freehold a similar property in Hastings.
Further, this astute businessman is not going to build or develop on such a leasehold site unless he has to be in Napier and is operating a very profitable business.
I would suggest that the tendency of our Napier City Council to farm real estate via leaseholding is turning industrial Onekawa slowly into an industrial ghetto and that our children are getting fewer job opportunities because of it. Go for a drive around it and open your eyes.
Ross Allan, Napier
Thanks, Hastings
I write on behalf of our organisation thanking the people of Hastings and surrounds for making our annual "Poppy Day" collection so successful.
The generosity of people in our community in the giving of monetary donations and also their time is indeed overwhelming.
Again this year to the Endeavour Community Gaming Trust for supplying the poppy banners and flags, and to the Hastings District Council for hanging them, we offer our sincere gratitude.
To everyone concerned, you epitomise our RSA motto of "People Helping People".
Neil P. Murphy, Hastings RSA chief executive
No Chinese buy-ups
Beware of the Chinese for they have $800 billion in cash reserves and are in spending mode.
They have swooped on the Crafar farms and also PGG Wrightson. Both these takeovers are at present before the Overseas Investment Office (OIO) for approval. The Crafar empire is of 16 dairy farms in the central North Island and it is Milk NZ making the offer to buy.
Milk NZ is a fully owned subsidiary of Shanghai Pengxin, whose only director is its chairman and property magnate Jiang Zhaoboi.
Fancy having 8000 New Zealand hectares run by one man from Hong Kong.
He could hire and fire staff at will. Most sensible Kiwis would not support these sales to Jiang Zhaoboi. An organisation called Save our Farms is strongly opposed to the approval by the OIO.
The takeover, which is close to being approved by the OIO, is by Agria which has received over 50 per cent of the shares in PGG Wrightson.
PGG Wrightson has about 2900 employees and if Agria is successful, many could lose their jobs.
Chinese takeovers are a menace to our way of life and should be stopped before they start to escalate. If the OIO should consent to either of these, the National Government should step in and ban the sales.
We would be mad to allow the Chinese to go ahead.
Pete Carver, Havelock North
Fish, game for all
Brad Parkes, in the "Heartland" column (April 21), doesn't understand the law books which specifically and clearly prohibit the sale or letting of rights to fish or hunt.
The pioneer Europeans wanted fishing and shooting to be publicly owned and accessible to all, regardless of race, creed or wealth. They did not want a system where only the aristocratic upper class could afford the exorbitant fees.
From Brad Parkes' comments it appears he agrees pheasant preserve fees are out of the reach of the ordinary Kiwis with his quote, "not everyone can afford to participate".
Preserves exist, arguably against the law as stated in section 23 of the Wildlife Act, which prohibits selling and shooting rights.
Is Brad, as an ex-Fish & Game councillor, aware that Fish & Game New Zealand has applied to alter section 23 to make the "illegal" pheasant preserves "legal"?
That is known as retrospective legislation, a shoddy practice and surely an admission they are illegal under the act at present.
Come on Brad, the erosion of public access and law is real.
Your children and grandchildren will not thank you if you are promoting privatisation of public fishing and hunting, ending up with tomorrow's sportsmen and women paying $1500 a day for the pleasure of a day's shoot or to catch a trout.
S. G. McLean, Takapau