Letters: Electricity tariffs, mangroves and survey language

Trustpower to show their loyalty to the TECT consumers and offer the same electricity tariffs as they offer to customers in other regions, a readers says. Photo/Getty.

Fair's fair

The TECT consumers have indicated that they wish to keep the TECT cheque and have shown their loyalty to Trustpower. It is now time for Trustpower to show its loyalty to the TECT consumers and offer the same electricity tariffs as it offers customers in other regions. Come on now, how about the same tariffs as offered to Hamilton customers.

David Riley, Tauranga

--

Mangrove threat

It is a travesty that organisations such as Forest & Bird and others continue to support the unchecked spread of mangroves in our local harbours and estuaries, at the expense of birdlife, both local and migratory.

These birds need open water spaces to feed, and currently, have to compete with mangroves to do so. Left unchecked mangroves will likely colonise the feeding areas in the Firth of Thames of the migratory bar-tailed godwits and other arctic nesting birds.

How does Forest & Bird justify this as its very name suggests it should support the continued survival of these birds?

The argument put forward by the University of Waikato that mangrove expansion cannot be checked without taking other actions is fair comment, but many activities by city and regional councils aim to reduce silt and sedimentation, on which mangroves proliferate, from entering our estuaries and harbours in the first place.

Meg Butler, Welcome Bay

--

Clarity needed

Gun Cundle (Letters March 16) is right on the mark.

Your comment that "manipulative language, in my view, is definitely not what the public should have to contend with in council feedback forms" is very pertinent.

Another very recent example of manipulative language was the recent announcement of the questionnaire about the proposed new museum as part of the coming referendum.

The one question not included was "Do you want a museum, and are you prepared to pay for it?"

By answering the submitted questions (including Q1 – approving the museum costs in the 2018-2028 Plan – a vote "no" only defers the real question for another 10 years). In responding to the other questions, readers are giving approval for a rates increase and project they do not necessarily want.

A recent issue of Bay of Plenty Times also has a half page report about the possibility of significant additional increased cost forecasts for the combined library-museum. It looks as though the council believes the ratepayer ability to pay ever-increasing rates is unlimited. It also assumes the residents want a museum, but appears to have never been confirmed by a referendum of all residents.

Would councillors please give more consideration to the opinions of the majority of their constituents, not just those who make the most noise concerning their interests or cultural desires. (Abridged)

Paul Garratt, Bethlehem