Your views: Readers' letters

River bulks up: Our newest citizen seems to have put on a bit of weight in this April 5 picture. Photo/file

Our new citizen

With the river, which belongs to nobody, and the water in it which also cannot belong to anybody, constantly changing each day, this newly appointed natural person is a bit of a moving feast.

The water that causes damage will no longer be part of the river so cannot be held accountable for its collective actions.

The natural person status granted to companies and incorporated societies bears no relevance to the situation with our river. This legal creation arose during the Industrial Revolution, when some bright spark caught on to the idea that manufacturing of items could be broken down into component parts, with each step completed over and over by the same person or machine -- specialisation and the division of labour.

The businesses created to satisfy the new, increased demands required a significant amount of capital -- too much for one person, generally -- and there was a change in the way businesses were set up and operated.

Equity ownership and the common share arose to allow for investment from multiple owners, each contributing part of the capital needed to finance the new business. To manage these new entities, the company was born, necessitating separation of owners and managers. The director's role was born, and the first companies were in place, allowing a simple, seamless interaction with the business world. One point of contact representing the many individuals who own the business.

The concept was expanded late in the 1800s and early 1900s with the incorporated society given the same recognition, this time to represent the members of clubs and societies.

To suggest this concept applies to a river is about as appalling as putting spaghetti on a home-made pizza.

Our judicial system will struggle to deal with claims against a river. We can suggest that the river should pay for all damage caused by it, but I think the intention was to create a legal status to pursue compliance by those who have an environmental impact on the river. Achievable already, I would have thought.

It will be interesting to see how this goes over time, even if only for comedy benefit.

(Abridged)

RUSSELL EADES
Whanganui

Political hubris

Your recent article with a statement by councillor David Bennett claiming full credit for him and his block of councillors keeping the latest rates increase to 1.9 per cent is nothing but political hubris.

I've sat in on every council meeting since Mr Bennett and his block of councillors were elected, and I have seen no evidence that he can claim credit for keeping rate increases at one of the lowest levels in a long time.

To take credit away from other hard-working and diligent councillors who are not a part of his group is self-serving. It is also an attempt to split this council and justify Mr Bennett's existence on council.

In his naivety, he thought he could stop the much needed wastewater treatment plant. He and his ticket of councillors did not do what they thought they could do.

I suggest he go back to his comfortable retirement and pursue things that interest him more than council.

(Edited)

STEVE BARON
Whanganui

Asset managers

I refer to Simon Waters' article in Saturday's Chronicle -- "Whanganui District Council engineers win top award".

While I congratulate the engineers on their success in winning the award for asset management, presented in Auckland, it is time I pointed out some of Kritzo Venter's and Mark Hughes' less clever asset management.

The culverts under Wikitoria Rd are too small and have the propensity to block in times of heavy local rainfall which, in turn, floods houses in Onetere Drive and Nepia Rd, and overtops Airport Rd.

There is a risk to the community by closing access in an emergency to the lifeline of the city -- the airport. This happened in the June 2015 flood when floodwaters washed half the road away, and an Air Wanganui pilot had to wade knee-deep to get to an organ donor flight to save a life.

These two people, Venter and Hughes, have consistently advised Whanganui council not to replace the culverts because they are not due for replacement for another 50 years and that they were built up to design standards at the time.

There is no common sense in their advice and certainly a lack of will to rectify the problem.

This makes council chief executive Kym Fell's statement that "the team is passionate about what they do and how they deliver the best possible service" rather hollow.

PAUL DUNCAN
Whanganui

Sign righting

Loved the article on Margi Keys, "writer" of wrongs done to our beautiful, randomly-cobbled-together English language (Chronicle, "She's inspired to write wrongs", April 15 ).

So now (I can't help myself), Chronicle editor or Margi. Who was it, in the Chronicle article, who was responsible for the reporting on one sign that is now grammatically correct but is unlikely to be true after the correction? Original signage: Tennants vehicles only. "Corrected" signage as reported: Tenant's vehicles only.

Really? I have never seen a sign like that erected where only one tenant, who owns several cars, is in residence. Instead, those kinds of signs are ubiquitous in apartment blocks where several tenants with one car apiece live. May I suggest the sign, in all probability, should read, "Tenants' vehicles only?"

STAN HOOD
Aramoho