What do people think? (continued)
Page 2 of What do people think...
South coast was sacrosanct
Allan Jenkins knows that when I took over from him as president of Lyall Bay-Kilbirnie-Rongotai Progressive Association (Letters, June 1) the whole exercise was cleaning up the coast of sewage. After a heroic struggle we succeeded.
Hue-Te-Taka was under greatest threat at the time, being so near the sewer outfall, and we concentrated on it. Technically, Te Raekaihau Pt wasn't in our patch.
In the eight years of my presidency, we repeatedly wrote to and spoke with Wellington City Council about the esplanade area, emphasising that the whole wild and scenic south coast area was sacarosanct. We wanted it cleaned up and left in perpetuity because of its beauty.
No one thought anyone would want to build a commercial monolith and car park on the site, destroying it forever.
I've lived in the eastern suburbs nearly all my life and to my knowledge, the point has always been a wind-swept, boulder-strewn majestic site, as it is today.
Pricness Bay is the one that's been vandalised by sand-miners.
Betty Weeber, Kilbirnie
Dominion Post, 16 June 2006
Dont' build marine centre
The photograph of the proposed Wellington Marine Education centre that accompanied Liz Smith's article (The Wellingtonian, May 25) has provoked me to write.
We should not be building anything at Te Raekaihau Point but to put such a monstrous blemish on the face of the South Coast would be sacrilege.
It's hard to imaggine how anyone could design an uglier building with less artistic and asthetic design merit if they set out to do so on purpose. Wake up Wellington City Council, Ian Athfield is stuck in a time warp. He may have been trendy in the 60s or 70s (and we all know what sort of dreary architecture that period spawned, in Europe at least) but his latest offerings are utterly disgusting, look no further than those deadful steel boxes on Onslow Road.
A Marine Education Centre is a good idea but not on Te Raekaihau Point and definitely not in an Ian Athfield design building!
Annadele Bouch, Khandallah
The Wellingtonian, June 8, 2006
Too many negatives on the landscape
We live locally and would not like to see this go ahead to the proposed location. I would like my children to have the opportunity to fossick in the rock pools and enjoy the rugged southern coast line, as it is now.
The road would not support the extra traffic and the building also significantly reduces the impact of the scenery. I am not opposed to it being put somewhere else, where it does not have such a dramatic effect on landscape and ability to access natural resources.
Michelle Ayres, Houghton Bay
via website, 8 June 2006
A simple plan
Perhaps the time is now to begin the grass roots development of another strategy to defeat the sham of a project that wants to develop the South Coast as a tourist trap:
Let's organize a group of 6-20 community leaders, marine scientists and ecologists, educators, and a lawyer or two
Let's establish a new trust: the Aquarium of the South Pacific
Let's announce a plan to build the first educational facility and public aquarium dedicated to conservation and interpretation of the marine flora and fauna from across the South Pacific
Let's declare that it should be near Te Papa, near the city centre, near Waitangi Park, near bus routes and hotels and parking; heck, let's just say it should be on the Council's prime "public use" ground floor of the redeveloped Passenger Terminal
Let's say that we are using the model of the Monterey Bay Aquarium, which re-adapted an old dis-used cannery building and did not desecrate an undeveloped and beloved part of California coast
Let's earnestly petition the Council to grant our project a $5 million interest-free loan, as well as $200,000 for development/feasibility study
Let's draft a detailed plan about how this project is the ideal tourist, educational, and marine interpretation plan for Creative Wellington - Innovation Capital.
Let's make admission to Wellington's Aquarium of the South Pacific free for everybody, and never pay-to-play
Let's poll each of the electec councillors and ask for their position (support or rejection) regarding this bold, community-friendly plan
Let's get these grass roots going, and use a bit of creative comptetition to defeat the silly and wanton plan to develop the South Coast with massive tourist infrastructure.
Let's not ruin sense of place and quality of life, and all the other things the Council claims as its focus.
Let's go back to Princess Bay next summer, and the summer after, and enjoy the best kept secret in Wellington.
And one more thing: when voting time comes, let's nurture these NIMBY grass roots and simply vote those who support the development of our South Coast right out of a job. A simple plan, really.
E Holowacz, Hungerford Road
via website, 8 June 2006
Stubborn council not thinking this through
I am opposed to the marina being built on the beautiful, and most predominant point on the south coast - It will destroy the nature of the coast which is relatively unspoilt - looking at it you would not believe Wellington City was only 10 to 15 minutes away - that is what makes it so magical.
The marina is based on another marina in Monterrey which I understand is heavily subsidised by corporate sponsors and has a bigger population base for visitors. I fear the council are stubbornly ploughing ahead without thinking this through properly. It seems absolute madness when there is a huge amount of money at stake as well as natural beauty especially when the majority of the rate paying population of Wellington is opposed to the project.
If it was to be built as an educational facility I suggest it be placed on the 'crystal cove corner' where the easter island statue stands or better still on the untouched quarry across the road.
Princess Bay is a joy to many who come with their famillies to enjoy the sunset and play on the beach because it is a true escape to nature.
Helen Milner, Island Bay
via website, 6 June 2006
Intrigued
I was intrigued to read comments supporting the Marine Education Centre (Letters, June 1) from an Allan Jenkins. I recently attended a council meeting where $200,000 was granted to the centre by morning tea time.
I wonder if it's the same Mr Jenkins who spoke at the meeting and deveoted the bulk of his three minutes rubbishing the sad types who wrote pathetic letters to the paper opposing building onTe Raekaihau Point?
Katherine Stephens, Kilbirnie
Dominion Post, 14 June 2006
Oppose council spending money on Aquarium
I am against this proposal. The seaward side of the coast needs to be preserved.
I am also against the city council spending so much money on this.
Jo Fox, Newtown
via website, 1 June 2006
Te Raekaihau choice
At last. thanks to Judy Hutt's humble response to the 1st resource consent hearing ('We are not considering another site for this project') I now know why the aquarium has to be at Te Raekaihau Point, because it's an 89!
The Wellington Marine Conservation Trust awarded this A+ score to Te Raekaihau Point based not just on one reason but 20. Presumably sites like the Overseas Terminal, unfortunately situated 2 minutes walk from the public transport hub of Courtenay Place, scored really badly on the space for parking category. I think 89 is a far too modest score and have come up with even more reasons for constructing the aquarium at Te Raekaihau Point by rejecting another thirteen sites of my own including Karori Reservoir (which did score really well in the water quality category) and Shed 1 (dux in traffic safety). When you add the new scores for categories like lack of proximity to a social conscience and size of council funds allocated before any due public process has been engaged, the project scores a perfect 100.
Along with the pre-ticked submission form I've been sent (thanks for holding the pen for me Judy, I have such a busy life) I've been guaranteed free parking. Surely if the trust were really serious about serving the community they could throw in a free creche and an open bar as well?
If the Trust does more than just turn up to the second hearing and actually listens to the submissions, they could show us that they are capable of receiving an education, not just giving one.
Kit Norman, Island Bay
Capital Times, 31 May - 6 June, 2006
Find a solution
The issues surrounding the proposed Wellington Marine Education Centre have now risen to the level of significant democratic principles.
Firstly, should Wellington City Council be financially supporting one of the parties when it is supposed, by them being the representative of all the people, to be impartial?
Secondly, and perhaps less obviously, when a very significant section of the people the council represents take a stand on a particular issue, even if they are possibly not in the majority, then unless there are significant reasons for the good of everyone to override their feelings, shouldn't this minority's point of view be respected?
In other words, if 45 percent of the people don't want the centre at Te Raekaihau Point and there aren't extremely important reasons for overriding their objections for the good of everyone, then shouldn't the feelings of this large minority be respected and another location for the centre found?
David Famularo, Brooklyn
Capital Times, 31 May - 6 June, 2006
Yes in my back yard
The many of us who oppose the intrusive construction of a massive, tourist attraction aquarium on the iconic Wellington south coast should not be labelled NIMBY as you did on your cover ('Marine Centre anger - Trst v NIMBY). Rather, the label should be YIMBY, 'yes in my back yard.' We have a positive vision for the south coast which celebrates its unique features and its special place in our hearts. We are saying yes to the presevation of a raised point which tells the story of a great event in the history of Wellington when the great 1855 earthquake raised the intertidal zone by which 1.5 metres and lifted undersea rocks out of the sea to form Te Raekaihau Point. There is nothing negative in a fight for that precious place. We want a natural environment bordering the waters of the turbulent Cook Strait for all to enjoy.
John Robinson, Island Bay
Capital Times, 31 May - 6 June, 2006
Interesting turn to the tale
Having lost one hearing, it seems ironic that the Marine Education Centre proponents, whilst professing strong community support, has been reduced to paying people to collect submisions in their support and soliciting opinions via letterbox drops.
As this is a community issue, those behind the Marine Centre should leave the community to decide for themselves. And while these paid-for opinions are being solicited, are those collecting them going to record any opposition to the centre that they encounter? That would at least be fairer use of the ratepayer money funding the Marine Centre bid.
I agree that the Marine Centre construction is a worthy project. But our coast is infinitely more worthy of our protection. Any form of coastal construction involves coastal destruction. Another site for the Marine Centre must be found.
N. Page, Island Bay
Cook Strait News, 30 May 2006
Ironic to destroy a beautiful spot to promote nature
It's highly ironic that the Trust is willing to destroy a beautiful spot like the point, to promote nature. It's a silly plan that will destroy this wonderful part of the immediate Wellington coastline.
They should rather build an aquarium where there's no Ocean at all - inland!
Peter Baustaedter, Strathmore
via website, 29 May 2006
A good example of no development
I am from Byron Bay, NSW. This is an immensely beautiful and popular coastal area of NSW, where both locals and visitors with an appreciation for its natural beauty have fought long and hard to ward off inappropriate commercial development on many different scales. The success of this ongoing struggle has ensured that Byron Bay has retained its unique beautyand remained free of Club Meds and KFC outlets. I moved to Island Bay because of its similar natural beauty and remarkeable unspoilt coastline. To think the council is supporting a commercial development on this scale and in this position is alarming to say the least. Protecting the point need not be at the cost of facilities to Wellington. There are many other more suitable sites for a development such as this that will not alter this incredible coastline forever. Please oppose this application for the good of the area and so that generations after ours can appreciate it too.
Matt Toms, Island Bay
via website, 28 May 2006
Submission opposing proposal
The construction of a Marine Education Centre and Aquarium building at Te Raekaihau Point is opposed because it:
(1) Will destroy the current "wild south coast marine coastal" environment treasured and enjoyed by Wellingtonians and tourists for many years. The proposed building has no place in this environment.
(2) Is in clear contradiction with the Wellington City Council's own South Coast Management Plan provisions for Coastal Design And
Construction (section 7) in particular section 7.3.22 i.e.:
7.3.22 Views
When moving around the coastline, there are continuous views that are experienced.
The placement of structures or structural elements needs to be undertaken with this in mind as they need to be placed carefully to be unobtrusive and to avoid visual clutter.
Guidelines to address this issue include:
. placement of larger or taller structures against hills or into vegetation rather than on promontories or the beach side of the road.
. avoiding creating silhouettes against the sea background. Place structures carefully and try to have them against the hillside or rock outcrops.
. limit signage to those that are essential.
. place signs together or on as few poles as possible - not scattered randomly along long stretches.
The coastal edge is primarily a natural environment and needs to be seen as such by those living in and visiting the area.
(3) Will be exposed to damage by southerly storms that have caused serious flooding on a regular basis on the south coast, the latest being the damage to HMNZS Wellington (F69) scuttled in November 2005 and broken-up in a 50-year storm within 4 months
Graham Cook and Heather Rae, Houghton Valley
via website, 27 May 2006
Marine Centre funding anger
I'm surprised you bothered to report the comments of Nick Dryden of the Save the Point group regarding the council funding for the proponents of the proposed Aquarium of New Zealand.
He obviously hasn't a clue about how the council - or any other modern government body works. The role of government in today's world is simple - the transference of tax money to institutions which directly or indirectly allow businesses to profit.
The proposed aquarium is being touted as a tourist attraction and obviously the council's duty is to use our money to support the owners of hotels, restaurants and other things that make up the tourist industry - not the supporters of some unfenced natural feature where no admission is charged. if the members of Save the Point don't like that they should quit wellington forthwith and move to outer space.
Dryden asks if the council is 'here to represent the people', which demonstrates a fixation with outdated socialistc ideas of citizenship and democracy which the council has rightly consigned to the dustbin of history.
There are two classes of people in the new world order, business owners and shoppers. The council's mission is to pamper the former and ensure the latter's movement from one shop to another is unimpeded. Any departure from this and we risk a rising tide of anarchy, for whch 'citizen' Dryden and his co-conspirators should be held morally responsible.
Sam Buchanan, Lyall Bay
Capital Times, 24-30 May 2006
Marine Centre funding anger
The exposure of Wellington City council's peculiar views on the rights of citizens and ratepayers by Gary McGivney make one wonder if Messrs Haldeman and Erlichman from Presidnnt Nixon's administation aren't on the city's payroll. Certainly they'd
feel right at here there.
This perversion of the democratic process is, as Mr McGivney says, certainly unethical and if not illegal should be. Those involved should be uitterly ashamed of themselves.
AH Wall, Masterton.
Capital Times, 24-30 May 2006
Marine Centre funding anger
In your May 17-23 issue, you publish a very pertinent letter from Gary McGivney on the subject of ratepayer funding for the Marine Education Centre. He correctly castigates 'councillors' for awarding yet more money to the Marine Education Centre. I wholeheartedly agree with him, but not all of did so.
In the interests of accuracy, he should note that both coucillor Bryan Pepperell (currently overseas) and myself have consistently voted against this upopular project. The records will show I was the only councillor present to vote against the further $200,000 waste of ratepayers' funds to this privately-owned scheme.
It is a scandal to subsidise this particular scheme at the expense of other publicly-owned projects which have to drop off the funding list, - like the mobile library for instance, which is due to be closed unless we can stop it.
I would suggest that Gary takes special note of the councillors who voted this way, and acts accordingly at the next election, now only 17 months away!
Jack Ruben, Wellington City Coucillor, Onslow-Western Ward
Capital Times, 24-30 May 2006
Ratepayers short changed
There seem few unfettered outlets these days for the man in the street to voice an opinion (and by man of course I mean women too).
I feel that the present behaviour of our city council and of those who decide on the various policies inflicted on the ratepayers has reached an all-time low; certainly defying any reasonalbe comprehension I am able to muster.
The introduction of a water meter policy whereby the poorest houses pay a considrable increase of rates and the wealthier ones get a rate decrease is frankly ignominious, despicable and bewildering to most people's commonsense.
Nick Dryden is to be totally supported in his plea for 'natural justice' over the Marine Education Centre fiasco. The blatant bias of the council in favour of developers is, I suppose, something unsurprising but that it is putting ratepayer money for the Wellington Marine Trust to fix up another attempt to apply for a resource consent is both disgraceful and unfair and certainly a mockery of justice
It is very worrying indeed.
And the debt the council has plunged us into, oh how it smooths over autocratic indifference to living within a budget [as] the rest of us struggle to do.
Gordon Crook, Aro Street
Capital Times, 24-30 May 2006
Fraudulent Fundraising - What a Shame
According to the Marine Conservation Trust website, "The Wellington Marine Education Centre and the Aquarium of New Zealand - Te Moana Tamariki WILL BE located at Te Raekaihau."
This seems to imply that consent and all rights have been granted and that location is a done deal. To solicit for charitable contributions under such pretenses is unethical and possibly fraudulent. Do statements like this, made repeatedly by the governance of the would-be aquarium mislead and misrepresent? If consent is denied for Te Raekaihau wouldn't the aquarium trust be ethcially obligated to return any charitable gifts made in support of their falsely presented done deal?
Again the Aquarium Trust website flirts with fraud when it affirms that "The Bait House will provide a temporary home for the Marine Education Centre until the new permanent home to be developed at Te Raekaihau, on the coast between Lyall and Houghton Bays, is completed."
It's fine to dream, but somebody should have a good long talk to the Marine Education Centre board about ethics, misrepresentation, and using vast amounts of rate-payer money to do it. How complicit is Wellington City Council in this alleged fraud? Maybe we shouldn't ask: there are two hundred thousand new reasons.
What a shame for everybody, inlcuding all that remains of the undeveloped South Coast.
Mo Hickey, Houghton Bay
via website, 25 May 2006
Suitable Locations Elsewhere
I was just looking at the Marine Education Centre website, and a few things struck me. It includes an overhead view of the South Coast, which inadvertently reveals a more suitable location for a tourist-dependent education centre:
Moa Point and the Council's DSS Animal Management Shelter adjacent to the shoreline at 73 Moa Point Road.
The photo reveals that this alternate location, unlike Te Raekaihau Point, this more advantageous site
- is within a short walk from the airport terminals (and therefore will capture the arrival/departure traffic in the same way as Christchurch's Antarctic Centre)
- allows for development of an ideal pedestrian loop and "Marine Education Walk" from the airport to aquarium site, and then continuing to the new "Coastal Trail" (championed by Councillor Ahipene-Mercer)
- adjoins an industrial/commercial zone with significant infrastructure and development in place (including major parking accommodation, bus facilities, and tourism transport)
The Council's animal shelter building at Moa Point might provide the ideal setting for a tourism-driven aquarium development and its attendant educational and commerical operations.
Eva Holowacz, Melrose
via website, 25 May 2006
Revitalise the Bait Shed
My father and sister and I were just talking about a good idea for Save the Point:
Your organisation should petition the City Council with a proposal to re-use The Island Bay Bait Shed immediately following the currently-agreed upon occupation by the Marine Conservation Trust. This site and its small but significant accommodations might make the perfect interpretation centre for South Coast issues. It could open on weekends and offer educational resources about why this precious aspect of New Zealand should not be developed, not be prostituted for tourism, not be orphaned by the elders at City Council.
Save the Point could ask for the same favourable terms granted to the current occupant, and also request community grants and other arms of Council support. The Island Bay Bait Shed could be operated as a true South Coast conservation and interpretation centre. In no way would it advocate for more wanton development, tourism dollars, or high-impact infrastructure.
This is just my idea, but I think that revitalised Bait Shed would be a place we could all learn from...even City Councillors and aquarium trustees.
Mila Holowacz, Melrose
via website, 25 May 2006
Sometimes less is more
I am disgusted at yet again the Councils arrogant disregard of public opinion to ram through unpopular policy. Also at the dishonest use of data to justify unwanted changes - especially to unspoilt coastline.
There's a storm brewing over "Safer Roads" in Karori where, like in other parts of Wgtn dangerous islands, speed humps, and chicanes are proposed in EVERY quiet back street of the suburb - despite vigorous opposition (44 accidents a year per 1.3 million vehicles through the suburb - less than 1 per week!).
The Council lies and misrepresents the truth to justify a ruination of a suburb - as what is proposed for "the Point".
Democracy should prevail but is being abused to overspend our rates into a "budgeted" deficit of over $330 million by 2010!!
Staggering.
Wake up Kerry Prendergast, Councillors and Garry Poole - better still resign if you can't represent the people who pay your wages. I'm sick of endless proposals to build on everything in open space with multi story glass atriums and cafes. Back off our bloody waterfront too. Sterile. Sometimes less is more
Max Tie, Karori
via website, 24 May 2006
Not against the Marina
There seems to be a popular misconception that people who oppose the siting of the proposed aquarium at Wellington's Te Raekaihau Pt oppose the aquarium.
I wholeheartedly support the idea of a marine education centre, but not there.
I hear this sentiment expressed by many of those I speak to who also oppose this poor choice of location. More appropriate sites exist, particularly around the waterfront, that would provide easier access to visitors.
To see what this beautiful point might look like once saved from the developers, people should visit Wahine Park at Palmer Head.
It was in a similar state to Te Raekaihau Pt not long ago.
The point is a wonderful place to walk, relax, listen to the sea and wind, watch breathtaking sunsets and perhaps spot a penguin.
Similar inexpensive treatment of the point, using the existing Pricness Bay car park and facilities would soon result in a natural landscape that, like Palmer Head, would be a place used by those wanting to escape the confines of an ever-increasing built landscape.
The south coast is not a pristine natural environment, but it is a rugged, beautiful, wild link between our city and sea.
Let's nurture it, protect and keep it as close to a 'natural' coastline as we can.
Stephen Barner, Houghton Bay
Dominion Post, 23 May 2006
Aquarium Poem
An aquarium on Te Raekaihau Point
Is like a zoo on the Serengeti
Where you take what's there
And put it in cages
And call it an Environmental Education Centre
And charge ten bucks to see it.
I say, be honest.
Forget the aquarium.
But keep the cafe
And the gift shop.
Ross Munro, Port Chalmers, Dunedin
via website, 21 May 2006
Scarring blow with tacky montrosity
The attraction of living in NewZealand for all my local friends, and my overseas friends and family is the unspoilt natural surroundings in vicinity to downtown. Looks like that aspect will receive a scarring blow with this tacky monstrosity. All in the name of science, lucre and tourist dollars.. not the worthiest of causes in my book.
Sandip Kalsy, Southgate
via website, 22 May 2006
Impressed
Went to meeting 20th May - wrote a letter to DomPost two years ago - nothing since. Impressed by the constant and careful research that has gone on by those who want to save the point.
Janice Fraser, Karori
via website, 21 May 2006
Locate at Red Rock, don't ruin beautiful wild, south coast
Te Raekaihau Point is one of the most beautiful parts of our wild South coast and will be absolutely ruined by a five story aquarium, cafe, car park etc. It could easily be located at the old Red Rocks Quarry which, in spite of Wellington City and Regional Council ssertions, is eminently suitable and could simply be put on land already changed and spoiled by the old quarry.
I also utterly deplore the dishonesty of the Council in trying to drum up public support by paying students to get an unsuspecting public to support the project and by persisting in assertions that have been proved to be false, eg. by using photos of the Palmers Point rock and claiming it used to be on Te Raekaihau and is evidence of quarrying there.
Jane Benefield, Lyall Bay
via website, 20 May 2006
Read Gary McGivney's letter.
The latest developments are an outrage. My letters to the Dompost have been ignored. Gary McGivney's letter in this week's Capital Times inspired me to contact you. Great letter. You should print copies and hand them out. Please let me know how I can help.
Keep it up!
Duncan Munro, Featherston (formerly Owhiro Bay)
via website, 17 May 2006
WCC wrong on this one
The Council have got it very very wrong on this one. Keep the south coast the way it is.
Melua Watson, Featherston (formerly Owhiro Bay)
via website, 17 May 2006
Plumbing new depths
It would appear that the applicants for the fish zoo on Wellington's south coast, now replete with more Wellington City Council-approved ratepayer funds to push their barrow, are resorting to "rent-a-mob" tactics if their advertisement on a noticeboard at Victoria University is anything to go by.
They want 10-15 people at $14 an hour to harass passers by in the Wellington cbd to sign a submission in support of their aims. Is there no depth that the fish zoo proponents will not plumb?
Neville Hart, Island Bay
Dominion Post, 17 May 2006
Where is public support for further $200,000 of ratepayers' funds from WCC for the Marine Education Centre
This Thursday past, at a special hearing, Wellington City Council awarded yet more ratepayer money ($200,000) to the Marine Education Trust for the construction of the Aquarium of New Zealand. This brings the total contribution so far to nearly $1,000,000, and that figure does not include the internal accounting of council time and resources. This new money is earmarked for costs to be incurred as they move through a second resource consent hearing, having lost their first.
The councillors continually cited “overwhelming public support” as a reason for their support, despite all evidence to the contrary. All the local residents associations have come out against it. Public submissions on the first application ran 1200 against to only 400 for. Seven people appeared at this hearing to speak. Five ratepayers spoke against awarding any more money, and two spoke in favour. The two in favour were a representative for the head of the trust, and one of its trustees.
So I have to ask, where is this public support? Claiming it repeatedly does not make it so.
In an effort to make it so, the Trust is now using their money to hire 10 to 14 people at $14 an hour to solicit people to make positive submissions in support of the proposed tourist aquarium, or as they prefer to call it, the Marine Education Centre. I imagine this kind of behaviour is not illegal, but by any measurement I can think of, it is certainly unethical.
Those of us without these monetary resources are left to speak for ourselves through letters like this one. I strongly encourage all Wellingtonians to examine the facts on this submission and ignore the rhetoric. Visit www.savethepoint.org.nz. Once you do, I’m quite confident you will wish to make your own submission to the commission asking that consent not be given for this Aquarium. It is now, and can certainly be expected to be, a continual drain on ratepayer money. It will definitely be an unsightly blight on the otherwise visually spectacular south coast.
Gary McGivney, Southgate
Capital Times, 16 May 2006
Against development
I am against the development of this point.
Anna Wildey, Kilbirnie
via website, 14 May 2006
Dirty tactics & submissions
We would like to sign a submission against the aquarium. They are using dirty tactics to get their way & the council should have refused their second application.
The council makes the submission process confusing so the average person won't bother with it.
Can you please let everyone know the easiest way to submit one.
Good luck & I hope for everyones sake that it doesn't go ahead.
Sandra Walker, Island Bay
via website, 13 May, 2006
MEC Submission Seekers - first intake full
You have informed us that there are flyers posted on noticeboards in the Victoria University Law School which call for 10-15 'Submissions Seekers' who will be paid $14 per hour. "This job involves encouraging people in the Wellington CBD to sign a submission in support of the new Marine Education Centre to be built between Island Bay and Lyall Bay."
The form you had copied included the name (Natalie) of the organiser and a phone number, so I phoned Natalie who confirmed the ad, told me the first intake was full and that she is taking names for a second lot. Note the starting date was 9 May and the survey was well under way before yesterday when the MEC representatives to the Council hearing (where the MEC was provided with a guarantee of $200,000 of our money by Council as backup) claimed there that this was not a numbers game.
I have written a letter to the editor of the Dominion Post, let's hope the media pay some attention.
John Robinson, Island Bay
via website, 12 May, 2006
Resident's organise information day in Houghton Bay
A meeting has been organised at Houghton Valley Hall on Saturday, 20th May 2006 at 1.00pm for all people concerned about the building of the proposed Aquarium at Te Raekaihau Point + the reapplication for resource consent by MEC.
This meeting is being held by some Houghton Bay residents that are concerned that the wider community has not been fully informed that with the reapplication for resource consent this means every person that submitted an opposition to the building of the aquarium with have to either submit a new opposition or inform the council in writing that they wish to have their original submission resubmitted.
Submission forms will be available at the meeting. They must be at the council by 4.00pm,Wednesday 7th June 2006.
I personally have found it inspiring the way the wider community has come together in opposition over this, with no funding from the council, or hidden agendas, but just out of love for Te Raekaihau Point + a sense of outrage that MEC wishes to build a large, ugly, commercial building there.
Please come to the meeting + re-oppose their application, it is only by the wider community continuing to oppose the aquarium and supporting each other that the aquarium will not be built there and Te Raekaihau Point will stay as nature intended.
Cathy O 'Hagan, Houghton Bay
via website, May 9 2006
Protecting our coast should be a priority
The heading ‘Sunk frigate has the last laugh’ (The Wellingtonian, March16) poses the question was it really thought out properly? Clearly it was not.
Greater Wellington regional council resource consent hearings committee should have declined consent on the basis of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement.
The policy states: ‘It is a national priority for the preservation of natural character of the coastal environment to protect the integrity, functioning and natural character of the coastal environment’
Dumping a rusting hulk on the seabed is the antithesis of that policy as is the proposal to dump bags of sand and rock in Lyall Bay to create a surf reef. It too would be destroyed by a cook Strait storm and material from it spread on to the beach.
Two wrongs would not make a right.
J Chris Horne, Northland
The Wellingtonian, 4 May 2006
(Note: The New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement is also relevant to the application to build an Aquarium on Te Raekaihau Point on Wellington's south coast.. STP)
Where do we draw the line?
Your biased Editorial (April 29-30) on Wellington’s Te Raekaihau Point deliberately omits vital information and leaves questions unanswered. Why not state that the $7 million loan is interest-free? The interest alone would be more than enough to save the mobile library closure and leave funds for more deserving projects.
What’s the justification for public funding of this private tourism venture? Where do we draw the line?
I believe most New Zealanders want to preserve their natural heritage intact. Other suitable sites exist for an aquarium venture. What happens to the buildings when it fails because the estimated visitor numbers are ridiculously optimistic? Will they be left derelict or turned into expensive apartments?
Where is the similarity in financial terms between this venture and Monterey Bay aquarium when there are more people in the Monterey area and nearby cities than in the whole of New Zealand?
Not all Wellington city councilors ‘enthusiastically support’; this venture. We are committed to encouraging more tourists here but not at the expense of the environment or ratepayer
Jack Ruben, WCC councilor (abridged)
Dominon Post, 3 May 2006
Breathtakingly arrogant
Your Editorial on the proposed aquarium at Wellington’s Te Raekaihau Pt (April 29-30) was extraordinary in its arrogance. It quite overlooks the fact that the commissioners who heard the planning application were required to consider a great deal more than the alleged tourist-attracting benefits of the project, and seems to suggest that the only proof of an effective planning process is that projects such as this get approved.
I believe that this is called rubber-stamping.
The Editorial was also breathtakingly arrogant in its wholehearted embracing of the applicants’ arguments. Considerable evidence was presented at the hearing that threw serious doubt on those arguments. Given its lack of balance, it would not surprise me had it been written by the applicant.
The issue you ignored is this: is Te Raekaihau Pt. the best location for this desirable addition to the city’s attractions? The commissioners were not convinced it is. Your partisan tub-thumping will not make it so.
Dr John Macalister, Brooklyn
Dominion Post, 3 May 2006
Site aquarium elsewhere
I am very disappointed in your Editorial, Keeping our city afloat (April 29-30). As far as I know, most objections to the proposed aquarium at Te Raekaihu Pt are not against the aquarium but against tits being at this particular location.
The Raekaihau Pt is visible from many places around Wellington Harbour and siting the aquarium at Te Raekaihau Pt will intrude on and will spoil the natural landscape views from other areas.
Site it elsewhere, such as Owhiro Bay or the old quarry, and most objections would disappear.
Fred Wotton, Johnsonville
Dominion Post, 3 May 2006
Comparison is invalid
In your Editorial supporting the aquarium proposed for Wellington’s Te Raekaihau Pt (April 29-30), you say it is modeled on the Monterey Bay aquarium. A visit to its website soon shows how far-fetched that claim is.
The Monterey aquarium is backed by the vast resources of Packard of Hewlett-Packard. Fully $20 million, one half of the income, is from grants and donations. Yet the Wellington project is promised to be commercially viable and not a drain on the ratepayer.
Just a brief examination of the economics shows the unreality of the comparison. Your Editorial would have avoided a number of mistakes had you reported the masses of information presented at the resource consent hearings. It is nonsense to suggest the point is ‘one of the most modified bombsites on the south coast’.
Geologist Professor Timothy Little has shown that the point is largely as it was when the intertidal zone was uplifted in the 1855 earthquake, providing a world-class geological treasure. It should not be built on.
The better idea would be to tidy up and protect Te Raekaihau Pt as an important part of the coast. The story of our land and city should not be obscured by false reporting or by building all over it.
Dr John Robinson, Island Bay
Dominion Post, 3 May 2006
Congratulations
Congratulations to Save the Point.
It would appear that the MEC, after receiving what looks like nearly $700,000 (see MEC website) did not succeed in their bid for the construction of an ugly building at Te Raekaihau Point.
I sincerely hope that the opponents of the MEC's application for an education centre (with the 155 seat licensed cafe and large shop - average spending of $3.00 per person) at Te Raekaihau Point will turn out for a second time to give full support to ensure that no building of any sort will take place at Te Raekaihau Point.
Katherine Stephens, Kilbirnie
via website, April 8, 2006
More coastal developments?
Having lived in and around Wellington South for all but the last two years of my life I believe I am qualified to say that this aquarium proposal is a most revolting idea. As a school child we visited 'the rocky shore' at Island Bay and checked out all the neat stuff there. It is a wild lovely windy place to walk and bike around.
The question that must also be considered is that if this approval goes ahead, will it pave the way for other coastal 'developments' to be considered in other nearby areas???
Paula Hanekom, Silverstream
via website, April 6, 2006
Bay residents are divided
We refer to your recent article on the proposed Te Raekaihau Pt aquarium-marine education centre (Features, Feb 25-26). It contained several personal comments from John Robinson, and noted that he holds the position of vice-president of the Island Bay Reisdents' Association.
We want to make it clear that members of the association have a wide diversity of views on the proposal, reflecting the differences of opinion in our local community.
We held a special meeting on the matter on March 1, 2004. After hearing both sides, the meeting voted (22 to six) to support in principle a new marine centre but (18-nine) to oppose the use of Te Raekaihau Pt for the facility and (20-seven) to oppose the Ian Athfield design.
The association has much goodwill towards the centre's objectives but most members feel unable to endorse the proposed location or design. We have made a submission reflecting these views as part of the current resource consent process.
Ann Brunt and Robert Logan, Island Bay Residents' Association
Dominion Post, 6 march 2006
Aquariums can go anywhere
I can now give you the answer to my own question (see below). I thought I'd pass it on in case anyone else was similarly confused by the nonsense coming from some councillors.
People (like those councillors) who keep saying that the aquarium goes on Te Raekaihau because there is nowhere else ARE WRONG.
Basically a marine education centre could go ANYWHERE.
It is just thatthe MECTtrust want the Te Raekaihau Point site only. Therefore every review of alternative sites is based around criteria that would only let the MEC Trust build on this site e.g. must be on seaward side of road etc..
So, please don't fall into the trap set by those pro-aquarium folk who tell you that there is no other place for a marine eduaction centre. It's just a ploy to confuse you.
The issue is simply, as it has always been: No marine educatiion building - or any building - on Te Raekaihau Point or anywhere else on the seaward side of the south coast.
Anyone who tells you that wanting or not wanting an aquarium, and where it could go, are trying to distract you with Red Herrings. Don't let them.
Linda Pears, Karori
via website, 2 March 2006
Nature's course
Let nature take it,s course,
Has any one started a petition?
Mike Gunson, Lower Hutt
via website, 5 February 2006
Te Raekaihua Pt. or Not At All?
Councillors like Celia Wade Brown and Ray Ahipene Mercer keep saying that it's an aquarium/MEC on Te Raekaihau or no aquarium/MEC at all.
Why are they totally discounting the fact (stated on this website) that Wellington can have an aquarium and Te Raekaihau Point - which obviously implies that other sites are suitable for an aquarium/MEC?
Is it because the Council is blinkered by its commitment to backing the MEC Trust's proposal - which is specifically for Te R or no MEC/aquarium at all?
Can someone enlighten me? Thanks!
Linda Pears, Karori
via website, 26 February 2006
Keep up the good work! :)
Iva Sajdl, Miramar Heights
via website, 15 January 2006
Point a very special place
Te Raekaihau Pt is treasured by many people as a reserve where they can take time out without having to travel or walk too far.
The elderly or people with disabilities can be taken there for a drive almost to the water's edge and, without getting out of their cars, have a memorable experience.
The uninterrupted view, about 300 degrees in circumference, of wild waves pounding Wellington's South Coast is profound and spectacular. So this is a very special place to many people just as it is.
When it rains, there might be muddy potholes and when there hasn't been a tide high enought to flush out an elevated rock pool, you might find an odd stagnant one. But I'd like to invite Jaz and Phoebe Morris (Letters, Nov 18) to meet me at the Point so I can show them many rock pools that are fully alive. Their claims about Te Raekaihau Pt seem to be as wrong as their claims about forged submissions.
Coral Hyam, Houghton Bay
Dominion Post, 23 November 2005
No wonder he is worried
Marine Education Trust chairman Stuart Macaskill is clearly very worried about numbers, and so he should be (Nov19-20). The trust doesn't have the numbers.
Mc Macaskill should not confuse supposed "statements of support" with public submissions on the resource consent application to build an aquarium at Te Raekaihau Pt.
The fact of the matter is that legitimate submissions against the proposal far outnumbered those in favour.
Mary Harvey, Island Bay
Dominion Post, 23 November 2005
Cannot believe what they are proposing
I have recently returned from living in London and cannot believe what they are proposing to do to a beautiful part of our coastland. It will be devastating if they are able to continue with a building that is largely for external use. Please leave our coastland for everything and everyone.
Kylie Tuffery, Island Bay
via website, 22 November 2005
Is Kerry Listening?
Hi there, you are doing a great job here, we spend heaps of time along the south coast and the thought of building on this stunning coast is tragic. I have written to all that I can. Lets hope for once Kerry Prendergast listens to the people of Wellington.
Victoria Robinson, Wellington
via website, 20 November 2005
Not at the expense of our natural environment
Economic gain should never come at the expensive of our natural environment. This stretch of coastline is magnificent and irreplaceable and should be preserved not turned into a commercial wasteland.
The WCC needs to listen to the local community and respect their wishes. They have the right to say no.
Please e-mail me if you need more support. I am more than willing to help.
Liz Phillips, Island Bay
via website, 16 November 2005
Great to see truck on Point
It was great to see the truck at the Point on Sunday, and again yesterday. So many people were able to use the Point to watch the sinking of the frigate.
Mary Harvey, Island Bay
via website, 15 November 2005
Frigate event proved it
Last Sunday, Wellington provided a tourist attraction on the south Coast (Nov 16). The result was gridlock.
People abandoned their cars, preventing others getting past. Who needs more proof that big tourist attractions generate huge traffic flows, which the South Coast roads were not built for?
Wellingtonians who don't want this peaceful coastal environment blighted by traffic jams or, worse, a ratepayer-funded coastal highway so Wellington City Council can make viable its ill-conceived investments in tourism (including the proposed aquarium), must speak up now.
Linda Pears, Karori
Dominion Post, 15 November 2005
Te Rae Kaihau ... where surf, sand, seagulls, and the sky play together
I drive around our South Coast several times a day taking my kids to school at Seatoun. It is easy for us locals to take it all for granted and drift into robot mode and not see anything. We make a conscious effort to stay focused by commenting on what we are seeing.
Driving, or better still walking, from Island Bay to Houghton Bay where it all starts to change simply because there are almost no houses or buildings it becomes more natural.
Te Rae Kaihau is the centre of a special place.in Maori all places are not inanimate, they are personified.the meeting place of the many winds. a place where they play together, sometimes in a robust teenage way that whips the sea into a frenzy, especially in a strong southerly.driving mountainous breakers.huge, pounding surf so close the aquatic boom shakes the rocks.exploding on jaggered pinnacles.sending geysers of froth high into the air and a fine mist drifts inland.
..in other times she is so gentle like small children playing together and on a clear morning the color of the sea is blue-green until you turn the corner at Te Rae Kaihau and the whole of Lyall Bay changes into a blaze of platinum.the bay of thousands of twinkling day-stars.then again in the afternoon; coming the other way the platinum it is even brighter than sun.
.and on a clear winters day to the East there is often a sprinkling of fresh snow on the Orongorongo and to the south in the foreground, Tapu Te Ranga Motu and far far beyond The White peaks of Te Waipounamu rise out of the horizon.
.there are no sunsets like the sunsets at Te Rae Kaihau they are never the same.sometimes the sky is different changing kinds of blues and purples mixed with changing oranges and pinks and reds and at those times if the sea is in a soft mood it mirrors the redness even brighter than the sky.the houses slowly disappear until only the outlines of the rocks and the land forms remains.there is an air of mystery.
.ahhh.it is beauty, absolute beyond words.if only I were a painter.it is so close to get so far.I go there often to refuel the soul.and these days as I can no longer fish and dive or even walk.I wind down the window so I can hear and smell and feel this special place where surf, sand, seagulls, and the sky play together.I let the healing winds of Te Rae Kaihau wash over me.sometimes I snooze.it is my outdoor Cathedral...
Bruce Stewart, Tapu Te Ranga Marae, Island Bay
via website, 10 November 2005
Consent application alarming
Submissions on the proposal are due tomorrow. It is alarming to read through the application and look at the claims which have been made. For example, in the rating of the natural character of the site, Te Raekaihau is assessed to have low to moderate character. This is similar to the airport (a rating of low), whereas Moa Point is rated high. Visit the point in a southerly when the sun is setting over the Kaikouras, and its superb natural character is very clear.
It is difficult to see how a three storey building with substantial retaining walls; security fencing; parking for 90 vehicles; and a hoped for 200,000 visitors a year, will do anything to enhance this area.
Policy 6.7 of the South Coast Management Plan is to 'Seek to limit new structures on the coast, specifically on the seaward side of the road, to only those that are necessary'. If only the council would live by their own words.
Edward Abraham, Island Bay
via website, 1 November 2005
Natural class room
This proposal is unbelievable. This is a pristine and unbuilt piece of coastline and they want to smack a butt ugly commercial enterprise on it. And the ratepayers will be paying for it. Leave the coast alone.
Our children will learn more from wandering amongst the rockpools, diving and fishing the point than from some tacky side show. What possible need is there to site this aquarium there except to allow commercial operators to score a coup at everyone else's cost.
Richard Tisdall, Wadestown
via website, 31 October 2005
Not on the seaward side of the coast.
I am not opposed to the development of an aquarium as an educational tool and tourist attraction. But I am deeply concerned that the WCC could consider any development of any description on the seaward side of this magnificent coastline.
Between this and the lunacy of the proposed Coastal Highway the powers that be are truly doing my head in.
Doone Bertrand, Berhampore
via website, 31 October 2005
Two separate issues here
THE PUBLICITY CONSTANTLY CONFUSES THE VALUE OF THE ACQUARIUM WITH THE SITE ON THE POINT. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO NEED FOR THE ACQUARIUAM TO BE SITED ON THE POINT.
Deborah Jones, Houghton Bay
via website, 31 October 2005
Coast of wonder in any weather
I am totally opposed to any buildings along the southern coast line. You cannot improve on nature.
Wellington residents and visitors cannot believe the wonder of this coast in any weather, any time of the year - you won't find a better spot in the world.
WCC please take a step back from this and concentrate on your core business running a city that is efficient and care abouts its citizens.
Maureen Goodwin, Island Bay
via website 30 October 2005
Once gone, it will be forever
I walk round the Point every morning at about 6:30am. I love the wild unspoiled terrain - I'm 100% against any development on this amazing site. Once it's gone it will be gone forever.
John Watson, Island Bay
via website, 29 October 2005
Unnatural concrete eyesore insane
Oh dear god - this is madness. Don't do it.
There are many more better informed, wonderfully eloquent writers here who have said all that I would say and more. A Marine Education Centre? Of course! An unnatural concrete eyesore, dependent on huge tourist numbers, on one of the south coast's most beautiful free-to-the-public areas? Insanity.
You have my support.
Sally Tudhope, Houghton Bay
via website, 28 October 2005
Blot on the landscape
Keep up the good work,tell them to stick this blot on the landscape beside the Freyberg pool,if they must put it somewhere.
Neville Hart, Wellington
via website, 24 October 2005
Protect not threaten
It is hard to believe that the unique and ever-growing value of Te Raekaihau Point is threatened by those who should give it the most protection - Wellington Marine Conservation Centre and Wellington City Council.
I fully support the proposed Marine Education Centre and Aquarium but not at Te Raekaihau Point.
Zlata Sajdl, Evans Bay
via website, 24 October 2005
It will set a precedent - no development
First, my concern with the proposal is that it will set a precident for buildings along the approach road for further development. Once developers see buildings, they can't resist adding more!
Second, it is very likely that the whole area (if the aquarium venture is a success) would become a bottleneck of coaches, buses, taxis, sightseers and school parties. This removes the whole asthetics of the region as a 'haven of tranquility' close to our unique city.
I have no special interest in preserving 'The Point' as such. However, the beauty and attraction of the whole area, especially Princess Bay, is that it appears to be 'miles from the hustle of the city'. Why destroy it for a tourist attraction that could be located anywhere - it doesn't even need to be by the sea! Artifical pools would have the same effect when viewed through glass tanks. Many aquariums achieve this successfully.
There is a space next to Te Papa that would be great for another attraction, allowing people to walk to the Aquarium from the Museum. Surely we should encourage tourists to walk around our great city rather than making them rely on transport to get them to and from an 'attraction'.
I am all in favour of 'improving and enhancing areas' but lets not transform a whole area that is valued into an area with a completely different purpose, no matter how valid the new purpose may be. You're taking away something unique to replace it with something else. One cancels out the other!!
Stuart Allen, Haitaitai
via website, 20 October 2005
BUILD YOUR CENTRE SOMEWHERE ELSE!
I was @ Te rakau Point yesterday with 3 children, 2 of my own. What an amazing place, and day we had AMONGST NATURE!!!!
In the pools we searched and played. When we got home, out came our seaside books and reflected about what we saw and did. THIS IS ALL THEY NEED! We have animal planet on our T.V. we watch and learn and can turn off! THERE ARE MANY RESOURCES @ HAND for our education ALREADY!.....Without destroying our beautiful flow of our coastline!
Here Nature already at hand, AT ITS BEST! PLEASE! Don't put your marine education centre @ Te Rakau Point.
What a mess it would create! We DONT need it!
Many days I am there with my children, NO TRAFFIC, at such an already crazy hazadous road.
Many people who go to this point go to get away from the crazy commercial rat race we already are exposed to. Dont take our place of solice away!!
BUILD YOUR CENTRE SOMEWHERE ELSE! RE - Think your other options!!!!
Toni Taylor, 34yrs
Hemi Cola Taylor-Marsland, 4yrs
Nero Cola Taylor-Marsland, 2yrs, Houghton Bay
via website, 19 October 2005
No building on the coast
This is too valuable a spot to be trashed just so Judy can enjoy a wonderful sunset. This point is the only site on the coast where anyone can enjoy a prominant outcrop without having to walk miles, 4wd to get there or dedicate excess time to the trek. This point allows all users, in this natural site, to enjoy this type of panoramic view of this area. There is a far better site just north of this point. This area is just screaming for a project of this type. Dont let the "Lets build on the coast where-ever we can" developers get it into their heads that this is ok. IT IS NOT.
Wayne E. Lutton, Island Bay
via website, 8 October 2005
Resource consent application opposed
I oppose the MEC being built on the point. I think the proposal is grandiose and a business venture to benefit a few people. I would give my support to a submission to the resource hearing opposing the application. I feel that the best way to stop this is for the status of the land to be challenged and changed.
Mary Harvey, Island Bay
via website, 30 September 2005
No fall-back plan
Having attended the meeting last wednesday night and expressed my concerns about the proposal, the attitude of the proponents that they would not consider any other site was most disturbing.
Jan Veal, Lyall Bay
via website, 17 September 2005
Rugged beauty would be changed
After attending some of the presentations by the WMEC trust I am in support of the project, however not really convinced about the site. It is a wonderful, if somewhat derelict spot that has a rugged beauty that would be significantly changed by the centre. I think if the point is to be used it would requrie perhaps an even greater level of funding to make the structure robust and elegant enough to suit the site! Sure is a tricky one. Bit of a fence sitter really but please keep me informed of whats going on. Thx.
Richard Munden, Houghton Bay
via website, 1 September 2005
Education by destroying environment?
I support the idea of a marine education centre, but I object to the proposal of the Te Raekaihau site for this purpose. My reasons are: I object to building structures beween the road and the sea. I object to people claiming to educate about the environment by destroying it. Other sites must be investigated more fully.
Lynda Griggs, Island Bay
via website, 31 August 2005
Local rockpools for free
To any one that calls me a nimby - nah mate, I am a PRNIMBY - proud to be a nimby.
Seriously though, what is this point of this marine aquarium when 9 times out of ten you can see what they will put in there in the local rockpools for free ???? Please email me if you want someone down there protesting if the bulldozers move in - we will be there
Cathy O'Hagan, Houghton Bay
posted via website, 20 July 2005
Leave well alone!!
Thirty five years ago my best friend Chris and I used to snorkel off the point for crayfish and moki after work, returning home to our young families with a feed. A few years ago Chris died suddenly while out surfing. When I drive past the point nothing has changed in all these years, and I can still see Chris looking in what what his favourite hole and surfacing with his catch. Leave well alone !!
Peter Vivian, Kelburn,Wellington
via website, 8 July 2005
No way, not on the Point
I support the Aquarium as a great thing but in no way do I support the building of this aquarium on the point. There are plenty of other sites available that are just as suitable.
I am appalled that the council can even be considering allowing a building between the road and the coast. No matter what someone says it sets a precedent for other buildings.
Please let me know what I can do to help.
I am also Co-President of the Brooklyn Residents Association. If you can provide me with some info I can mention this at our next meeting. I'm not saying the association is for or against but I'm happy to give our residents the info.
KT, Brooklyn
via website, 26 June 2005
Submission to Council on the Annual Plan 2005/6
I had the opportunity to speak to you for ten minutes about my submission in opposition to the building of the Aquarium. I thought I would follow up with an email to clarify my position.
My opposition is based on three points:
1) Economic
Whether on this site or any other, raising my rates and investing over $7 million dollars interest free on a private tourist venture that may or may not be paid back starting in ten years is way too risky an option. Whichever way the numbers are crunched, it just doesn't make any sense to me as a ratepayer.
2) The site
The unspoiled character of Wellington's south coast is already a tourist attraction, and the envy of cities worldwide. Anyone who visits it is amazed that we can have such a spot a mere 15 minutes from the city center. Allowing a construction of this size on the seaward side would spoil the views for kilometers in each direction, and be the first ugly thing seen by arriving flights and ferries. It could also signal the beginning of unrestrained development of the coast, which could then become like everywhere else in the world.overdone for the sake of profit, not people.
Development here is probably unavoidable, but it should be done with a measured plan. The council needs to construct an overall development strategy for the south coast that includes fundamental principals that any proposal must adhere to before they can even apply for approval. Principals that reflect it's unique value to the citizens of Wellington. The first of these must be no construction on the seaward side. Full stop.
During the recent Southern ward meeting on the Draft Budget, I asked a councilor how the choice of site was made for the Aquarium on Te Raekaihau Point and I was informed that it was the choice of the developers. He further stated that it was not the council's job to assess the environmental impact, which would be done during the resource consent process. Essentially, if the business plan looked good for the city, they would approve it. Events and developments should not be weighed by their purported economic value alone, but more so by the overall impact on the community and our environment. The council should be our first line of defense against encroachment instead of being the group spearheading the assaults.
3) Traffic
For this development to even have a hope of success, they need to draw 200,000 people a year out to the point. None of the access points.through Lyall Bay, down Houghton Bay Road, Owhiro Bay Road, or the coast road itself, can handle this kind of traffic. So, add the cost of improved roadworks from the city center out to the point to the overall costs to the ratepayers and the bill can get astronomically high. Not to mention that the quality of life for those living along these routes will become less enjoyable. I believe all the resident associations of the south coast have registered their opposition to the Aquarium.
This is an idea that has grown out of control over the years.appering to be a case of ambition over need. What started with popular support as a Marine Education facility for our children has become a giant tourist attraction. If education of our children is the true focus, then an expansion of the temporary facility at Island Bay is all that is needed.
Gary McGivney, Southgate
posted via website, 20 June 2005
Aquarium's purported philosophy incongruous with proposal for site.
I am strongly opposed to having the Acquarium on this site. The Acquarium supports an ecological and environmental friendly philsophy which is incongruous with building it on the proposed site.
This building will change the unique landscape of the South Coast and the damage will never be able to be reversed. I believe it will set the platform for future development on the Southern Coast and in years to come our children will not be able to enjoy the natural beauty that the South coast offers.
I believe as Wgtn citizens we must do everything we can to protect the South coast in its natural state as it is unique in the world.
Vicki Toxopeus, Berhampore
posted via website, 19 June 2005
Sand dunes not a steel-reinforced bunker
David Burton, the Dominion's reviewer on Eating Out page comments with reference to an aquarium installed in Logan Brown, restaurant and bar: "Its glass top vleverly doubles as an aquarium with all live exhibits on loan from the Marine Education Centre (MEC).
In this location and on this miniature scale, the display is a thing of beauty. If the MEC would care to contemplate it, they may well find a cure for a current ill, their expansionist mindset (seat the MEC trust board at the bar, force-feed them enough medicinal martinis, and befre we know it, they'll be planning sand dunes instead of a steel-reinforced bunker for the seaward side of Te Raekaihau point)."
From the Dominion Post
Thursday June 16, 2005
Hate mail from a supporter of the aquarium
Could you do gooders please F off and get a life.
Wellington needs these types of things to ensure it is a go forward and vibrant place.
I am sure I ride past the point a hell of a lot more than all you do gooders ever go there and I fully support this plan.
God I hate people like you, always grumbling and complaining about something.
I think your behaviour is unKiwi, are you even New Zealanders?
Your art is actually more offensive to me than an aquarium but you don't see me starting a website to have it ripped down you intolerant fool!
Peter Terpstra
via website, Tuesday 14 June 2005
Find alternative sites
Keep the natural unspoilt beauty of our wild south coast. It is a unforgettable coastal environment. There must be alternative sites better suited to the marine education centre proposal.
Des Brough Beacon Hill
posted via website, 13 June 2005
Raekaihau point is not a good location
I have been involved with large aquariums throughout the world for many years and believe Te Raekaihau point is not a good location for a major tourist venture. I look forward to receiving your news from time to time.
Brian Goss, Paraparaumu
via website, Monday 13 June 2005
Coastal ruin
Please don't ruin our coastline
Juliet Mollan, Melrose
via website, 12 June 2005
Disaster waiting to happen
NIMBY: Residents do not want it
I live near the proposed site, and in total opposition to any development plan that would destroy the quiet solitude and rugged un-built surroundings of the point. I am sure that most of my neighbours in Houghton Bay and Melrose also object to an aquarium situated there.
HACK DESIGN: the architecture is a sham and a shame
For the architects to claim that their aquarium design "blends in" is a sham and an injustice, but it is what they have to keep repeating. Why not engage a real architect, someone who has an international reputation and perhaps even a Pritzker Prize, instead of Wellington's favourite (third-rate) go-to building designer? Our city's new buildings could be so much more that a sham and a shame.
NUMBERS: disaster waiting to happen
For the aquarium to handle 200,000 people, the artery roads would have to be expanded and more landscapes ruined and parking lots would have to sprawl and bus sheds and turning bays be required, and maybe a fine dining restaurant and expanded gift shop would bring in more income, and do we really want a Te Papa messing up the most utterly charming areas of Wellington's South coast? And so on and so forth and on and on.
LOAN ECONOMICS
Amortise a $7 million loan over 10 or 20 years at the prevailing interest rates, then separate out the total interest payments projected in the amortisation. This is what the Council is giving to a third-party trust. Now add in the capital of the loan, and any other grants given by the local government, and this is what your Council is giving to the same third-party trust. Are they hoping to lose our trust? Oh, and while we are at it, add in accrued interest, late paymnet penalties, and the inevitable default costs.
THE EXISTING AQUARIUM OF NZ
The former Hawkes Bay Aquarium in Napier has been using the name "National Aquarium of New Zealand," and styles itself as just that. How does this precedent affect the desired name for the MEC? (Why) have there been no mentions of the Napier aquarium in any of the Wellington reports? What does the MEC ambition do to Napier's Aquarium of NZ?
SMARTER THINKING REQUIRED
Why don't the MEC leaders look at a site in the city where most visitors and leisure opportunities are clustered (not to mention tansport and hospitality)? An aquarium site provdied by Wellington Waterfront (Shed 11 or Waitangi Park or Passenger Terminal or Queen's Wahrf) or even the Port could operate a shuttle loop to various untouched rock pools, landings, and coastal locations on the South Coast. Better yet, why don't they look at the Antarctic Centre in Chch and consdier a site near or adjoining the Wellington Airport, from which hundreds of thousands of visitors could easily access the MEC "educational facility" (and pump tourist dollars into the city). There is already, recently opened by Councillor Ahipene-Mercer, a fine and undistrubed coastal walk from Moa Point over to Breaker Bay. Why not build an aquarium by the airport and encourage visitors to make the Moa Point walk themselves or with a guide.
WHAT TOURISM AGENCIES REALLY DO
The South Coast, as quaint and undisturbed as it is, is already a great tourist attraction from Red Rocks to Princess Bay to Breaker Bay. Wellington's visitors actually want to see genuine and real landscapes, people, places, sleepy cafes, and the true Wellington. Yourism agencies and marketing efforts often ruin the very thing/place they are trying to "promote." Turning the South Coast's great places into hyper-real Disney attractions and building massive infrastructure around them so people can spend money on tee shirts and view dead great white sharks and have a $5 latte is a sure way to kill our cherished Sense of Place.
Eric Holowacz, Houghton Bay
via website, 11 June 2005
Wrong location
Right Project, Wrong Location
Wayne E. Lutton, Island Bay
via website, 11 June 2005
Don't want a bloody great tourist attraction...
We bought our home by the beach at Houghton Bay to live a quiet peaceful lifestyle by the beach, we love the fact 15 minutes from town you can potter around in your garden hearing nothing but the sound of the waves on the beach and the birdsong from the bush, the way our beaches are never to crowded, friendly people smile and say 'hi' as they wander round the waterfront, the fact you can go for a walk down the beach and feel alone, and can feel isolated and smug in your home as the southerly crashes in.
I like the fact that this area is the same for my daughter as it was for me when I grew up in Island Bay and when she was little I could take her down to Princess Bay and show her all the secret rockpools of my youth.
I don't want a bloody great tourist attraction around the corner from my home, I don't want hoards of tourists in my 'front yard', I don't want masses of cars spoiling my day, If I wanted that I would have bought a house next to 'Te Papa' - in fact why don't they put the proposed Marine Education Centre next to Te Papa so Mr & Mrs enthustiastic Judy and Victor can suck dry the money of the tourists already there.
I can't see how having our quiet little corner of the world turned into a commercial money grabber can be a huge asset for us.
Leave us alone Judy Hutt & Victor Anderlini.
Cathy O'Hagan - Houghton Bay
via website, 11 June 2005
Risky financial project
As a ratepayer I am very concerned as to how much this expensive venture is going to cost us individuals. The original idea was to continue educating children but now it is a commercial tourist venture that is subsidised by ratepayers money. This is setting quite a dangerous precedent.
The Stafford group report seems to be more realistic than the Council's Ernst Young report who in the past appear to massage figures to suit the Council.
An visitor count of 195,000 per annum is quoted, that is 584 people every day of the year, not very realistic.
The Trust now agree that to have any chance of being financially viable they must have a bar and a restaurant so it moves out of an education centre and becomes a commercial venture.
Why do the Council have to be asked for $350,000 for a grant to enable the Trust to progress with detail design and resource consent.This should be to their own account if they have any faith in the project.
The above funding and the $7,000,000 interest free over 25 years would help a lot of pensioners to have reasonable rental accommodation.
The only people that will benefit from this venture are the Architects, Builders, Builders merchants & the divers.If it all turns to custard we ratepayers will be footing the bill for a long time.
It is a very risky financial project and should not be supported by the Council who are already in debt and trying to keep rates down.
IFOR OWEN, Wellington
via website, 11 June 2005
Wake up Wellingnton
The intrest free loans that Wellington City Council is propsing to make to the fish zoo and Karori Wildlife Sanctuary are part of the equation of Wellington's grwoing debt (The Wellingntonian, May 12).
The shameful part is that this is not mentioned in the Annual Plan. Certainly it does say loans are proposed but nothing about interest free. Who serves and who eats in the council restaurant?
In the case of these loans it is the ratepayer who pays the interest so interest free means interest transferred. The ratepayer serves the fish zoo eats and is housed on our publicly owned Te Raekaihau Point. So we get the bill for the fish zoo plus the destruction of a beautiful coastal landmark. There is already space dedicated at Te papa where the tourists are.
Bryan Pepperell, Wellington City Councillor
The Wellingntonian, Thursday 2 June 2005
We need some common sense
The outburst by Wellington Marine Conservation trust chairman Stuart Macaskill (Letters, May 19) is further evidence of the arrogance of those who back this appallingly sited marine development on the south coast. To suggest that the proposed building and car park will return Te Raekaihau to a pristine state is ludicrous.
Mr Macaskill bewilderingly still clings to the now hackneyed line that the development is 'educational', despite Wellington City Council and the developers having shown their hand by rebranding the proposal The Aquarium of New Zealand.
Pherhaps Mr Macaskill could enlighten us as to the educational benefits of a bar and gift shop?
And what of the cost? The only independent review of this proposal has indicated a likely ongoing need for subsidy, ratepayers are being asked to pay the interest on a multi-million-dollar loan, and the full cost of the project is yet to be submitted. I hear alarm bells.
Let's set the record straight: 2000,000 visitors a year is tourism. In fact, it will amount to so much tourism that the site will be lost to Wellingtonians forever as the the thousands who flock to Princess Bay over summer struggle to find parking space to enjoy their favourite beach.
How about some common sense before its too late?
Simon Baumfield, Melrose
Dominion Post, Saturday 28 May 2005
Try Freyberg site instead
It seems the Wellington marine education centre proposal for the development at Te Raekaihau Point has been puffed up by Wellington's glitterati. They've renamed it, more pretentiously, The Aquarium of New Zealand.
This is a fine name for something that has been more realistically described as the fish-zoo-on-the-south-coast proposal.
Of late, principals of this ill-concieved project have brought in some shark-tank yank from Monterey to boost the chances of convincing uthe gullible of its dubious merits.
I suggest the proposers consider dealing with business man Clem Griffiths, whose tug boat business tied beside the Freyber Pool, currently for sale, would be a more advantageous site. It's central, has parking and is only a short walk from that other Disneyesque attraction, Te Papa.
Neville Hart, Island Bay
Dominion Post, Saturday 28 May 2005
Save the headland
How can Wellington Marine Conservation Trust chairman Stuart Macaskill (Letters, May 19) honestly say that building offices, fish tanks, parking areas and so on is restoring Wellington's south headland reserve to a pristine, original south coast environment?
Te Raekaihau point is a much used open space, has unspoiled east south and west cook Strait views and should not be built over.
There is a site less that 1 km away, adjacent to Dorrie Leslie Park, crying out to be tidied up. It is close to public transport, has space for bus parking and is nex to sewage and stormwater disposal services that would not require pumping.
Bruce Diggle, Mornington
Dominion Post, Saturday 28 May 2005
Unspoilt Beauty
Keep the natural unspoilt beauty of our wild south coast. It is a unforgettable coastal environment. There must be alternative sites better suited to the marine education centre proposal.
Des Brough, Beacon Hill
via website, Monday 13 June 2005
Shift Marine Centre
I applaud Michael Smither's stance against the siting of the proposed marine education centre (Letters, April 26, April 28)
I watch with rising concern the manoeuvrings of the Marine Education Centre trust as it navigates from funding gravy train to another with scant regard for community values.
The proposed site is a glorious exposed headland, significant to Wellington in many respects and enjoyed by man. Sadly the Ian Athfield designed building advocated by the trust is about as much in keeping with the surrounding landscape as the gift shop and bar are with the trust's aim of 'education by conservation'.
Surely people are suspicious that the project, sold as 'education', is now 'tourism'? The accounts of the developers, who have arranged themselves as charitable trusts, have never been publicly audited, nor have their business plans been publicised.
Why is Wellington City Council so keen to back the trust against its own guidelines 'to protect and enhance the coastal character of Wellington's south coast'?
The developers should now have the sense to re-site the planned centre somewhere more in keeping with the values they aspire to.
Simon Baumfield, Melrose.
Dominion Post, Tuesday 3 May 2005
Poor site choice
I am not against the Marine Center itself, which is a wonderful idea, but against this choice of site. Any developement on the water side of the roadway will ruin the beauty of the views, and I can only imagine the traffic congestion!
What about Red Rocks, Petone foreshore, or the point out at Eastbourne as alternatives? This construction would be a gigantic zit on the face of Mother Nature!
Gary McGivney, Southgate, Wellington
posted via Website, April 16, 2005
The Current of opposition to MEC still flows strong
The controversial marine centre features in your March 15 issue in an unattributed article.
It finishes with the comment: "In the past the proposal has attracted resistance from some residents opposed to a commercial venture on the South Coast foreshore." This opposition is very much current.
I breathe a sigh of relief each time I drive, walk or cycle past Te Raekaihau Point that the view remains unspoiled and continues to inspire me to care for our coast. Althought I love the idea of marine education, I believe the 'land grab' for this venture must not occur. We have the most precious asset of an unspoiled coastline (excepting the Lyall Bay houses) from the Owhiro Quarry to Breaker Bay. It is a special route, and a treasur trove of marine education in itself.
Another site for the proposed centre must be found. Te Raekaihau Point may be the best site according to technical reports, but it will never be an acceptable site for those who love the point as it is. There is simply not enough effort going into finding another site - for example, when the large landholding at 344-350 Queens Drive came up for sale last year, did the Centre board even consider it?
Nicci Coffey, Island Bay
Cook Strait News, Tuesday 29 March 2005
Calendar 2005
I was the fortunate recipient of the calendar this year. It is a series of wonderfully evocative photos that daily transport me back into my childhood - I grew up in Island Bay and spent many hours pottering in the rock pools, swimming at Princess Bay or just watching the ocean after a southerly wind had whipped the sea to a frenzy. Mnay thanks. Good luck with your project.
Janice Irvine, Canada
posted via Website, January 18, 2005