We look after animals in our city better than we look after people.
Most addicts I know use alcohol to help their anxiety caused by horrific things that have happened to them. It is hard enough to get a house these day if you have a job and you are not mentally ill. How much harder do you think it is for this group of people who are continually discriminated against through ignorance?
Some chose to live on the streets because housing is so expensive, they have given up.
We look after animals in our city better than we look after people. SPCA provides shelter, food, love and care but some would deny these people this basic need?
People on the streets live in survival mode, they don't have doors to lock to protect them, they aren't protected from the elements - the rain, the storms. To top it all off if they don't have an address they don't get a benefit.
How are they supposed to eat? This is why we provide a healthy meal, a hot shower, a smile, small things we take for granted - think twice before you condemn those less fortunate and deny them a home. Should our rates be spent on more bicycle tracks to attract rich people to use from other cities?
I certainly would prefer my rates to be spent on helping another human to succeed.
I sincerely appreciate the council's consideration into looking into resolving this problem and hope they do help. I have seen the tears and I have seen the pain - do not judge without knowing. We need more kindness and compassion in this world. I hope to see more of it in Tauranga.
(Abridged)
Liz Kite
Under The Stars
Buck both ways
Two articles caught my eye in the Bay of Plenty Times, Wednesday, January 15: "New public transport ideas on the cards for Tauranga, Blueprint shows" introducing the Western Bay Public Transport Blueprint and, "Relief in sight for Welcome Bay commuters heading home" about the proposed widening of Fifteenth Ave from Fraser St to Burrows St, to relieve evening peak congestion at the Fraser St lights.
The Tauranga City Council has a buck both ways - they say they want to increase public transport usage but they are spending our rates income investigating widening roads.
The only outcome of this will be a half-supported public transport system and wider roads that accommodate more cars - in direct conflict with their own goals.
How about our elected officials vote to prioritise spending on public transport, biking and walking so that we aren't forced to drive?
People who want to drive their cars every day and everywhere should continue doing so, but the city must not subsidise the vast cost of this personal preference.
(Abridged)
Sue McArthur
Maungatapu