The next step was to fill out a form online setting out the issues. No problem with that step, which seemed sensible with an allowance for photographs to be attached.
I then waited and waited for a response. Several weeks went by. I had hoped that someone from the council would comment or come back to me via email. But no action or response.
Then this past week, up came the survey on satisfaction. “Tell us how we did with your request.” This, I assume, was due to me filling in the first request so that after so many weeks, a survey form is sent – even if no action was taken.
Were we helpful? Did we carry out the request? And so on. The questions just assumed you were a happy ratepayer with action taken.
Also, it asked for your age and nationality. Those seem like strange questions for the removal of rubbish from a property.
I then completed this survey, with comments such as: “I cannot comment on your work, as I have not seen anyone or had any follow-up.”
Then within minutes, up came another email in my inbox, “Thank you for completing our satisfaction survey.”
What, I ask, happens next? I am not going to sit on the phone for hours trying to talk to a person.
I am forever hopeful that my survey now will be read by a real person, who will react.
Dame Wendy Pye, Whitford.
Productivity, investment and poverty
Economists and politicians regularly complain about our lack of productivity, often saying that it is caused by a lack of investment.
“Investment” doesn’t automatically improve productivity if it’s going into property; in fact, it undermines it.
Property owners’ untaxed profits from selling property or taking subsidies for high rents on their properties are not only unproductive but also costing the public purse a lot of money. As well as that, the rental subsidies make it possible for owners to regularly raise rents, which often take 40-50% of low-paid workers’ incomes.
All of this helps explain the grinding poverty suffered by the working poor and the unemployed. Poverty undermines our future generations, currently estimated to be around 20% of our population. No country will thrive in this situation.
A better investment would be helping those who have inadequate incomes, for whatever reason.
I suggest a minimum (adequate) basic income for everyone would be a good start. This could be partly funded by a capital gains tax and removal of tax breaks for landlords. Reducing poverty and improving housing would also reduce the massive costs of poor health caused by poverty.
Giving everyone fundamental security from poverty would be the best possible investment for our future as a country.
Vivien Fergusson, Mt Eden.
Oil and gas ban
I find it difficult to comprehend Greenpeace’s opposition to removing the oil and gas ban when the ban has resulted in increased emissions due to the burning of more coal and made a major contribution to the recent energy shortages.
The inevitable result of continuing the ban will be the need to import large quantities of liquefied natural gas and coal. Both will increase emissions in New Zealand and worldwide. The resulting high electricity prices will seriously damage lifestyles and the economy and there will be less money available to look after the environment.
If it really cared about the environment and reducing emissions worldwide, Greenpeace would be promoting geothermal and hydropower and New Zealand gas over coal.
Bryan Leyland, Pt Chevalier.
Problem with sentencing
I cannot understand all the sentencing discounts offered to offenders importing drugs. Especially discounts for a difficult childhood.
Sure, it could be a reason for offending but I feel consideration should also be applied to those lives these offenders are targeting. They are steering people into the very life that has corrupted them and they are asking for favours.
The discounts and sympathy need to stop.
Beth Jarrett, Te Kūiti.
