Some of the wattle trees on the riverbank along Anzac Pde. Photo / Paul Brooks
Some of the wattle trees on the riverbank along Anzac Pde. Photo / Paul Brooks
Opinion:
Some of the good people of Upper Anzac Parade in Whanganui East are unhappy about nearby trees and what they shed throughout the seasons.
A large section of the riverbank in the area near the old milk treatment plant has been planted in that renowned Australian pest, the wattle.Fast-growing and invasive, these trees are now doing what they do best: sending seeds all over the nearby properties and shedding pollen far and near.
A local resident has been on to the Whanganui District Council about this and he was informed that the trees are wild, self-sown, "we had nothing to do with it". That's interesting, he says, because he saw the trees being deliberately planted some years ago by official-looking people with shovels. The council still denied culpability and suggested it was Horizons Regional Council in its efforts to shore up the riverbank and prevent erosion.
That may be so, says our informant, but why would they plant an exotic tree, when they could be planting natives? And why would they choose one that could inflict such discomfort on nearby dwellers? He says the pollen plays havoc with people with respiratory problems and the seeds give off the most unpleasant odour when crushed and wet. The latter is common knowledge among those of us who knew the seeds as "stinkbombs" and their stench as a distinctive "rotten egg" smell.
Among the wattle trees are harakeke struggling to see the light. They could be a better choice of plant if erosion prevention was the problem, but our resident says he actually saw another official-looking person spray one especially large and luxuriant flax bush with herbicide. It died.
So, who planted the wattles? Why? And what's going to be done to stop nearby residents from suffering the consequences?
I regularly check out Google news as part of my daily quest to see "what's happening in the world", and I am constantly bemused by its sub-headings and the stories that live there. For example, anything involving the British royal family consistently finds its way into "Entertainment".
I'm not sure Her Majesty the Queen would venture into Google News, but if she did I doubt if she would be amused.
Is Google merely trying to cut down on sub-headings, aiming for simplification, or is there a Republican bent behind the algorithms that produce the site?
Trivialising the ancient title and tradition by calling it "Entertainment" is hardly tugging the forelock, but more like an anti-royalist protest, even if the news item under the heading is a commentary on the Queen's health.
Perhaps I'm reading too much into it and Google's intentions are innocent, after all, it put a story about a lucky Lotto win under the "Business" heading, an interview with Sigourney Weaver about her latest film under "Technology" and a yarn about an unvaccinated football player under "Sport". That last should have found a more comfortable niche in "Covid-19" and Sigourney should have told her story in "Entertainment". I think Google News is in need of a few more sub-heading sections or is this taking cost-cutting to a new level?
