Once again the subject of public funding for the Christchurch Cathedral comes up - sorry, but I am totally against any use of taxpayers' money to build or rebuild this monstrous edifice.
The church is wealthy - the Church of England is the biggest landowner in the UK for example.
There is another factor, many of the people of New Zealand are not Christians, so why should they be expected to fork out for something they will not use?
Another point - the way disasters are falling on Christchurch spending any money on the place is a risk factor - speculation has it another big shake is not far away for that area - would any insurance company back it? I doubt it very much.
If people want to contribute then let them - taxpayers' money would make it compulsory! Not on!
JIM ADAMS
Rotorua
It is one thing for the chief executive of DairyNZ to defend the industry but rather disingenuous of him to describe the work of Greenpeace as misleading (Rotorua Daily Post, February 23).
Greenpeace should certainly work with the industry but I wonder if the industry could work with them?
What everybody knows without being told, is that dairying in this country has reached its natural capacity for growth. Less is more might be worth considering.
If 12,000 dairy farmers were to become half that number the market and price for product would remain healthy and so too would the country's waterways.
Dialogue and improvement notwithstanding, farmers needed, and still need, to address issues of over capacity. Accusing Greenpeace of misleading is rather like blaming the messenger.
MIKE BYRNE
Rotorua
John Pakes and Anna Garratt (Letters, February 24) need to take heed of their own advice to the RDRR and move on themselves and get over the RDRR. Full marks to our Rotorua Daily Post for allowing the forum for public opinion and free speech; it worries me when there are those of my fellow citizens who would purport to be the defenders of the political status quo as "a sacred cow"; they are not.\
JOSEPH GIELEN
Rotorua