15.09.2021 Views

The Star: September 16, 2021

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

<strong>The</strong> <strong>Star</strong> Thursday <strong>September</strong> <strong>16</strong> <strong>2021</strong><br />

20<br />

LETTERS<br />

Latest Canterbury news at starnews.co.nz<br />

Readers respond to last week’s article on the proposed Three Waters reform and whether the<br />

city council residents’ survey should have had a yes or no question on the plan<br />

I am writing to express my<br />

strong opposition to the<br />

proposed Three Waters scheme.<br />

This proposal represents a<br />

terrible attack on our democratic<br />

process.<br />

This looks like an attempt<br />

to rush through the transfer<br />

of control of our $6.8 billion<br />

asset to an unelected body of<br />

Wellington bureaucrats who<br />

would not be accountable to us.<br />

I expect that the cost of our<br />

water would be increased every<br />

year and we would not be able to<br />

replace ineffective management,<br />

unlike what we enjoy now<br />

with the democratic process<br />

of electing city councillors. –<br />

Victoria Sinclair<br />

I am disappointed with<br />

the lack of basic information<br />

in the council survey and as<br />

noted no clear indication in<br />

favour or not, with a simple yes<br />

or no, which would be more<br />

balanced, as a survey rather<br />

than being loaded with nebulous<br />

irrelevances.<br />

It is obvious to many, that this<br />

is one of ‘Cindy’s’ ploys under<br />

her He Puapua 50/50 initiatives<br />

to gift these water resources to<br />

Maori.<br />

<strong>The</strong>se resources have in<br />

reality been paid for by many<br />

generations of ratepayers. – A<br />

White<br />

I strongly oppose this asset<br />

grab on the grounds as a<br />

pensioner and the associated rate<br />

rise that will come.<br />

On a fixed income and<br />

continual rates, insurance,<br />

energy, food, transport cost<br />

increases, where is this money<br />

going to come from? <strong>The</strong> politics<br />

and racial discrimination on<br />

this topic are another matter<br />

altogether. – Peter Clark<br />

Even if the city council of the<br />

Three Waters and Waste requires<br />

more information before the<br />

yes/no option is included in<br />

the community survey, the<br />

constituents don’t.<br />

It is obvious what Minister<br />

Mahuta wants, especially so<br />

when she consistently refused<br />

to answer on Q&A, whether she<br />

would compulsorily take control<br />

of her Three Waters scheme,<br />

whether the constituents and the<br />

councils voted for her scheme or<br />

not.<br />

This means she is going to<br />

get her own way come what may.<br />

Fresh water is not owned by<br />

anyone, or possibly owned by<br />

all of us, not just a select few but<br />

that is not what the minister<br />

wants.<br />

So we need plain yes or no,<br />

and if the vote is no, and the<br />

city council votes no, Minister<br />

Mahuta is likely to invoke<br />

compulsory control and then<br />

give ultimate control to a nonelected<br />

organisation.<br />

Time will tell. – R Williams<br />

Please please don’t sell our<br />

local water assets to the state.<br />

We must keep control of our<br />

own affairs.<br />

If the state tries to run this<br />

it will fail or become such an<br />

expensive bureaucracy.<br />

It will also take more time for<br />

the council having to deal with<br />

another middle layer and iwi.<br />

I just can’t see any benefit. –<br />

Alan Roberts<br />

As a ratepayer I do not support<br />

the value proposition the<br />

Government is making for the<br />

three waters reform.<br />

Essentially they are proposing<br />

that they will purchase assets<br />

that have been paid for over<br />

generations by ratepayers for a<br />

fraction of their value.<br />

<strong>The</strong> water supply for<br />

Christchurch is pristine<br />

and unmatched and the city<br />

council should do everything<br />

in it’s power to maintain<br />

ownership and control of<br />

this asset for the benefit of<br />

the ratepayers and people of<br />

Christchurch.<br />

Central government has<br />

already demonstrated that<br />

they prefer a one-size fits all<br />

way of making decisions in<br />

relation to water (chlorine)<br />

which may have benefits in low<br />

quality rural water schemes<br />

but is entirely unnecessary for<br />

Christchurch.<br />

Central government has<br />

also consistently shown that<br />

consultation is a not process by<br />

which they listen to feedback. –<br />

Alan Geraghty<br />

Clearly the city council survey<br />

should have had a simple yes<br />

or no option/response to the<br />

planned water changes. My vote<br />

is for a very big no.<br />

Why would we possibly<br />

consider handing over $6.9<br />

billion of water-based assets<br />

to a Government controlled<br />

board of one entity for 21 local<br />

authorities.<br />

This proposal is just so wrong.<br />

– Eric Dally<br />

SEPTEMBER <strong>2021</strong><br />

24 SEPT - 3 OCT <strong>2021</strong><br />

SEPTEMBER <strong>2021</strong><br />

Head to a participating eatery over the festival,<br />

order the SCOFF special and bein to win great<br />

prizes including goody bags, vouchers and a<br />

weekend escape to South Canterbury.<br />

MACKENZIE · TIMARU · WAIMATE<br />

Learn more at scoffsc.nz<br />

EAT<br />

DRINK<br />

SAVOUR<br />

ENJOY

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!