Letters to the Editor

 

Cycle-walkway essential
In a recent letter Christian Simon raised the issue of a cycle/walkway connecting the Heads and the Village, and in response Commissioner John Robertson in his regular column suggested Simon get in touch with local volunteers involved in track building.

However, the construction of roadside pathways is somewhat outside our brief, which is primarily focused on off-road walking and cycling access. Despite this the Trust is a strong advocate for all walking and cycling initiatives and sees a cycle/walkway between Mangawhai’s two main business centres as a critical piece of infrastructure, which is long overdue.

The increasing number of walkers and cyclists, in particular children, using Molesworth Drive are at considerable risk from the heavy traffic flow, and even where a track exists it is narrow and often overgrown with vegetation. Although the new footpath between the information centre and the MAZ is welcomed, it is a pity we were not consulted as we would have urged it be half a metre wider so that both cyclists and walkers could be accommodated.

The construction of a cycle/walkway, as advocated by Christian, should be a very high priority for Council, and is not an appropriate task for the already stretched Mangawhai volunteer community.

Gordon Hosking
Chairman, Mangawhai Tracks Charitable Trust


Double standard?
In your most recent issue you published a letter from me, but before doing so you gave the Chair of the Kaipara Commissioners the opportunity to rebut the content.

You have never, in the course of three or four years now, given me the opportunity to rebut extremely misleading and violent rhetoric aimed at the MRRA and myself personally at times, so that readers could see the ad hominem attacks made on me and the community alongside the response.

Why this double standard?

The rebuttal that you have allowed to appear under my letter is full of lies. In particular, the last lawfully consulted amount for the sewage scheme was $17m and the final cost was $63m, so my figure of $55m, which includes an estimate of the interest that has accrued since, is pretty close to the truth.

The figure of $35m, which has been rammed down our gullets by the commissioners, was not lawfully consulted as Robertson knows only too well. The commitment to spend that money was contractually made before the public consultation occurred. The council failed to consult in good faith, as Robertson knows perfectly well, and the consultation is therefore set aside. That is all in the court records, and not denied, as he also knows.

Bruce Rogan
Mangawhai

Mangawhai Focus editor replies:
Double Standard? For the past two years every column or comment from the Commissioners we have published is refuted, argued or discredited by the MRRA, or yourself on their behalf, continually accusing them of being ‘liars and fascists’ or worse but not entering into any reasonable form of debate. We believe our readers are tired of this constant one-sided barrage and we would rather not burden them any further with this inane rhetoric.


Better treatment option
Dear John Robertson: The advantage of a free country is that proper controversial discussions are the basis to develop new ideas and find the best solutions. Isn’t it fantastic that the Mangawhai Focus provides us the opportunity to express our different opinion?

I am happy that you can assure us there are no hidden debts. $70m is quite more than enough for our little district. It is the amount of 2.5 years of all our general rates!

I quite like that you are focused to reduce the burden for all ratepayers in the district, that still on pay annually $247 with their general rates to support the Mangawhai Waste Water Scheme. Waste water treatment should be paid by targeted rates and this would be possible when we invest in modern solutions!

Finally a member of the Waste Water Scheme Extension Advisory Panel seemed to be convinced that separation systems are worth considering seriously. Grey-water doesn’t contain coli bacteria etc. and only a little amount of nitrogen. Grey water can be irrigated after simple treatment on site. When all would do so, this would reduce the waster water flow by 70%. Those are the international experiences to reduce the costs dramatically. Now the Far North District Council is on this way. Don’t you think it is time that also we in Kaipara consider this option?

It is an illusion to reduce the costs by connecting more people to the scheme. Traditional treatment plant is made out of three parts. Even when the plant itself is big enough to cope with more connections the main costs are involved in reticulation and irrigation.

The preferred option from the Advisory Panel is to create another irrigation area at the golf course for $8.5m. It would be completely wasted money – too close to the estuary and a risk to the environment! Even geodetic research is senseless spend money. Is the sand filter working for 30 years? Separating the grey-water and irrigating on site is an easier and better way.

I am not satisfied with your answer that the debt paid down is in some instances from the development contribution. I like to have it a little more precise. How much of the development contribution is left to spend for needed infrastructure to cope with the growth – 20, 50, or 70 percent?

It is shocking that first comes the growth and than the discussion about the town planning to cope with it. The growth makes it necessary to give pedestrians and cyclist their ways. The very first step – in my opinion – is a proper “pedestrian highway” from the village to the heads. This footpath needs to be good enough for the kids to run safely with their bicycles and skaters on their daily way to school. This way has to be comfortable for pedestrians and wheelchairs. A track for the Sunday afternoon walk is by far not enough. Is some money left from the contribution fee for such an investment?

Christian Simon
Mangawhai


Beach access issues
I was very upset recently to hear that the developers of the Te Arai North block, which includes Te Arai golf course, are seeking to extinguish the existing public easement by which the general public including pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders and light vehicles are able to access the car park at the seaward end of Pacific Road.

They propose that all vehicular access, other than their own, be terminated at a point, to be determined, which will be 450m – 500m away from the existing car park. The current easement is to be replaced by a pedestrian-only footpath to the beach. This means beach goers will have a walk of over 500m in each direction to get to and from the beach. This is simply unreasonable for the majority of beach goers such as young families and the elderly. It is unclear if cyclists and horse riders will be able to use this proposed pathway but, due to its narrow profile, this would in any case be unsafe.

The application for this change was part of a non-notified subdivision consent application, on the grounds that the effects of the proposal are not "more than minor.”

The pretext for making the change is to protect the dunes, bird life, eco-system etc. In fact, this has nothing to do with protecting the dunes, fairy terns or any eco-system. The car park has been in its current location for many years and there has been little or no adverse effect on the NZ fairy tern or northern NZ dotterel.

Make no mistake, the real reason for this action is to restrict public access to the beach at Te Arai North, for the greater enjoyment of the few who purchase property in, or have access to, the Te Arai North development. To believe otherwise is to be totally naïve.

There is now a proposal to develop the Te Arai South block (land south of Te Arai point) and we can be sure that the developers of this block will seek to similarly restrict public access to ‘their beach’. If the developers have their way, the only location where ordinary New Zealanders will have easy access to the whole of Te Arai beach will be at Te Arai point.

Now is the time to take action to prevent the virtual privatisation of one of our most pristine beaches for the benefit of a few rich overseas investors.

Keith Draper
Mangawhai