What do people think?
Well done for all the good work
Well done on all the good work your group has done so far. I agree wholeheartly with keeping the coast as unspoilt as possible.
I find the idea of destroying this significant point on the Wellington coastline under the banner of educating school children about the natural environment disturbing. Although I am not a fan of 'underwater world' type attractions I am not completely opposed to one being built in Wellington - but it would have to be in a better location - Te Raekaihau Point is not the place for a large development. Te Raekaihau Point along with the rest of the south coast should be preserved in a natural state. Keeping the coast wild has the power to teach many more people alot more about the importance of the natural marine environment than an aquatic entertainment centre ever will.
Thank you very much
Carrie Buckmaster, Mount Victoria, Wellington
via website, 26 November 2006
Approval "predetermined"
From what the marine education centre backers said in their resource consent application, Wellington City Council has backed their aquarium proposal since 1998, contrary to what Mayor Kerry Prendergast says (The Wellingtonian, November 2). I believe it's obvious that the granting of this application was "predetermined".
The council has favoured the proposal on Wellington's South Coast in an anti-competitive way since it committed itself to it and, over the years and using ratepayers' funds, has marketed the project to the whole region through the annual plan process. The aim was to gain the consent and public support. This hasn't worked. Ms Prendergast cannot expect that those prepared to speak out about what we see will be silent about the granting of the consent. This is a travesty of all the policy and law set up to protect our much loved coastline.
Coral Hyam, Houghton Bay
The Wellingtonian, 23 November 2006
Wildlife at Te Raekaihau
My brother and I parked the car on the very spot at the Point where the proposed Aquarium is intended to be and sat quietly for a few minutes, contemplating the destruction of such a wild and rugged natural environment. As we sat there, we noticed a little blue penguin tentatively crossing the sealed parking area towards the bank under the road. We were both thrilled, as this was the first time we had seen one. We watched until it climbed the bank and disappeared. It was a profoundly moving experience, a natural occurrence. And it cost us nothing but patience and stillness. There is no way that the proposed aquarium could offer anything to match it.
Diana Wright, Island Bay
via website, 19 November 2006
Council not logical
Why isn't this Aquarium being built further around at the old quarry site? A large carpark is already available there. The council appears to be spending a considerable amount of money and effort to regenerate this old quarry area to an envrionment similar to the point that they propose to destroy by building on it. There is no logic in their actions.
Susan Kiddle, Roseneath
via website, 9 November 2006
Protecting the coastline
Wellington's new marine education centre is obviously being billed as an education facility to qualify for government funding and, perhaps, charitable trust status. What are they going to teach us? That the best way to protect the coastal environment is to build on it? Great.
Ed Van Son, Te Aro
Dominion Post, 2 November 2006
Next time we vote
Wellington City council has granted consents for a hotel that will block harbour views and an 'aquarium' complete with bar and cafe, on the pristine south coastline. Meantime, it's focusing its powers on removing sandwich boards from footpaths.
Its great to see a council with a sense of humour. We'll all remember that the next time we vote.
Bridie Wilkinson, Karori
Dominion Post, 2 November 2006
A terrible shame
I was deeply disappointed to read your Editorial supporting the development of Wellington's Te Raekaihau Pt (Oct 28-29) with an aquarium. Building a large structure and parking lot there will change the area's nature forever. There will be no going back.
Undeveloped natural beauty so close to a city is such a precious commodity these days. I so hoped that this generation of councillors and citizens would defend this place for the sake of future generations.
New Zealand just isn't large enough to make such a centre viable, according to the assessment of how many visitors it will take to support it. It's a joke to compare it with the big Monterey Bay aquarium, which enjoys fabulous weather, huge numbers of tourists and is part of a larger tourist mecca, including Cannery Row and the vast, totally accessible California coastline.
I grew up in Wellington but now live in Hastings after being away for more than 20 years. It saddens me that there is so much American-style development all over New zealand and I think it a terrible shame that this decision has been made.
Rose Stamper, Hastings
Dominion Post, 2 November 2006
Financial disaster all the way.
I don't know what the marine equivalent of a white elephant is but Wellington's proposed aquarium must be at least a seven-legged octopus. The project has "financial disaster" written all the way through it. If Wellington councillors are gormless enough to feed $7 million in rates to the fish, that's fine by me, as long as they don't try to hook other councils into their reckless expedition.
B. Thomas, Upper Hutt
Dominion Post, 1 November 2006
Remembering the Real Wellington
David Powell, writing his opinion piece in the 19 October edition of the Dominion Post, never does mention how much he has been paid by the organisers of the misplaced Marine Education Centre. But even if he has volunteered his time and these recent words, none of his arguments are worth ruining the unmolested beauty of the South Coast. Nor do any of his suggestions depend on a single location for such a costly and untested tourism venture.
Mr Powell purports to speak for Wellington City Council, which is where we should first question his narrative. He is correct, however, in stating that "the south coast is the perfect showcase for the wonders of New Zealand's rugged coastline and marine life." This rare location, in its undeveloped state, is exactly that. How sad it is that the elected Councillors will not stand up and admit that, as temporary stewards of our landscapes and our communities, they have the capability of doing an irreversible wrong to Wellington's South Coast. Perhaps they do not even realise this. The next election may make things wonderfully clear. The very least we can do as rate-payers and voters is to dismiss the current elected folk with a disappointed farewell to their inept public service.
The Point does not require a hyper-real Disney-style attraction, fleets of diesel-powered buses, commercialised tourism efforts on all corners, and major infrastructure changes. And a new aquarium attraction for the Capital does not require placement on rugged rocks presently disturbed only by the god-given development known as the Cook Strait. If an urgent step is needed to protect our marine life through education, as Mr Powell suggests, then why not position a new aquarium in the vicinity of New Zealand's major destination, Te Papa. Many of the world's leading public and private aquaria salinate a fresh water supply to achieve the right habitats for their captivated flora and fauna. All of the unique marine critters and their New Zealand environments, cited by Mr Powell, can be accommodated at a more appropriate development within Wellington's tourism, transport, leisure, and commercial centre. Wouldn't the perfect location be somewhere between the Overseas Passenger Terminal, the Waitangi Park Development, the Outer T, Queen's Wharf, and the undecided port property further afield?
I do agree with Mr Powell that the Monterrey Bay Aquarium is a poor comparison for what is planned in Wellington. The Monterrey complex was built from the shell of the existing Hovden Cannery. It adapted a disused warehouse complex rather than force new development on rugged coastline. It was made possible by a US$55 million gift from a computer baron, whose daughter continues to serve as chief executive. Their US$5 billion family foundation also covers the major costs of the aquarium's affiliated research institute, US$37 million in 2005. The aquarium employs over 400 people, and handles 150,000 visitors each month. It has never depended on government funding for its development or existence, and is endowed in perpetuity against most risk and loss. Besides keeping fishes in tanks, there really is no comparison with what seems poised to bring a very man-made sort of ruin to Te Raekaihau Point. And that's not to mention the grave potential for adding a massive new debt load to the Council's balance sheet.
Wouldn't it be great if Wellington's school kids could spend the day learning incredible things at Te Papa, then playing wondrously along our waterfront, then viewing and appreciating the aquarium specimens nearby as one incredible educational foray? Wouldn't it be extraordinary if rate-payers could stop in, free of charge as with Te Papa, and have a cuppa or a scone, and see how the harbour-side aquarium critters are doing. And wouldn't it be great for the hospitality industry in the City, if another world-class opportunity were positioned on the urban doorstep and primary pedestrian zone? But most of all, wouldn't it be wonderful for the rugged, undisturbed South Coast if everyone could take these experiences and then explore at will our undeveloped, unmolested stretch of the real New Zealand?
Eric Vaughn Holowacz, Houghton Bay
via website, 26 October 2006
Monterey Bay Aquarium funding
Just one little detail was left out of your Monterey Aquarium (Features, Oct 19). It was built, funded and is maintained by Hewlett-Packard. It has also had many funding problems. It's a great facility and everybody should visit it - in Montwerey. Remember the Petone foreshore aquarium?
Bill Wieben, Petone
Dominion Post, 25 October 2006
Cartoon hit the mark
You're right (Editorial Sept 16-17) - setting Wellington's proposed aquarium in the inner harbour misses the point. It misses despoiling Te Raekaihau Pt, one of the few natural headlands left on the south coast.
Tom Scott's cartoon of a pin-striped shark clearly hit the mark judging by Infratil's Tim Brown's hasty defence of the aquarium and all things Wellington. Let's be clear - the only reason Infratil backs the project is to enhance its shopping complex at neighbouring Lyall Bay.
So far the only person who has run a commercial aquarium (and let's be honest - the euphemistically named Marine Education Centre is just a cafe, fish tank and car park) has raised serious doubts that make it a totally unwise project in which to sink millions of ratepayer dollars.
If Infratil wishes to run the city, let the company for it in full.
Paul McCredie, Seatoun
Dominion Post, 22 September 2006
Friday, Sep 8: A shark by any other name. Tom Scott, www.stuff.co.nz
Tom Scott was right
You have missed the point in your Editorial referring to Tom Scott's brilliant cartoon with the stripey-suited, property-developing, cigar-smoking shark swimming in the proposed south coast aquarium. (Sept 16-17). He has not got the picture wrong.
Some property developers are behing Wellington's Te Raekaihau Pt aquarium. Developers do wear big striped suits. Developers have to behave like sharks to stay in business and it is part of their job description. Some property developers smoke cigars.
You can easily walk around and enjoy Wellington's cafes, museums, art galleries, stadiums, shops and harbour. In contrast, we have a stunning rugged, unspoiled coast with beautiful walks and uninterrupted sea views. This is Wellington's point of difference. The proposed aquarium will destroy that.
The proposed site is no good. Ratepayers don't want to be lumbered with a poorly conceived commercial enterprise. You should be more grateful for Scott's real contribution to your paper and our community.
Scott Kennedy, Breaker Bay
Dominion Post, 19 September 2006
Take on the naming rights
Whatever the decision by the commissioners who heard submissions on the proposed Marine Education Centre, it's the cost to the ratepayer that is of real concern in this proposal.
Your Editorial (Sept 16-17) failed to capture that.
One vital fact omitted was that Wellington City Council decided to provide a $7 million interest-free loan to the marine centre trust at a cost to the ratepayer. On top of that, its meeting the cost of the planning approval, which to date amounts to $555,000.
As you support and strongly advocate this venuture, you should consider forming a consortium with Wellington International Airport Ltd for the naming rights and take the burden off the ratepayer.
No one yet has come up with a sensible reason for the council to take on the role of benefactor, promoter and financier. It's the business sector that should be putting its hand up, not the ratepayer.
S J Andis, Strathmore Park
Dominion Post, 19 September 2006
Lucky to see the stars from the Point
People need to wake up to the fact that light pollution is becoming a huge problem. Can you imagine not being able to see the land or the sea? Well for people that actually look up this is what's happening to our sky. And what is left? Only what lies metres in front of your face. This is how people think - if at all.Its as if anything further than a few metres in front of them doesnt matter.
The land is changing, the sky isnt. This is one of the only direct links with our forebears that we have. The Magellanic Clouds, The Southern Cross, Alpha Centauri, Eta Carina, Aurora, mention any of these to Astronomers from the Northern Hemisphere and they will tell you how lucky we are to see them when we look to the South. For whatever reason you want to save the point, we're all here together under the same stars and that unites us. Look out for star parties coming to the point soon, take part and enjoy it while we can. Kia kaha
Ron Fisher, Kelburn
via website, 31 August 2006
Destroying the coast in the name of tourism
I spent a year in your beautiful country six years ago, part of which I lived in Lyall Bay and I can recall the scenery and freedom of Te Raekaihau Point. It would be a disgrace to destroy that gorgeous coastline, in the name of tourism, as much of Ireland has suffered under recently.
I hope you are successful in your campaign.
Is Mise le Mas,
Deirdre Treacy. Ireland
via website, 31 August 2006
Personality driven
The Wellingtonian (August 17) 'urges both sides [of the Marine education proposal] to concentrate on the main issue - whether or not a marine education centre is a good idea and can be justified'.
Yet, as another correspondent (N.Page) rightly points out, you persist in running 'endless profiles on the centre's proponents (Victor Anderlini and Judy Hutt).'
The truth is, this proposal has been run on the basis of personalities. Victor and Judy are the public face of the proposal. Yes, they have worked for years inspiring groups of school children and their parents, but this does not give them a divine right to have this centre where they want.
Penny Wisheart, Kingston
The Wellingtonian. 24 August 2006
Enormous experience
N.Page (The Wellingntonian, August 17) in relation to the Marine Education Centre wonders about the mix of descriptions your earlier article gave to the three Independent Commissioners "a planner, an engineer and a businessman" and asks why there is no one with environmental experience.
Your reader may not be aware that the CV summaries of these commissioners can be found on the council website www.wellington.govt.nz
Readers may be interesed to know that these commissioners have collectively more that 90 years of environmental experience including accreditation from the Ministry for the Environment.
There is a wealth of individual expertise including conservation, geography, coastal engineering and resource managment. These three persons are widely respected in their fields and have sat on other complex hearings under the Resource Management Act. Between them, they have a robust and comprehensive mix of experience so that all parties should have confidence in the process presently being undertaken.
Councillor Leonie Gill (chair of regulatory processes)
Mayor Kerry Prendergast
The Wellingtonian, 24 August 2006
Respect goes both ways
Of course I will respect Victor Anderlini and Judy Hutt and think of them as heroes. I will do that the very day they respect Te Raekaihau Point and leave it alone.
Cathy O'Hagan, Houghton Bay
The Wellingtonian. 24 August 2006
Keep it dark to view the stars
As the point is the only place you can see due south, there shouldn't be any debate on the matter. We need to keep it a dark site for viewing the stars at night!
Catriona, Kelburn
via website, 17 August 2006
Something smells fishy on the Marine Education Centre website. And I think I know what it is.
In the news section (http://www.aquariumnz.org.nz/news.shtml), there is an item that begins...
"Stuart Macaskill, Chair of the Wellington Marine Conservation Trust, needed a trolley to assist him to submit to council the enormous number of submissions that have been written in support of the Marine Education Centre project."
The photo depicts just that, but what it doesn't tell you is how many submissions against his tourism development Mr Macaskill threw away or destroyed. What if his well-paid army of researchers, funded with terribly biased Council support (i.e. rate-payer loot), actually received 45,000 submissions against? What if Mr Macaskill and his "helpers" were simply able to weed out any and all negative comment, and thus make a disgrace of the Commission yet again?
Is this what he means when he says "we knew it was very important to get out into the community and correct mis-information that was being provided by opponents"? What better way than to grossly skew an already flawed process.
And how should the (Second) Commission, currently considering this fishy-smelling farce, interpret Mr Macaskill's sly admission that "we wanted to ensure that this time round the views of the vast majority of Wellingtonians were better reflected in the submission process"? Sure, and if you don't reflect better for the aquarium, your words may be in the rubbish bin.
Were any of the 5,300 submissions neatly boxed and delivered unto the Council by Mr Macaskill against his wishes? Were the 50,000 direct mail brochures, also subsidised by a biased Council Council, sent to any addresses in or even near the South Coast? Why strive for fairness with a random sampling of rate-payers when you can ask everyone in Tawa and Johnsonville if they want an aquarium? What do people in the Hutt or Porirua care if Wellington City Council wants to ruin its South Coast backyard?
The Commissioners are not stupid (at least they weren't during the first round), so they should be able to see through this ruse. But my fear is that they won't be asking these questions. My fear is that the Commissioners will believe Mr Macaskill's backward rhetoric claiming to have the public, the rate-payers, and the elected leaders on his side in every way. We all know he doesn't, and that just smells bad to me.
An old Italian fisherman once told me that a fish stinks from its head. And a more fitting metaphor there never was.
Goodbye undeveloped South Coast, with your fishing fleet of wooden boats, rock pools and rough terrain, undeveloped coastal stretches unlike any other city on earth, lazy Sunday drives, and natural places for kids (and parents) to learn about marine life.
Hello captive tourist attractions, more Council debt, massive infrastructure development, $20 admission charges, horrible architecture pretending to be unobtrusive, even more Council debt because they can't let it fail, another cafe, busses, $25 admission charges, paid parking, more development, central government bail-out, and then even more years of operating loss.
Wellington is about to get an education alright. Just listen to the old Italian fisherman. And take a good whiff...
Maureen Hickey, Melrose
via website, 11 August 2006
There's something fishy going on
CONGRATULATIONS to The Wellingtonian for putting two excellent letters (from Peter Sullivan and Jocelyn Chalmers) in the August 3 edition, which questioned support for two local tourism projects.
Supporters of the Karori Wildlife Sanctuary and the proposed Marine Education Centre at Te Raekaihau Point cunningly use the word 'conservation' to drum up emotive public support. The latter proposal also uses the word 'education' in a double whammy. However, the word 'tourism tends to be avoided.
It was unfortunate that The Wellingtonian was captured by the Marine Education Centre's self promoting rhetoric. It was patently wrong for the paper to report that Judy Hutt and Victor Anderlini are 'looking forward to expanding the (marine education) centre when it moves to its new home at Te Raekaihau Point'. There is no 'when'. The second resource hearing is about to start for a so-called 'amended application' because the applicants lost the first time around. The whole thing is ridiculous and, I would suggest, so fishy it stinks.
Can you spare us the Anderlini/Hutt picture from future coverage.
Mary Harvey, Island Bay
The Wellingtonain, 10 August 2006
Editorial bias on marine centre
The Wellingtonian is biased on the location of the Marine Education Centre at Te Raekaihau Point.
In the July 27 edition it published two quite lengthy articles (pages one and five) featuring Judy Hutt and Victor Anderlini, and supporting the centre at the Point. With the second hearing on its location imminent this is unfair bias.
Perhaps there is a very good reason that the first hearing was unable to come to a conclusion in favour of the Te Raekaihau Point location and that reason may have been that a great deal of expert evidence came out at the first hearing.
As with most issues it is complex and although articles have, from time to time, attempted to cover the many issues, there has been a lot of emotive material published.
Unfortuntely in your recent article Ms Hutt kept this going with claims that 'opponents have spread misinformation' (I'm sure they'd say the same about her "information") and "in choosing Te Raekaihau Point" they drew up an extensive list of criteria and looked at numerous sites.
If that process had been done more thoroughly it seems unlikely we would be in today's expensive mess. It angers Ms Hutt that "opponents argue it would be wrong to put the centre on land that should belong to everyone".
Ms Hutt and Dr Anderlini have done a lot of work in marine education but that does not mean they have the right to assume that they have the best answer for that land.
Jocelyn Chalmers, Island Bay
The Wellingtonian, 3 August 2006
Aquarium should be on the waterfront
An innovative aquarium proposal to be sited within 1km of Te Papa, the Botanical Gardens and the Cable Car - the three most popular Wellington tourist attractions, would have the best opportunity to draw the numbers needed to be viable.
The use of an iconic ship, having been part of Peter Jackson's King Kong film epic, would give the attraction an added dimension and help draw the visitors.
Fran Wilde's comment that the ship would not be appropriate on the waterfront is not well considered. Two other waterfront additions, namely the Tugboat in the Bay and Union Steam company storeroom, ex Evans bay, now a popular restaurant/bar, have added colour and are part of our maritime heritage.
The waterfront aquarium option fully funded by private enterprise has to be the best option for Wellington city and ratepayers.
Phil Valentine, Lyall Bay
Capital Times 2 August 2006
Marine Centre questioned
The $7 million request by the Marine Centre for national funding for this development has been declined, as for the Karori Wildlife Sanctuary.
Unrealistic visitor number projections and a consequent flaw in the financial feasibility of this project creates the consequent risk for local and national lenders. The independent Stafford report commissioned by the council confirms the above and rates the project as high risk.
Annette King who has publicly endorsed this project has so far been quiet as have other local MPs on the declining of national funding for this project. The proponents have also not made any public statements - not wanting to draw attention to risk averse investors?
Phil Valentine, Lyall Bay
Capital Times 18 July 2006
Marine centre solution
The time's now come for me to have my say on the marine centre.
I recently emigrated from the UK. In the centre of Birmingham, over 70 miles from the nearest sea water, there's a very successful Sea Life centre. They manage quite easily tosalinate the water for their occupants. Yes the harbour water's polluted, but the filters should be able to cope with the impurities.
Once the council permits businesses to take land on the seaward side of the coastline, they set a precendent.
To have it at the Owhiro Bay quarry's not feasible. The council would have to widen the road, as you can barely get two cars side by side along its length.
To have it a Te Raekaihau Point isn't a very good idea. If the car park overflows, the erosion will increase. Thats what the people want to avoid. Put it at Evan's Bay. Access is excellent. The road can cope with the extra traffic, and there's plenty of parking. And it's not too far from the city.
Graham Blakemore, Island Bay
Capital Times, 5 July 2006
Proud nimby
Your editorial of the 15th June concerning the "Nimby'-ism surrounding the proposed enviromental vandalism at Te Raekaihau Point shows a degree of "capture' by it's proponents.
Yes, there is a large degree of "Nimby"-ism involved. So what? After all it is our backyard, our beach. Our sea views that will be destroyed. Our roads that will become clogged with cars, buses and construction equipment, and our rates that are being poured into this foolishness.
So I make no apology when I say "Not in my back yard", thank you.
At the moment the backers are running their marine centre from the old bait house at Island Bay - very successfully, they say. Every time I pass the bait house it's locked. If it's not working at Island Bay, it's never going to work further around the coast.
What gives someone who doesn't even live in Wellington, let alone the South Coast, the right to erect this folly against the wishes of the locals?
Perhaps they could also release the workings behind their forecasts for revenue and visitor numbers and perhaps we all could scrutinise these a bit closer. numbers such as these are generally overstated in the hype to get such projects moving.
Why is the City pouring so much rate-payers money into what will clearly be a privately owned commercial venture?
Can the backers please explain to me why they have this urge to destroy the headland, then erect a monument to the very thing they have destroyed? They say that visitors to the centre will be able to see and experience all the life forms available in the waters off the South Coast. Well Hello! You can do this right now, just by taking a meander through the rock pools.
The backers claim that it is the ideal site. Bulls**t. The Owhiro Bay quarry already has the shell of a building, ample tar sealed car parking and a far longer, more varied and more interesting coastline, all the way around to Karori.
What about the old Marine Research Centre that was run by Victoria University on the Esplanade between Island Bay and Owhiro Bay? It's more central, has a purpose built building on a large slab of land with ample parking over the road and an established cafe next door. Ah, the cafe. Competition?
The arrogance of the backers is breathtaking. They disparage the locals who quite rightly have concerns, while paying students to aggressively seek signatures from anybody who shows the slightest interest, in order to back them.
I know of two people from Auckland who were pressured to sign - any signatures from outside Wellington City (and this means Petone and Tawa northwards) should automatically be denied.
Perhaps now you'll understand when I say to the backers, "Build it in front of your own house, if it's such a good idea". But of course they can't - they live a long way away from the beach.
Tony Wood, Island Bay
Capital Times, 27 June 2006
Government should listen to locals
I'm a a twelve year old student who is absolutely opposed to the marine aquarium. Many times my family and friends have spent time playing down at the rock pools at the point, having fish and chips and letting the dogs run about. I do not want the land to be replaced with a tin can! especially one as ugly as that which has been designed! we already have a national aquarium of NZ in napier..we do not need another one!
The government says it is for educational purposes but it is obvious to see that they are simply building it for tourism. The aquarium is currently residing in the bait house on Island Bay beach..why can it not remain there? and why do we need such an obstructive building?
I recently had a couple of young women come up to me and a group of my friends at Reading cinemas and ask me for a submission to support the marine aquarium. They are relying on submissions from people that they expect know nothing about the beastly marine aquarium! Couldn't we spend the tax payers' money on something better than a second national aquarium? It's a horrible idea and the government needs to listen to the locals voice. They think they have won, but they haven't.
Rebecca Harvey, 12 years old, Island Bay
via website, 27 June 2006
The real issue
I refer to last week's editorial on nimbyism (Not In My Backyard).
This is a classic example of how a journalist can mis-represent one's views. I do not have a problem with a tourist aquarium in the area where I live, as it would probably enhance my mead business greatly, but this is not my issue.
The issue is:
* Council's management plan for the south coast is that no buildings should be built on the seaward side of the road, yet here on Te Raekaihayu Point this is ignored by them and the developer.
* As a landscape designer I see this development as an infringment on the south-coast landscape, i.e. mass tarmac parking at road level. Presently cars are hidden from view as they are below road level. Services, lighting, security on what is presently a unique wilderness area, will infringe upon an unurbanised area having spectacular views into the setting sun against the Kaikouras.
* I do support marine education and wish to see it sited in a more appropriate location. Why not absorb the aquarium into the eixisting landscape sites which need healing such as the old quarry site or at Dorrie Leslie Park at the old Maranui depo?
* The old quarry site would work well and be more sustainable as a business venture, having added existing attractions i.e Red Rocks, ecology, geology, seals and walking trails. The quarry site needs facilities for the many people that go there. Why not combine the resources where there can be a greater experience for the visitor?
*With the same amount of positive effort the MEC could develop a plan in another location with as much charm and quality as they have currently presented, yet there never has been any compromise in their planning.
* Te Raekaihau Point is not the only site where such a development can go. It has always been my desire to see a quality educational facility developed on a site in need of enhancement, rather than taking away the charm of Te Raekaihau Point.
I consider the whole of the south coast my back-yard, it has been my passion and playground for the last 40 years. This is not a matter of nimbyism but a matter of values.
Once Te Raekaihau Point is developed, the wilderness value is gone for ever. especially the wild nature of this point as you drive around it.
However, I do agree with the comment about looking at the bigger picture, is the project viable?
These are real honest issues and should be considered deeply as the project is a gamble at the rate-payers expense.
Jacob De Ruiter, Houghton Bay
The Wellingtonian, 22 June 2006
Petition available for signing
Although the second round of submissions has closed there is still an opportunity for those opposing the aquarium at Te Raekaihau Pt to be able to have their say to council through a petition. It is now being circulated and can be signed by anyone who wants to add their name.
As it is not part of the resource consent submission process there is no closing date for signatures at present. Anyone who has already made a submission to either of the past two rounds can sign this as well if they want to.
Copies are available from Cathy: 04 971 8548, Shyla: 04 387 7105, Sharlene: 04 977 5051; Ifor: 04 383 6572, Lynda: 04 383 8889 or myself, Coral: 04 387 9541. This is also available in PDF format. Sharlene is putting together another roster of those who would like to give sometime collecting signatures and we have been offered the use of boards for information etc.
Coral Hyam, Houghton Bay
via website, 19 June 2006
Action plan explored
Are you a member of Forest & Bird? I would like to make contact with Forest & Bird members who are against development on Te Raekaihau Point.
The Wellington branch committee gave a submission in favour of development at the first hearing and have resubmitted their original submission for the second. Wellington members have been given no opportunity to discuss the matter. I would like to discuss the situation with others and perhaps plan some action to challenge the committee.
Janet Coburn, Wellington.
via website, 19 June 2006
Emphatic
I firmly disagree with the building of the aquarium.
Josh (age 13), Plimmerton
via website, 18 June 2006