Letters to the editor: Bay's highways 'tragically useless' for today's needs

State Highway 2 is 'dreadful', a reader says. Photo/file

Highways 'tragically useless'

I wish to contradict your correspondent (Letters, July 14) who suggested that our roads in the Western Bay are safe, and it is drivers at fault.

No one can say that SH2 and SH29 are safe. They were both formed decades ago for a smaller population, slower cars, and small port.

SH2 is a dreadful road and no one, no matter how sympathetic they are to the present government. The fact remains both SH2 and SH29 are tragically useless for today's growing needs.

It is the local government's job to plan for new settlement patterns, so years ago Ōmokoroa was planned as an ideal growth node for 12,000 people.

The council put in a sewerage system to cope, but for some unknown reason the state highway was never upgraded properly and it is not coping.

However, SH2 planning is ready but for some reason the government will not approve the Northern Access which would start the upgrade.

Instead, in my view, they are stuffing around putting so-called safety bits in place to influence driver behaviour.

But if one has to drive at night they are frightening, unhelpful, and hopeless to see properly at night.

Make a decision Minister Twyford, we deserve progress.

Margaret Murray-Benge
Bethlehem

Get what you voted for

When you increase minimum wages it ripples right through the cost base of every business and prices go up.

When you cut taxes people get more in their pocket but it doesn't increase business costs and it doesn't force business to increase prices.

What part of that did voters not understand at the last election? Certainly, they should be realising it now as prices increase with no increase for those on fixed incomes.

You get what you voted for folks.

Bruce Ingram
Pāpāmoa

A reader says nurses are being 'unreasonable'. Photo / File

Careful of hypocrisy

Rachel Stewart says she will "vigorously defend anyone's right to wholeheartedly believe" but then labels someone a bigot for exercising their belief in traditional marriage.

While service providers cannot and should not be allowed to generally discriminate against anyone, neither should they be forced to participate in or support ceremonies and events with their services that directly violate their moral or religious convictions.

When pushing through the same-sex marriage bill, the Select Committee considering the bill said: "It is our intention that the passage of this bill should not impact negatively upon people's religious freedoms… The bill seeks to extend the legal right to marry to same-sex couples; it does not seek to interfere with people's religious freedoms."As we argued during the marriage debate, in my opinion, the law currently creates a culture of coercion, despite the politicians promising otherwise.

Unfortunately, the Warkworth bakery case will not be the last case of the redefinition of marriage clashing with people's freedom of conscience rights and faith-based beliefs.

A bigot is defined as a 'person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions'.

Rachel Stewart should be careful of hypocrisy.

Bob McCoskrie
National director, Family First