Site too noisy
The proposed new location of the dog pound 100-200m from the pistol club and the large-calibre shooting range is very concerning.
We live approximately 2km from the shooting range with a hill in between and can hear the rounds of gunfire clearly.
What will it be like for the dogs in the pound?
They are already stressed from being impounded in a foreign environment, then to hear gunfire rounds — how will this impact on the dogs' already stressed state?
This noise is like fireworks and dogs are particularly vulnerable and traumatised by these sounds.
The dogs' welfare is paramount and a more suitable environment should be found.
Here we go again with some councillors' ongoing failure to address the need for a "user pays" philosophy when spending our rates money.
Only last week, we were told that there was not enough finance to pay for a new dog pound, a core activity, yet then we read that the velodrome roof, which was reported as not costing ratepayers a cent, has a flow-on effect of an annual income of $46,000 coupled with a debt of $239,000. I know of no person, apart from councillors, who are so financially inept as to approve the operation of any activity with the high probability of such a debt-over-income outcome.
Councillors may blithely chant the mantra that this debt creation will return enormous income in the future, but I cannot recall from as far back as the days of CHOGM when any of the massive financial and other benefits promised before the events or undertakings produced any quantifiable measurements subsequently supporting the "pie in the sky" dreams.
The velodrome is an albatross around the neck of the council and ratepayers, and no further expenditure should be committed until such time as it returns an income that at least equals outgoing expenditure.
For those councillors who want to heap more debt on top of the already disastrous sewerage system debacle debt pile (which I am sure they will all declare was nothing to do do with them) the only way I would concede it may occur is if those councillors who vote in favour of further expenditure for the velodrome roof, over and above its current operational costs, individually commit themselves to making payments to relieve ratepayers of the debts resulting from that vote.
I think the appropriate phrase is "put your money where your mouth is".
V W BALLANCE
Fluoride (Chronicle; February 15) raises its controversial head again.
Dentists have always been in favour of fluoride, and there has for decades been a strong backlash against it.
I became aware of strong feelings of local people against fluoride about 40 years ago, when a (then) Wanganui City Council voted to fluoridate our water. That innocent, well-intended decision raised such a stink in Wanganui the council was forced into a public referendum. The democratic vote of citizens rejected fluoridation.
There are those on both sides of the debate who gather "cohort" evidence to support their case (cohort research is recognised as scientifically valid and is used when "case/control" research is inappropriate).
Therefore, I must leave the chemical dangers/safeties of fluoride to those who, presumably, know what they are talking about, although it is scary to realise highly intelligent people on both sides can come to such diametrically opposed views.
My primary concern is: Where has democracy gone? A few years ago some towns in New Zealand had to fight their councils, just as we did long ago, to prevent their water supply from being fluoridated by local-body political decree.
Central government politicians subsequently decreed that fluoride is not a medication, hence no need to ask citizens whether they wanted to be forced to drink it. Such weaselly political underhandedness was compounded by making District Health Boards the sole arbiter of whether a town was to get fluoridation. It could only be politicians who put health boards in charge of alleged non-medications. One wonders why. Stupid!
I have no problem with fluoridation, but I do have a big problem with enforced "doping" of drinking water, when history clearly demonstrates majority votes do reject it.
Those who want fluoride can use fluoride toothpaste, fluoride tablets, or ask for fluoride treatment at their next dental appointment.
Don't force it on majorities who reject it. Count me in on the fight for democracy.