I must reply to the front page story in today's Chronicle (2Dec) headed 'Please stay home'.
I have total respect for those who wish to create a safe bubble around their loved ones, but are those bubbles created because some whānau have not been vaccinated for whatever reason?
This suggests to me that the problem really sits with those unvaccinated persons not those who may intend visiting our rohe to meet up with whānau not seen for months and provide much-needed financial support to our local businesses.
I believe this is an area where we must consider the greater good, not penalising others for the sake of a few [abridged].
[Editor's note: Ngā Tāngata Tiaki o Whanganui chair Sheena Maru's comments were directed towards people not from Whanganui and not those coming home to visit family.]
What a sad front page for our paper.
For years the district has been trumpeting the value of our environmental tourism attractions.
We take great pride in the focal point of these assets — the Whanganui River, to the extent of having its own legislation declaring it a person.
But when it comes to the point of sharing it with others, and making use of its undoubted values to share with others for the benefit of the district, our paper tells the country "stay home, it's too risky to come and visit us".
We all understand why, and have been trying for months to impress on the district community the necessity to get up to speed with our immunisation rate, for this and all other reasons.
But it's always someone else's responsibility, especially the "Government or the District Council". Well now it's your responsibility. The district, the wider district, including Ruapehu and Rangitīkei now stands to lose substantial tourism dollars because of our collective failure to live up to our collective responsibility while there was still time.
Councillor Taylor on recycling
Whanganui District Council has made the decision to introduce kerbside recycling.
Some correspondents, most recently Trevor Stratton, have negatively questioned this intention.
I hereby offer comment on Mr Stratton's concerns.
Council consulted the public on its Waste Management Proposals because it is required to (Sec 82, Local Government Act 2002).
The winners "in all of this", he suggests will be the transfer station and landfill operators. That cannot be the case as more waste material will be diverted away from these operations toward re-use and repurpose.
Having "climbed aboard the climate emergency train", I am pleased to be on this rather than watching it leave from the platform.
The result will reduce waste to landfill and it will reduce the awfully negative environmental impact of our misguided "throw-away" culture. I continue to reflect on the late Carl Sagan's consideration that we live on a pale blue dot. Viewing that dot from space, there is no "away".
COUNCILLOR ALAN TAYLORWestmere