Not 'buying the view'

It was sad to read how someone can have as selfish an attitude as Graham Matthews. Contrary to what he asserts, he did not 'buy the view”; he merely bought a property opposite a public domain.
Surely he cannot be serious in suggesting that access to a beautiful outlook should be determined by one's wealth? Very few people can afford to house themselves on the millionaires' row that Marine Parade has become, which makes it even more important to retain the right for those of lesser means to park there temporarily free of charge.
Reading his story makes me wonder if he also is one of the number of Marine Parade residents who have decided that the publicly-owned grass berms look better with fake grass.
Freedom campers add colour and culture to our city, they contribute to our economy, they clean up after themselves, and they promote tourism to our region via word of mouth. I know this because in my line of work I have a bit to do with them.
Mr Matthews should take care if he ventures out for a flat white in the Mount this summer – the very ones he rails against may well be serving him, and I'd hate to think what might 'accidently” drop into his brew should he be recognised by an itinerant worker.
The contrast between this and your story on the amazing Blackley family and their extremely generous donation to New Zealand could not be more stark.

Geoff Butler, Mount Maunganui.

1 comment

Double standards?

Posted on 27-07-2013 09:07 | By Mike Kuipers von Lande

While I don't specifically agree with Graham Matthews complaint, Geoff Butler should consider the wider implications of his condemnation. The properties along this stretch are valued and therefore rated very heavily. If the council allows issues that reduce the superior outlook these homes enjoy then the value and therefore the rates levied on the properties should also be reduced. This puts a greater rates burden on the rest of us, including I assume, Mr. Butler. There was a similar principle in my suburb recently where a brick street name plinth was destroyed by a unidentified car/driver. Council refused to restore the plinth as it was 'not a core amenity'. Residents pooled money and rebuilt it. Yet the value of properties and therefore the rates we pay depends on such 'nicities' in the neighbourhood. If the council is not going to support them then our rates should be reduced accordingly.


Leave a Comment


You must be logged in to make a comment.