Where there were two nice old bungalows with gardens, now there can be eight or more multi-units, all without parking, so that surrounding streets are choked with cars.
Oh, but everyone will be on bicycles soon! Or public transport.
The upside of the disaster of all this (lack of) planning? Fewer lawnmowers!
Dave Spiers, Henderson.
The public has its say
Whatever one’s personal opinion of the Rawene Avenue helipad resource consent application, it is extremely positive to see the decision being open to a public hearing.
Far too often, Auckland Council holds back information from the public with secret meetings and decisions concerning planning and related matters not able to be scrutinised or even being known until well after the event and with no reasonable avenue of appeal.
Ross Nielsen, Half Moon Bay.
A bit of country living
If I wanted to own a horse, I would move to the country. If I wanted to keep pigs, I would move to the country. If I wanted a helicopter . . .
The list goes on of activities not suited to a suburban location.
The council should give a firm and final “no” to the millionaires of Westmere and suggest they employ a chauffeur for the arduous 15-minute drive to the heliport at Albany.
Tony Waring, Grey Lynn.
No place for Greens’ budget ideas
The editorial in yesterday’s Herald on Sunday describes the Green Party’s new budget proposals as delusional.
Indeed, they have nothing to do with traditional green environmental attention, but rather an approach that is a fanciful neo-Marxist radical taxation policy that has no place in a fair and democratic society.
Hylton Le Grice, Remuera.
But what are the taxes for?
Yesterday’s editorial doesn’t mention what all this tax would be for.
Nobody likes being taxed. Taxes are for doing stuff. Taxes are the glue that sticks society together.
Anguished Thomas Coughlan wrings his hands for the nurses whose salaries will be trimmed by the Greens’ planned taxes.
And what are those taxes for? More nurses. Free primary healthcare, free dental care, free early childhood care and education, and a host of other things that would benefit Coughlan’s nurses, and the great mass of the rest of us.
We need, and should demand, a heath service for all that is free, accessible, timely, and comprehensive. How to pay for it? By taxes, of course (so goodbye and good riddance to private health insurance).
Sure, the Greens’ list of nice-to-haves is long, and so too is the list of taxes to foot the bill. But it is aspirational.
And if we heard more aspiration from Chris Hipkins and his Labour cohort, we might actually vote them back into government next time.
John Trezise, Birkenhead.
Dangers of seabed mining
A consequence of seabed mining close to and on the seashore is the likely obliteration of any marine life in the immediate area due to the smothering effect of the plume when unwanted matter is released back into the sea floor.
Other general effects from seabed mining further out include erosion and the destruction of eco-systems and the habitats of endangered species.
Deeper seabed mining for precious metals which is gathering momentum globally and which New Zealand mercifully has yet to engage in is said to be more destructive than oil exploration in damaging sea habitats.
They support fish populations which has consequences for the myriad of coastal populations dependent on fish as a food source.
I hope political leaders weigh up the potential impacts if they are considering embarking on such seabed mining.
Gary Hollis, Mellons Bay.
Where will the money go?
Considering the extension to the existing subsidy for international films to be made in New Zealand, I have some questions.
The extra $577 million over four years is expected to significantly boost economic activity in this area. Does this mean that through income tax on the people employed and extra business activity plus GST etc, the subsidy ends up being at worst fiscally neutral for the Government?
If so, then it is clearly positive.
If, however, we are talking about increased economic activity generally, but not to an extent that the money invested flows back into the government books, then the subsidy is essentially a transfer from the taxpayer to the individuals and businesses that benefit.
In economically trying times this would be less justifiable.
My question then is which are we talking about?
John O’Neill, Dargaville.
