There are many in our lovely city who continue to be amazed at the ability of this council to undertake projects and expenditure without adequate reference to what ratepayers actually want.
It was astounding to read ( News, June 25 ) that an agenda item for the council's Services and Operations Committee will be "a request item for additional funding for the Mauao base-track works".
It is now well into the third year since Cyclone Debbie caused the slip damage.
Nonsensical costs of $2.2 million for a new pathway were mentioned by some councillors earlier this year.
It would now appear that even more additional funding is required.
If a straight-forward project such as repairing a base-track slip takes so long and is projected to cost so much; how would the council ever cope in the event of a real disaster?
What the populace actually wants, and has been waiting for since April 2017, is to simply have the existing base track restored to its original condition in an effective and common-sense manner.
In the forthcoming local elections ratepayers will be able to express their opinions on the council's performance.
Denis Shuker ( Letters, June 23 ) is correct – we must reject this amateurish attempt at fiddling with drug laws.
Letters: Brexit 'doom mongers' need to get behind decision
Letters: Punishments such as time out are not effective
We need a comprehensive approach covering all drugs and one that does not include any form of legalisation.
Portugal has shown the way which involved:1. No changes to existing drug laws (i.e. all penalties etc stayed as they were). 2. Setting up from day one of a fully resourced Commission for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction 3. Users found with less than 10 days supply referred to the Commission, which has a range of sanctions available but is heavily geared to reduction in use (a harm-reduction approach). 4. If more than 10 days supply held then existing drug laws apply.
This system applied to all drugs.
A true health-based approach and no legalisation.
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.