Rotorua Post: Letters to the editor

Nobody compensates landlords for this loss or repair cost, a reader says.

I respond to Bryan Gould (Opinion, March 4). There appear to be a number of delusions in it which I wish to correct.

As a small-time property investor, may I say that I have not invested to strangle as much rent as possible out of my tenants. The rent I charge, as in any other business, is income sufficient to pay the overheads of interest on loan, insurance and rates.

Plus a bit extra to put away for emergency maintenance such as hot water cylinder replacement, etc. My rents are actually below the median for that area, a strategy I use to keep the good tenants that I have.

I also face the risk of tenants taking a runner, or damaging the property, both of which I have experienced in the past. Nobody compensates me for this loss or repair cost, except for the reserve fund that I have accumulated. Will Mr Gould please provide his proof that rents are excessively high, and that landlords make huge profits, or is this just a figmentof his imagination?

And, of course, if a tenant feels that his rent is too high, he is quite capable of voting with his feet and moving to a more acceptable accommodation.

I agree that houses should be insulated, all mine have been. If heater installation is made compulsory, it will not benefit any tenant who, for their own reasons, does not wish to switch it on and incur added electricity cost.

Of course, any additional overhead cost such as the installation cost of insulation must come from somewhere, inevitably a rent increase. Just as anybody owning their own home will have to foot the bill for such improvements. Unlike in other countries, there has been a deafening silence from our Government regarding tax relief for these costs.

Please also note that both homeowners and landlords pay for the development of the infrastructure. This is through the imposition of rates. Landlords are not exempt from this.

Who then, will provide rental properties for the masses? The private investor is the only one if the government decides to pull out of social housing. Why then vilify the private investor whose only desire is to have a stable income and a nest egg for his future?

May I suggest that Mr Gould sticks to his area of speciality, that being law, and avoid the area of simple small scale economies, which he apparently knows little about. (Abridged)

Chris Pattison
Papamoa

Time for young people to stand up

I would like to echo Merepeka Raukawa-Tait's latest article (Opinion, March 7) and encourage new, young blood to stand in the upcoming local body elections.

It is time for those clinging desperately to the status quo to step aside.

Those of us in our twilight years will not be significantly impacted by global warming. The young need to seize the day and make policies which have a chance of putting the skids on our self-destructive ride to annihilation.

Think I'm over-dramatic?

Think again.

Lesley Haddon
Rotorua

Empowerment

I must thank Annette Joyce, former principal of RGHS, (Letters, March 5) for bringing a smile to my face with her delightful recent epistle.

The bit I do not get is how segregation creates "diversity". By any objective standard, co-ed schools are inherently more diverse than single-sex schools.

It is common knowledge that many current and former inmates of single-sex schools like to sing the praises of the sense of camaraderie and the "empowerment" they feel/felt in such institutions.

All opinions are subjective, yet those who believe this remind me of Muslim women who tell television cameras that the burkha "empowers" them.

The fact of the matter is that the real world is not - thank God- single sex, and neither should our schools be segregated by gender or race. In an ideal world, we would not have segregation by social class, but we do.

The Scandinavian nations are light years ahead of the Anglophone nations when it comes to gender equity, and the Muslim countries, in my view, are light years behind. Yet single-sex schools are unknown in Scandinavia, and single-sex schools are universal in Muslim countries.

I will leave your readership, and Ms Joyce, to draw their own conclusions.

C.C. McDowall
Rotorua

Town for the people

Let's get this straight; a town/city was originally a place where people could gather and live in a group for safety and convenience, shops started out as places (markets) for the trading of goods, to allow people with too many apples to sell them to people with too few. Markets evolved into shops, and permanent dwellings became the norm.

Villages grew to towns and then to cities and shops grew bigger to provide the people with goods, the whole concept was there to provide for the people, the community, at no time were these towns/cities built for the benefit or glorification of mayors or councils.

They are there for the benefit of the people who also pay rates - a tax to help in the upkeep of the towns/cities, things like the policing, maintenance, water sewers etc., and not that elected persons could show off! (Abridged)

Jim Adams
Rotorua

The Rotorua Daily Post welcomes letters from readers. Please note the following:
• Letters should not exceed 250 words.
• They should be opinion based on facts or current events.
• If possible, please email.
• No noms-de-plume.
• Letters will be published with names and suburb/city.
• Please include full name, address and contact details for our records only.
• Local letter writers given preference.
• Rejected letters are not normally acknowledged.
• Letters may be edited, abridged, or rejected at the Editor's discretion.
• The Editor's decision on publication is final.
Email editor@dailypost.co.nz