Skip to main content

Letters to the Editor

TCDC – Please Advise?

Shortly before the Informer went to print last week, I was advised that the information received from TCDC regarding their having no budget tor a Magazine, and no budget for any advertising, was misleading. Out of town ratepayers had just received, by post, a glossy mini version of the magazine, crammed full of old news and data which is readily available online, and, at all Information Centre’s throughout the Peninsula. What stunned the receivers most was the 8, yes eight pages on rubbish. What upset them the most was the postal cost.

It is extremely difficult to get answers from TCDC, so, with regard to finding the reason for their constant advertising for staff I went elsewhere. I have been told that I am not completely correct about increasing staff numbers. Staff are apparently leaving because of – quote – “a toxic environment”, and, “TCDC’s hierarchy is disengaged from the public”. There was more but at this stage I am hesitant to put it to print.

Speaking to people who have tried to engage with TCDC with regard to issues, including health and safety, have confirmed that to get any information you have to revert to the ‘Official Information Act’, and they then take to the last day available to them, to reply.

There are issues with regards to the way Government Funding was allocated following the storm devastation – funding allocated according to the number of staff, rather than the cost of the company’s overheads. Many businesses are still struggling and we need to make sure we support them or we will end up with a town of takeaways, cafes and restaurants and will be back to travelling out of town for our purchases.

Why was $3000 of the Mayoral Fund given to WRRA which was not even functioning at the time of the devastation? As many see it, this was $3000 taken from the pockets of those who were, and still are, in serious need of assistance with food, clothing, and housing.

Unfortunately, it appears that this is just the tip of the iceberg. I ask that those of you who talked to me please take the time to write to the Informer and voice your concerns. We need to speak out as a community together and maybe we CAN make a difference. In the meantime, please go and support Guthrie Bowron’s Gift Giving Christmas Tree which includes the food bank at Social Services,

Ady Cole-Ewen

Wharekaho

NZ is world leading in…

You can say that NZ has the lowest measurable 1080 content in its water in the world. Sounds good.

Until you realise that NZ is the only country in the world to allow any 1080 in its water.

NZ had no overseas experience with 1080 to relate to when making up its safety laws. No other country throws 1080 baits around like NZ does. NZ was the expert so they had to invent their own safety standards because there was going to be 1080 poison in the water. They took a stab and put in place what they thought would be a suitable figure of 1080 concentration in the water which would be deemed “safe”.

However, it was found that 1080 concentrations were considerably higher after 1080 drops so they simply raised the safety figure until it was all ‘legal’ again.

Whenever the government is criticised, the answer is always, “It’s legal.”

We are in the same boat with every questionable government business. Safety and pollution standards set by NZ government are unique.

New Zealand leads the world in its level of allowable poison concentrations.

John Veysey

Colville

No to rubbish if no card

We have no rubbish collection where we live. We take our rubbish to the tip.

I took a bag of recyclable plastic and a black plastic bag full of rubbish. The plastic was accepted. The black bag of rubbish cost $5. I held out a $5 dollar note to the man who shook his head and said; “No. I can’t take your money”

“Why not?”

“Council says we can’t take cash”

“But I don’t have a card!”.

“Too bad. I can’t take your bag.”

So I had to take my rubbish home.

I do not intend to invest in a card just to dump my rubbish.

I ask TCDC what is the purpose of this rule?

Thanks.

John Veysey

Colville

A reminder

To all people driving through Seascape Ave. There are Elderly people living on both sides of the street( Masonic Lodge) and very young children.

Please Please slow down. This is not a race track.

Libby Buttimore

Blind Leap Backward: Ditching Environmental Progress

The new coalition Government’s environmental policies reek of anti-environment bias, a stark departure from the responsible stewardship of successive past governments. Their reckless plans to repeal the Natural and Built Environment and the Spatial Planning Acts are a blatant attack on our environment and a giant leap backward.

Instead of embracing the progress made through these Acts, they cling to the outdated and ineffective Resource Management Act. This broken system has failed to protect our environment and burdened everyone with red tape. Returning to this archaic law is not just a mistake, it’s an insult to the future.

The new Acts, on the other hand, represent a giant leap forward. They offer a clear and concise framework for environmental management, far superior to the convoluted mess of the RMA. They streamline processes, prioritize outcomes, and provide much-needed consistency. They even offer a fast track for renewable energy, something the Government supposedly supports.

Yet, blinded by partisan revenge politics, the new Government throws years of work into the trash, ignoring the positive changes these Acts offer. Instead of fixing the few aspects they dislike through targeted amendments, they choose to dismantle the entire system. This is not just short-sighted, it’s a blatant betrayal of our environment and the future.

What’s worse, the Government’s future plans are shrouded in uncertainty. They propose prioritizing private property rights over environmental well-being, a dangerous and unsustainable approach. Their outdated belief that development and the environment can be managed separately ignores the interconnected reality we face.

This is not progress; this is a retreat into the past. Repealing these Acts is a reckless gamble with our environment, one we cannot afford to take. Let us not be remembered as the generation that hijacked our environment for short-term gains and political vendettas.

Denis Tegg

Council Rubbish collection … we could do better Follow up to article n Breanna Ward (Issue 1082 The Informer, 28 November) Brenda was told, “It’s not your bin”. There is a lack of flexibility and poor service. I went to ask for my red bin and my food scraps bin to be picked up as I can’t use them; to be told they’re your bins and they should stay with your property. This seems the opposite to what Brenda was told. I live in Marlin Waters in a middle unit with limited outdoor space, certainly nothing suitable for three bins. I also don’t have space in my garage for three bins plus I don’t want food waste in the house particularly in hot weather. I compost my green waste. A private one bin, simple weekly service is available locally where everything goes in one bin… easy as – less vehicles driving around, no confusing tags and a much lower carbon footprint than the manufacture of big plastic wheelie bins. Also, a professional waste management company will separate all the waste, ensuring plastics are all separated properly as well as other items such as batteries. What, if anything, have the Council offered for apartment buildings and retirement villages etc. Three bins are a lot when you have little or no outdoor space. Is the new multi- bin system really the most cost effective for Council, achieving green objectives and practical for residents. After all the cost is footed by residents and ratepayers. Michelle Rhodes

Whitianga

 |  The Informer  | 

TCDC – Please Advise?

Shortly before the Informer went to print last week, I was advised that the information received from TCDC regarding their having no budget tor a Magazine, and no budget for any advertising, was misleading. Out of town ratepayers had just received, by post, a glossy mini version of the magazine, crammed full of old news and data which is readily available online, and, at all Information Centre’s throughout the Peninsula. What stunned the receivers most was the 8, yes eight pages on rubbish. What upset them the most was the postal cost.

It is extremely difficult to get answers from TCDC, so, with regard to finding the reason for their constant advertising for staff I went elsewhere. I have been told that I am not completely correct about increasing staff numbers. Staff are apparently leaving because of – quote – “a toxic environment”, and, “TCDC’s hierarchy is disengaged from the public”. There was more but at this stage I am hesitant to put it to print.

Speaking to people who have tried to engage with TCDC with regard to issues, including health and safety, have confirmed that to get any information you have to revert to the ‘Official Information Act’, and they then take to the last day available to them, to reply.

There are issues with regards to the way Government Funding was allocated following the storm devastation – funding allocated according to the number of staff, rather than the cost of the company’s overheads. Many businesses are still struggling and we need to make sure we support them or we will end up with a town of takeaways, cafes and restaurants and will be back to travelling out of town for our purchases.

Why was $3000 of the Mayoral Fund given to WRRA which was not even functioning at the time of the devastation? As many see it, this was $3000 taken from the pockets of those who were, and still are, in serious need of assistance with food, clothing, and housing.

Unfortunately, it appears that this is just the tip of the iceberg. I ask that those of you who talked to me please take the time to write to the Informer and voice your concerns. We need to speak out as a community together and maybe we CAN make a difference. In the meantime, please go and support Guthrie Bowron’s Gift Giving Christmas Tree which includes the food bank at Social Services,

Ady Cole-Ewen

Wharekaho

NZ is world leading in…

You can say that NZ has the lowest measurable 1080 content in its water in the world. Sounds good.

Until you realise that NZ is the only country in the world to allow any 1080 in its water.

NZ had no overseas experience with 1080 to relate to when making up its safety laws. No other country throws 1080 baits around like NZ does. NZ was the expert so they had to invent their own safety standards because there was going to be 1080 poison in the water. They took a stab and put in place what they thought would be a suitable figure of 1080 concentration in the water which would be deemed “safe”.

However, it was found that 1080 concentrations were considerably higher after 1080 drops so they simply raised the safety figure until it was all ‘legal’ again.

Whenever the government is criticised, the answer is always, “It’s legal.”

We are in the same boat with every questionable government business. Safety and pollution standards set by NZ government are unique.

New Zealand leads the world in its level of allowable poison concentrations.

John Veysey

Colville

No to rubbish if no card

We have no rubbish collection where we live. We take our rubbish to the tip.

I took a bag of recyclable plastic and a black plastic bag full of rubbish. The plastic was accepted. The black bag of rubbish cost $5. I held out a $5 dollar note to the man who shook his head and said; “No. I can’t take your money”

“Why not?”

“Council says we can’t take cash”

“But I don’t have a card!”.

“Too bad. I can’t take your bag.”

So I had to take my rubbish home.

I do not intend to invest in a card just to dump my rubbish.

I ask TCDC what is the purpose of this rule?

Thanks.

John Veysey

Colville

A reminder

To all people driving through Seascape Ave. There are Elderly people living on both sides of the street( Masonic Lodge) and very young children.

Please Please slow down. This is not a race track.

Libby Buttimore

Blind Leap Backward: Ditching Environmental Progress

The new coalition Government’s environmental policies reek of anti-environment bias, a stark departure from the responsible stewardship of successive past governments. Their reckless plans to repeal the Natural and Built Environment and the Spatial Planning Acts are a blatant attack on our environment and a giant leap backward.

Instead of embracing the progress made through these Acts, they cling to the outdated and ineffective Resource Management Act. This broken system has failed to protect our environment and burdened everyone with red tape. Returning to this archaic law is not just a mistake, it’s an insult to the future.

The new Acts, on the other hand, represent a giant leap forward. They offer a clear and concise framework for environmental management, far superior to the convoluted mess of the RMA. They streamline processes, prioritize outcomes, and provide much-needed consistency. They even offer a fast track for renewable energy, something the Government supposedly supports.

Yet, blinded by partisan revenge politics, the new Government throws years of work into the trash, ignoring the positive changes these Acts offer. Instead of fixing the few aspects they dislike through targeted amendments, they choose to dismantle the entire system. This is not just short-sighted, it’s a blatant betrayal of our environment and the future.

What’s worse, the Government’s future plans are shrouded in uncertainty. They propose prioritizing private property rights over environmental well-being, a dangerous and unsustainable approach. Their outdated belief that development and the environment can be managed separately ignores the interconnected reality we face.

This is not progress; this is a retreat into the past. Repealing these Acts is a reckless gamble with our environment, one we cannot afford to take. Let us not be remembered as the generation that hijacked our environment for short-term gains and political vendettas.

Denis Tegg

Council Rubbish collection … we could do better Follow up to article n Breanna Ward (Issue 1082 The Informer, 28 November) Brenda was told, “It’s not your bin”. There is a lack of flexibility and poor service. I went to ask for my red bin and my food scraps bin to be picked up as I can’t use them; to be told they’re your bins and they should stay with your property. This seems the opposite to what Brenda was told. I live in Marlin Waters in a middle unit with limited outdoor space, certainly nothing suitable for three bins. I also don’t have space in my garage for three bins plus I don’t want food waste in the house particularly in hot weather. I compost my green waste. A private one bin, simple weekly service is available locally where everything goes in one bin… easy as – less vehicles driving around, no confusing tags and a much lower carbon footprint than the manufacture of big plastic wheelie bins. Also, a professional waste management company will separate all the waste, ensuring plastics are all separated properly as well as other items such as batteries. What, if anything, have the Council offered for apartment buildings and retirement villages etc. Three bins are a lot when you have little or no outdoor space. Is the new multi- bin system really the most cost effective for Council, achieving green objectives and practical for residents. After all the cost is footed by residents and ratepayers. Michelle Rhodes

Whitianga