Well done on your report (April 3) on the special Long Term Plan meeting that the council convened to consider the velodrome issue, which in giving the public some clarity of the issues, seemed to raise many more on the process to date.
Sadly, in at last putting three options to the ratepayers, our council seem to have overlooked, even sidelined a small team of judicious and totally competent fellow ratepayers, the Regional Velodrome Development Trust (RVDT), who have led the charge for well over a decade. Why? Don't they trust them? ...
Of the three options, which need to be radically changed by our submissions, demolition would be an absolute abrogation of not just this council's but also previous councils' responsibilities in terms of basic maintenance of a core sporting asset.
The second option of some cheap metal roof structure is a joke, scorned upon by anyone with any serious competitive cycling knowledge of such facilities.
And the third option is of an even more expensive membrane roof cover than that proposed by RVDT. Why, again, one must ask? ... Your report, thankfully, may give us some clues. [Abridged]
Letter showed respect
Regarding Robyn Szabo's letter (April 15) I would be as affronted as she if I thought the Prime Minister was being disrespectful, but I don't believe that this is the case.
Times have changed, and increasingly people choose to adopt a more personal tone to convey sincerity rather than use formal, impersonal language.
I would say the PM showed respect by writing in a manner that was clearly personal and appropriate for a message of sympathy - and not a message that could have been dashed off by a staff member for her to sign.
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.
Re Martin Visser's letter (April 14). Governments are good at infrastructure so to help the housing shortage they should do what they are good at, buy the land, establish the infrastructure, lease the sections for five years to first home buyers, or perhaps any buyers who don't own a home, with a purchase price included.
That means they don't need as much capital to reach the 20 per cent for loan requirements. After five years they should have paid off enough for the bank to back them in the purchase of the section.
This approach would relieve the Government as to the build, leaving the purchasers to build to their requirements and affordability.