A needed facility for the future
I will not forget Noel Hewlett’s first picture of what he envisioned for the multi sports complex – Moewai Sport Park – having a full kitchen to feed sporting groups and hosting them in club rooms as well as a concert venue for visiting artists and bands, kapa haka performances and school productions.
I support this whole heartedly and in addition to what Noel proposed, my vision also includes a Marae placed in the heart of the Moewai Sports complex, plus providing plenty of room for the Whitianga rescue team and other search and rescue units to coordinate activities and create a homebase.
This is all needed since Sherriffs land was supposed to host the Marae and a lot of in-house disagreements finished that discussion.
However, as a resident I would also hope to see a little dippers swimming pool but beyond that I have been advocating for a Marae/Civic Centre since 2007 for cultural arts performances and large scale productions.
This would also be amazing on Taylor’s Mistake, Dundas Street or right next to the Marina Entrance in the heart of our community so that people from Hahei and Cooks Beach can walk to it from the ferry. These facilities are essential as is deciding where they are to go.
Neera Giri, Whitianga
Survey structure controlling your preferences re Local Government Reform
This letter was addressed to the CEO Thames Coromandel District Council
A question in regard to the online “public engagement” survey currently seeking community input on TCDC options for council reorganisation…
Toward the end of the June 23 Council meeting, in response to the concerns of several councillors regarding Council’s decision not to include the “Option 9” (Coromandel Unitary Council) choice, you stated that survey respondents could enter a comment, if they feel so inclined, that their preferred option is the “standalone” structure. I believe you assured councillors that this information “could still be captured” or words to that effect.
Having just gone online, I found that the SLG survey was designed in such a way that the respondent cannot proceed to the second page without ticking one of the three options.
In other words, if a respondent does not support any of the three options (does not tick one of the three) but would nevertheless like to enter into the comments box her/his opinion on alternatives such as a stand-alone Coromandel Unitary, the survey design will not accept those comments, but instead reloads the page with indication that choosing one of the three boxes “is mandatory”.
The respondent is thus unable to proceed without indicating a preference for one of the short-listed options – unable to enter what is commonly known as a “blank ballot” with explanation and then go on to complete the survey.
This design feature can be expected to distort the survey findings. Could you please advise, a) if this function can and will be disabled; 2) if this functional design feature is intentionally programmed and, if so, the reason. Given the public interest and extremely short timelines, a response as soon as possible would be greatly appreciated.
◾️Editor’s Note: This comment was heeded and the function altered on 7 July.
More for Noel Hewlett’s vision
Noel Hewlett will be much missed and was a true visionary.
I hope who ever picks up the baton as advocate for the Moewai Park Sports Ground keeps pushing forward. It’s a great facility and could be used much more. The edge of town location and concealed access don’t do it any favours.
However, some of the solutions which I am sure would be expensive and possibly unpopular with surounding residential areas.
A question for the future
regarding access; – could a shorter more visible route be considered – going past Basker and through the old concert ground running parallel to the State Highway?
Let’s not forget Noel Hewlett’s vision.
M.D, Whitianga
Election issue
In the next election cows are centre piece to global warming!
David Yeomans, Pauanui
AMALGAMATION EDICT FROM CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
I attended the meeting held 9 July at Lost Spring about the forced amalgamation of Councils by central government. Full credit to the working group from Council and Community Board for their work, but the only 3 options presented for consultation are not the only options.
A fourth option not presented is “No thanks, we do not wish to amalgamate”
Even though not offered as an Option, when a show of hands was called for at the end of the meeting, the fourth Option overwhelmingly received the most votes. We have not been consulted on this Option, and we are not the only region expressing opposition to this government edict. I think local polling should have taken place in the first instance. Then, if sufficient numbers were opposed, we could have joined with others to mount protest against the entire move to force amalgamation.
At the very least, we should have refused to accept the tight time frame for the process. It is unreasonable for government to require councils to inform and consult sufficiently widely enough on a decision with such long reaching implication for the future as this.
Amalgamation or centralisation has not been successful, and often had to be reversed in other bureaucracies, such as education and health, so where is the evidence that it will bring about the cost savings etc claimed by the propaganda issued around this forced move?
Shane Murray posted on Facebook 9 July, an excellent piece setting out evidence that amalgamation is unlikely to be advantageous. https://www.facebook.com/search/top?q=shane%20murray%20amalgamation
Since when in our democracy has it been acceptable for our government to say ‘decide or we will decide for you?’ This is government by force. NOT ACCEPTABLE, nor democratic.
If you would like to express your views on amalgamation and Option 4 go to: http://schr.io/options
If you are happy to be rail-roaded by government, jog on, otherwise please take a minute to comment.
Sandra Scott, Matarangi
◾️Editor’s note: Please see pages 12, 13 and 14 in this issue of The Informer. The articles relate to this Letter to the Editor. Note: Sandra Scott’s Option 4 in this letter is not the same as Option 4 as proposed by Dirk Sieling on Page 13.
