Show of support for Marineland sanctuary

A marine animal sanctuary/hospital and education centre as requested in hundreds of past submissions to the Napier City Council is a wonderful idea.

A place for rescued marine animals to go to be cared for, rehabilitated and re-released if possible. Marvellous. If Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch and other centres can do it, why can't Napier? The Government isn't saying no to other centres.

The Napier City Council appears to be so against the idea of a marine animal sanctuary and a place for our youth, especially, to learn to care about our marine environment and marine life. Surely this is something we should be encouraging, supporting and nurturing - a healthy interest in and compassion for the creatures we share this planet with.

Marineland is a safe, accessible and affordable place for people to visit - young and old. We are so lucky to have it on our doorstep.

I wish the Friends of Marineland a successful outcome for the judicial review.

I thank them for listening to all the people who asked the Napier City Council to save Marineland.

Thousands out there support Marineland and what you are trying to achieve. We care. It's up to the council to listen to the people. V MatataNapierOur assetsIn reply to John Denton's prize-winning letter, July 30.

Re: "The collapse of Communism." I would not be surprised if Mr Denton doesn't end up paying a sweet dividend on every KW/h he buys in the near or far future to support the Communist government of China.

Re: "Government Ownership". Successful governments around the world seem to have retained ownership of their de-facto monopolies.

Privatising such infrastructure has always led to user-pay costs replacing previously free built-in services.

We're still paying heaps for our gutted rail infrastructure following that take and run privatisation experiment.

This country is doubly blessed with nature serving as the prime mover in our hydro and wind generation. New Zealand is said to lack natural resources. Well, this is one area where this country is a real winner. We don't need spoilers to doubly disadvantage our future.

Re: The 2003 OECD figures quoted. Time has more than discredited such short-term based advertising, an obvious product of those who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

We now live in a world where taxpayers must expect to bail out badly run banks and rescue debt-ridden corporates where not only the CEOs have avoided responsibility. Should an expensive catastrophe occur at one of our lost generation sites, obviously the private owners would disappear overnight while we would then need to thank heaven for our generous straight-to-the-rescue taxpayers.

Can we now wait and watch to accept Mr Denton's credibility after we see he has sold all of his personal assets to foreign greedies allowing him to then live in a rented tent?G M SpoonerHastingsRethink needed I find the new format for "Our Place" put out by the HBRC very informative overall.

But ... on page 4 "Investment Company New July 2011 Issue" I was astounded to read the following:

"A special consultation was held earlier this year and 22 submissions were received. However, these indicated no strong preference for or against the proposal."

As one of these submitters, I understand of those 22 submissions: 13 were opposed to the formation of the investment company, only two supported it, and the other seven had reservations.

This summary did not include submissions through the earlier annual plan process which included this topic.

I believe the HBRC should re-look at the "in principle" decision to set up an investment company and genuinely respond to submitters' concerns in the process.June GrahamTaradale