One would have to wonder who the biggest fool is ... the boy racer doing burn-outs or the society that crushes a perfectly good vehicle as retribution ?
At the very least the car could have been stripped for parts or sold off and the money donated to a worthy charity. But no, complete and utter destruction which provides no benefit to anyone and wastes a resource.
Well done, our society.
I am concerned about the council being guarantor for the Civic Theatre Trust for its $2m loan.
How much cash does the trust actually have access to (excluding promises)? I'm led to believe a few people have put their donations on the backburner.
How big an anchor are the theatre trust and the council trying to put around the necks of the ratepayers?
What happened to the fundraisers' wild promises? I had them on a video talking millions being raised in a few months. What has happened?
I would like to explain to Denis Waters about the new car parking building in Blenheim.
As I researched the empty car parks available, I found that many of the "elderly and people with disabilities" were nervous to use the car park as the complex was new to them, although at the time it was free for three months.
So I made several inquiries as to the best use of the parking for the elderly and visitors to the council.
In 2011 I put in my submission to put all council vehicles on the top floor of the building and to my suprise it went ahead.
Now all the space adjoining the back of the council building is being used free on a time limit, including two parking bays for people with disabilities.
Surely that is progress. I don't often stick up for the council or councillors.
The council vehicles will not deteriorate as they have always been out in weather day and night and are much safer on the top floor.
The only people who complained to me afterwards was a couple of the staff, as they had to walk some 80 metres or so in the rain.
This year I didn't put in a submission for the first time ever. I would have asked in my submission to get some umbrellas for the outside staff – I don't want them to catch a cold.
Eighty per cent of New Zealanders are opposed to John Key and his cronies selling off the public's assets.
Perhaps Colin King could explain why New Zealand would be better off financially to sell assets to pay off or avoid debt instead of borrowing against the asset.
The return in dividends is about three times more than the cost of borrowed capital. If the return isn't at that level then why would anyone want to buy shares?
The following is an example of the likely amount NZ will lose. Asset sale value say $6 billion. Average annual return to the shareholder say 16 per cent, equals $960 million, less say 30 per cent tax on profit that the Government would collect.
It leaves the Government coffers $672m worse off than it would be if the Government retained 100 per cent ownership.
On the other hand, if the Government borrowed $6b against the asset, cost of interest say 5 per cent, annual interest cost $300m, leaves the Government $660m a year in a better financial position.
Add this to earlier asset sales and NZ is billions of dollars out of pocket on an annual basis, with the majority of profits transferred overseas and total debt growing at an alarming rate.
A better option than to sell the assets would be to invest Kiwisaver funds in NZ energy companies than to invest in risky offshore economies. If the assets are sold NZ would also suffer a lost opportunity to benefit from increased charges in the years ahead.
I challenge Colin King to dispute my explanation – if he cannot, then he should vote against the asset sales.
The Marlborough Express