Sign In / Register
NZTA deceptive?
Waka Kotahi used deception to limit Hibiscus Coast residents putting in submissions with their glossy pamphlet. It failed to say only one lane each direction. It failed to list any dollar amount with tolls ($4/$3 for full toll) – nearly twice the Northern Motorway Ōrewa-Puhoi of $2.40. It failed to say they planned to make it an 80kph road. The road was meant to remove as much traffic as possible from Silverdale to/from the North Shore to allow for the Millwater, Milldale, Dairy Flat, back of Ōrewa etc housing explosion and resulting traffic. A horrendous toll, a two lane road and 80kph will surely force a huge percentage to keep going via Silverdale that is already at gridlock. Waka Kotahi already have preconceived ideas so all the anti-submissions will already be ignored like the 1700 plus on the Napier Taupo Rd speed reduction.
David Thew, Red Beach (abridged)
Waka Kotahi/NZTA responds: The brochure referred to was sent to all local households to inform them of the Penlink consultation and encourage the community to get involved and have their say. It set out helpful information such as the dates for consultation, details for engagement events, how and where to give feedback, and contact details for Waka Kotahi staff available to answer questions. The brochure also informed locals where they could find the full tolling proposals, including a breakdown of the proposed pricing options. This detail was readily available and accessible for the entire month-long consultation and remains online as public information. We are grateful to the some 3000 plus community members who took the time to give their feedback on tolling for Penlink. The feedback gathered during this consultation will be taken into account in the development of the final proposal, for consideration by the Minister of Transport. A copy of the public feedback report will also be provided to the Minister of Transport who will make a decision about recommending tolling for this road to Cabinet.
Churches vs state
I was dismayed to see the article in the March 7 edition where a group of charismatic churches are going to sue the establishment over rules that have limited crowd gatherings during the Covid pandemic. I wondered whether the pastors of these groups are really more concerned about their income rather than the safety of their flock? Fundamentalist church groups do their so-called teaching by way of emotional preaching which claims there is a Creator who made this planet and all the living life-forms thereon. They accuse us humans of being sinners, and promote the theory of a heaven and a hell along with angels and demons, and the need to have a Saviour. In my opinion, these so-called teachings would be better replaced by a more thorough education system about the real world and a better understanding of basic scientific principles. To think that a group of these ‘peddlers of false information’ who promote the make-believe story of creation in direct conflict with the known facts of evolution are now going to take on the Government and its health officials, who have been doing their best to keep the community safe during a world-wide pandemic, is downright disgusting. It is just another waste of taxpayers’ money, and an insult to human intelligence.
Bruce Oldfield, Arkles Bay
Law of the land
Regarding the article Churches v State (HM March 7), what is it that persuades these folks that they do not need to follow the same rules as the rest of us who also cannot attend our preferred gatherings. Their Good Book advises them to, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s”. In other words, obey the law of the land. Perhaps at their next prayer session, singularly or with others, they may enquire why their creator deemed it necessary to create the culprit of this dilemma, the Covid viruses which has unfairly impacted on all of us.
John Simons, Ōrewa
Push back
It’s time to push back on Goff, a dangerous and expensive politically correct, WOKE, climate cultist. I am a senior citizen, and so is Goff, but I can remember the terror I felt with climate science in the 1970s predicting an imminent ice age. Of course, this idea was eventually debunked by experts who, instead, started predicting climate change aka global warming. And then there was the acid rain scam pulled by Russia and Sweden that panicked the west and caused Germany to halt all its nuclear energy plants. Germany now imports energy from its neighbours while nuclear is now, once again, a viable and essential part of worldwide clean energy programmes. And the hole in the ozone – remember the panic we felt about that? Believe whichever scientists you like, it’s your choice, but remember Goff is not a scientist but a politician determined to cement his reputation as a high-taxing big-spending ideologically-driven bureaucrat now touting his swansong Climate Change Action Package. The reality is this is nothing more than an additional tax to fund infrastructure that should be taken care of, in part, by the Auckland fuel tax and, in part, by central government. Remember that next time you fill your car and ask Goff where all this money is now.
Stewart Gilbride, Gulf Harbour
Rates burden
Phil Goff’s $55 per annum ($1.12 per week) proposed Climate Action Tax is on top of the annual rates increase and was never campaigned on by him. It is one of his many negative parting gifts to the people of Auckland. It is a blatant attempt to increase rates beyond what he committed to and is also on top of his fuel tax, which was also meant to help reduce climate emissions and part of which still languishes somewhere in Auckland Council coffers. Nobody knows what several hundred million has been spent on so far, nor what is proposed with that particular multi-million dollar tax grab. The Mayor spent 28 years in Parliament and there is common agreement in Wellington that his positive achievements would not fill the back of a postage stamp. Auckland Council staffing levels and salaries have ballooned under his watch and now he plans to ride off into the sunset with a smile on his face and leave us with yet another rates burden. All candidates in this year’s Mayoral elections should state if they agree or disagree with these snide taxes.
Brent Marshall, Arkles Bay
Overstayers noted
We overlook the Hammerhead and have also lodged concerns with council regarding the noncompliance of freedom campers. As of today (February 18) the same vehicles are there that have been there for up to 12 months. Council sends people to clean the toilets, empty the rubbish bins and cut the grass, but still no one enforces the two night rule. Over the last two weekends, I have seen campervans roll up, but leave as there is no room for them. All spaces are taken up by permanent campers. This summer we have even had tents erected for overnight camping. There is a boat parked under a canvas cover that has been there for at least six months. Cheap storage site if anyone is interested. No charges and no rules, help yourself. Council needs to enforce the rules, not just talk about it. This is such a wonderful area – we love to see the scene change, with people coming and going, kids playing and enjoying the site but that has gone due to the lack of council concern for the rule breakers
Roy Evans, Gulf Harbour
Co-governance questioned
Your February 21 issue makes concerning reading with regard to the transfer of power and control over Auckland’s regional parks. Firstly, the Hauraki Gulf Forum’s Alex Rogers explains that a co-governance body has equal weighting between “mana whenua and others” and that there is “nothing to fear” I’d like him to clarify how representatives of mana whenua are appointed and who these random “others” are – these people who deserve no proper name or recognition. Does Mr Rogers mean the elected representatives of the Auckland ratepayers who have paid for the creation and ongoing maintenance of the parks, as well as the many volunteers who have invested countless hours in pest control and planting? Personally, I think the “others” deserve a lot more respect and weighting. If co-governance means a loss of democratic accountability, we do indeed need to fear it. Aucklanders will have very little control over what’s done with their money and their public treasures. An Auckland Council spokesperson also refers to “a dual-naming programme” in which the names of the parks will have a Māori name added to reflect their history. Why does every park need to have a Maori name? Especially for a “product” which has been purchased and created by the past Auckland Regional Council with ratepayers’ funds or may have been donated by previous European owners/farmers. There are already many Maori names for parks, beaches and locations, so why the need and expense for dual naming of every single regional park?
Chris Todd, Stanmore Bay
Bollards needed
This Council is very PC regarding where they place bollards – there was no problem bollarding off Hatfields Beach reserve, which is what the local residents wanted. And no problems bollarding off Ōrewa beachfront reserve from traffic (HM March 7). No problems bollarding off Manly Park beach entrance (western end by sailing club), or the area around the sailing club. Then comes The Esplanade – different story altogether. The Council’s bollard job is hijacked by a small band of protestors, while we local residents who live on The Esplanade have no say in this debacle. The public consultation questionnaire asked ‘do you mind having to walk a short distance to the beach from where you parked?’ Of course everyone replied ‘no way’. The Esplanade berm will become sandhills in the near future. Every man plus his dog wants to park on the beach. Something has to give. And that will be this esplanade reserve.
Wayne Unkovich, Manly (abridged)
Help appreciated
On Monday, January 24 I slipped on smooth concrete on the corner of Centreway Road and Moana Ave in Ōrewa. I broke my collarbone in that fall. I would like to say thank you to the man from the van who helped me to my feet – along with a lady who also went out of her way to take me home. Again, “thank you”.
Maria Cullum, Ōrewa
