Balancing good intent and private owner rights
I was delighted and felt affirmed by the article "Heritage evaluation takes time" (ODT, 19.7.24).
I have Aucklanders, Wellingtonians, Dutch, English, Scottish, and Australian friends who ‘salivate’ at seeing our beautiful heritage buildings. It is indeed our point of difference and an unforgettable experience that only Dunedin can offer.
Let us take Lois Galer’s salient comments (ODT, 16.7.24) as a serious warning towards how our sustainability will look for the future of our Edinburgh of the South.
By the way, the comment from Gerrard Eckhoff (ODT, 7.7.24): "Developers in Auckland recently built a concrete block of apartments clad with green venetian tiles and it looks fabulous", is misguided. Dunedin will not get the heritage ambience from "concrete clad apartments with green venetian tiles" (that will probably date).
Balancing good intent and private property rights is the road to perdition for Dunedin.
Auckland is Auckland, Dunedin is Dunedin.
We need to think about how developments affect our heritage city.
A little foresight would have seen that the property at 284 Stuart St could be made into four "fabulous" apartments, that will be in high demand, fetch a good price and remain part of the streetscape. I can attest to this through the refurbishing into apartments of our heritage property.
I sincerely hope that the developer considers my points and perhaps consult my husband and I about our experience.
It's with some concern I read of the pending demolition of the lovely old home on Stuart St, a sad outcome indeed.
But all of the hand-wringers out there calling for its preservation are not the ones who will be footing the bill.
Dunedin is very lucky to have dedicated builders and restorers who have re-purposed many an old, worn-out and/or no longer fit for purpose building, giving it ‘life' for many years to come.
Just walk around the city and lift your eyes to see them . . . wonderful!
But for many and varied reasons there's a limit to how many are worth, or able, to be saved.
So unless someone is able to take pity on these so-called heritage buildings and supply them with the resources necessary, then the only remaining solution is to get rid of them and use the land for another purpose.
I wait with baited breath to see which one of the preservationists will raise a hand clenching the necessary dosh.
Insulation move criminal and shameful
The rolling back of the insulation regulations for landlords by National, along with giving landlords tax relief epitomises National’s complete disregard for the working man and the current housing situation.
The likelihood of most landlords lowering rent because of tax relief is about as likely as the supermarket giants lowering prices when supplies of goods even out after shortages.
Any landlord worth his salt will already have insulation and the others simply do not care about the health of their tenants,economically or physically.
Look ahead to more hospitalisation and deaths of children and the elderly.
It's criminal and National should be ashamed of that decision.
Reaching emission targets big cost to economy
The coalition government has taken emissions of methane from agriculture out of the Emissions Trading Scheme.
This, according to reports, will make it difficult for New Zealand to meet its emissions target of net zero by 2050.
The government has of course taken into account the economic impact to the country as a whole, if agriculture was to remain in the Emissions Trading Scheme.
The government is not only bound by the Paris Agreement, but also by the Climate Change Response Act 2002 whatever they do.
The economic impact of emission targets cannot be underestimated, not only for agriculture but for the country as a whole.
Fewer cows, fewer cars were suggested by the Climate Commission as ways to reduce our overall emissions.
Big cost to us, the average New Zealander.
The economic impact that has followed the previous government’s handling of Covid-19 is still hurting and any government hell-bent on reaching emission targets should not be allowed, if it dominates our economy.
Don’t like children?
Jocelyn Harris (ODT, 20.7.24) asks if the present coalition government has something against children?
Of course they don't, the current government has nothing against anyone.
They do however, only have interest in themselves and those of their ilk.
To the exclusion of all others.
Weekend beach experience tops the Olympics
Regarding Yeo’s cartoon (ODT 20.7.24) about sleeping in on the weekend, may I quote the late poet Peter Olds, who died last August. In his last book The Sheep Truck he said: "There can only be one Paris in the world and at the moment it is the Saint Clair Esplanade."
We don’t need pictures of smiling Mona Lisas or iron Eiffel Towers.
We have the waves and the surfers, walking past coffee shops and young couples holding hands and pushing prams and walking dogs on a lead.
Kids, walkers and dogs going along John Wilson Ocean Dr (without cars) to Lawyers Head on the weekend is a Dunedin experience that beats the Paris Olympics for me.
Dystopia now
George Orwell warned us of the dangers of dictatorship, the untramelled power of the Leader and the acquiescence of the brainwashed followers.
Yet Orwell would burst out laughing at the sight of what appeared to be cult members wearing tiny diapers on their ears in solidarity with their "great leader", whose ear was slightly nicked in an assassination attempt.
In my view, if the Republican National Convention is anything to judge by, and Americans lose their sanity and vote Trump in, we will see a weird mix of cruel and heavy repression, and complete idiocy.
Address Letters to the Editor to: Otago Daily Times, PO Box 517, 52-56 Lower Stuart St, Dunedin. Email: editor@odt.co.nz
