Your views: Readers' letters

Move everything

We could easily solve both the sewerage and flooding problems. Let's concrete the whole river channel from Upokongaro to well out to sea. Make the walls tall enough so not even a 1000-year flood can overtop it. Yeah, right.

There are two problems I and many others have overlooked. One is that the last flood in the Kowhai Park area was primarily the result of a cloudburst (200mm) in the Matarawa Stream catchment, and the experts tell me this weather pattern is likely to happen more often. This means houses on Anzac Parade and the children's playground at Kowhai Park will go under deeper for longer if we raise the stopbanks -- unless, of course, we breach them as we did last time to let the water out.

The other issue is that higher stopbanks on Anzac Parade will raise the river level and speed of flow, put more pressure on the bridges and mean more and higher stopbanks further down river, hence my suggestion to concrete the whole river and be done with it.

The only solution that makes sense is to move everything out of the flood zone. I don't know where the number of 100 houses came from; all the reports I have seen only list 29. Moving the state highway to the vacated house sites and raising it is the only sensible way to go. The costs of the one-off project, while expensive, are way below ongoing maintenance, clean-up and repair costs. Relocating Kowhai Park by the stadium would mean little kids could entertain themselves while older ones and parents played sport. Or it could go in Queen's Park and bring more people into the city centre.

If we keep doing what we have always done, we will always get the same result, and as the sewers overflow into the floodwaters we will continually be in the s***. If you don't like what Horizons proposes, tell the district council.

With Nick Smith seemingly lowering the swimming standard for waterways we will have enough s*** to go around without the higher stopbanks.

(Abridged)

TERRY O'CONNOR
Wanganui

Super returns

Heather Marion Smith's letter about the NZ Super Fund (Chronicle, March 4) makes reference to a reported $30 billion every four years the Government pays in debt servicing, inferring debt repayment would have been a superior financial strategy to contributing to the fund. It is a fact that the fund, since it began, has returned 5.6 per cent per annum above the cost of Government debt servicing, as measured by the average return on 90-day Treasury bills.

This means the nation is $16.5 billion wealthier (net of all costs) than the alternative of purely paying down debt. Not bad, I reckon.

The fund's benchmarks and performance are explained at www.nzsuperfund.co.nz, including our responsible investment activities -- recognised as world-leading by global organisations.

ADRIAN ORR
CEO, New Zealand Superannuation Fund

Housing support

Housing New Zealand ended lifetime tenancy agreements and introduced reviewable tenancies for all social housing tenants in 2014. Housing New Zealand has evicted tenants from nearly 1000 state homes in the past two years, after finding they could afford private market rentals. Of note then, applicants with a greater need (mostly solo parents with children) had already gone into 654 of the homes.

Housing NZ receives regular media flak around empty properties, damp, properties in need of repair, the wait list (especially Auckland), those with high-needs children, a home needed nearer extended family, big families and some who, in later life after decades of state housing, have an income that now disqualifies them from staying.

I was raised in state housing till I was 17 when my parents bought our first home, a tiny two-bedroom unit. Every home we lived in was respected as it was not our home. My dad understood that as soon as he was able to step up and out ... we did. He appreciated that the state supported its people until they could support themselves.

This is not about bashing our disadvantaged. It is about moving when you financially can, so that the taxpayer is not subsidising those who no longer need it, and those who need it more are supported in as timely a manner as possible. Yes, some older ones do live in these homes for many decades and form an intense emotional attachment, but the matter of greater income over life-tenancy should be, for those, a discreet discussion with Housing NZ. There are exceptions to the rule.

We should, however, acknowledge Housing NZ for tracking those who "forget" the general purpose of state housing. Yes, a quarter of our children are in poverty and, increasingly for many, two incomes are not covering the basics.

However, Housing NZ is part of that support.

Well done on evicting (their words) those 1000 who do not need to be there and who said nothing till tapped on the shoulder.

ROSS FALLEN
Aramoho