In its 10-year plan in 2015, the council said its preferred option was to sell a third to half of the flats to a social housing provider, or to dispose of all of them to pay down debt. These were the options stalled by a wondrous referral to a committee that basically disappeared over the next two years and did not report this week.
This week's outcome is nothing like the options of two years ago. Maybe it's a stall because the flats are fully tenanted, unlike 80 per cent two years ago.
Twenty per cent more income does delay the "maintenance versus ratepayer pays" crunch-time issue?
ROSS FALLEN
Aramoho
Far to go
Governor Hobson's greeting, "He iwi tahi tatou" -- "We are now one people", was a piece of theatre when it was first spoken. It is very, very slowly becoming more real. We have a long way to go still.
One way or another, government continued/continues to undermine Maori rights and land rights at times.
I will always believe Maori lost more than they gained. I believe with gradual exposure to European ideas, which they could pick and choose from, and control of their own assets, Maori would not be where they are today, but in a better space. A strong vibrant language and their own indigenous religious base may progress their future.
Perhaps the apathy Derrick Storey of Marton sees where he says people are "not railing against Maori privilege" isn't apathy. Perhaps, for some European, it is wisdom.
Imperial and Victorian attitudes to tangata whenua have no place here today. We appreciate many unique cultural treasures that are indigenous. I am unique, as you are. We are different at times and also have much in common. As in any relationship, I must make a concerted long-term effort to relate through our differences. This is a mature relationship model and, yes, at times it's very hard to do.
This is part of the Quaker Peace Testimony as I understand it
CUSHELA C ROBSON
Whanganui
Eye for an eye
I want to thank Stan Hood for his letter (May 13) challenging my logic regarding evolution.
I take Stan's point that a proto-eye distinguishing light from shadow would have immense evolutionary advantage to such an animal, but going from such a proto-eye to a fully functional eye that we see in vertebrates and cephalopods (squid and octopus) is a huge step. I wonder if even the immense amount of geological time available would be enough with the only mechanism available being random chance.
We know that if you irradiate a chemical broth of the kind that might have existed on a young Earth, quite a number of large molecules are formed. But, to quote Alan Hayward in his book, Does God Exist? Science Says 'Yes', "such experiments ... do not come within a hundred miles of producing the huge molecules needed to sustain life". His conclusion is that there must have been divine intervention. Some scientists disagree, preferring to believe that one day we will prove how life began scientifically.
I must thank Stan for explaining the mechanism of pleiotropy. This would certainly enable greater evolutionary changes. But this still doesn't explain how genes are progressively added to the genomes of organisms as they become more complex. Mutations and pleiotropy only cause changes to existing genetic material. They do not increase genetic material.
I accept Stan's point that gene changes can produce sterile insects, which do survive in nature. But this is hardly advantageous to that insect species.
Finally, I want to assure Stan Hood that our debates and different theories regarding our origins do not bar us from access to the Pearly Gates. After all, those of us that agree that God created the heavens and the earth, don't know exactly how He did it because none of us were there. I may be wrong.
My original reason for getting into debates of this kind was the fact that many people cite evolution as a valid reason to believe God doesn't exist.
DAVID GASH
Whanganui
Ferry stories
Carol Webb (letters, May 29) continues to make misrepresentations against Midwest Ferries' proposed service between Whanganui and Motueka.
She states that "Mayor Hamish told RNZ that if the MidWest proposal was 'half-baked' the Government and council could effectively say, 'Well it's just not going to fly'." Mayor Hamish did not say this, or anything resembling this, as anyone who listens to the link that Ms Webb provides will discover.
She follows this error by stating Myles Fothergill has raised a concern that the ferry proposal may jeopardise the relocation of the Q-West operation. While, thankfully, this is not another misrepresentation, it is plainly not correct.
The Feasibility Study states very clearly that there are a number of different options for berthing that will be explored in the next stage of the proposal. The fact of these different options means that, by definition, there is no conflict between the two proposals.
Finally, Ms Webb's scattergun opposition to the proposal ends with a question regarding two versions of the final report. My co-author and I have produced only one version for public release on May 5, 2017. This is the one that is on the council website at the link that Ms Webb has again kindly supplied.
I note for the second -- hopefully, last -- time it is Ms Webb's prerogative to oppose the project, but it is not acceptable to make misrepresentations against the proposal.
NIK ZANGOUROPOULOS
Wellington
