Home' Advocate Communications : Fiordland Advocate 27 March 2009 Contents Page 6 | 27 March, 2009
PO Box 251
Te Anau 9640
SEND US YOUR
PO Box 251
Te Anau 9640
WHAT THE RABBIT SAW ...
The proposed meeting of ratepayers
(April 6) appears to be merely a
It is being held at a most
A large percentage of residential
ratepayers will be working and
unable to attend. Furthermore,
absentee landowners who are
likewise being rated are, in all
probability, unaware the meeting is
Has anyone considered the heavy
fogs we have had recently? Hardly
viable for aerodynamics.
Ron Egan is quite dogmatic. He has
made a decisive, blatant statement
and he is obviously not prepared to
alter his stance in the matter.
I reiterate – why must the shortfall
in funding revert to the ratepayers?
Figuratively speaking, several
members of the community board
have barely lived in the area for five
We had better representation
in earlier years when it was
considered an honour to serve the
town and no remuneration was
Definition of the term white
elephant used in March 6th edition.
Something that is large, costly and
perhaps impressive, but expensive
to maintain, unproductive and
Does anyone want the 15-year-old
(young) [Te Anau] ex-supermarket?
OUCH – Not impressive.
No more concrete mania and chain
Te Anau Basin
Here are a few questions that need to
be answered at the airport meeting,
April 6, 2pm at the Te Anau Club.
Before the upgrade, were there
any discussions with any airline to
determine when or if they would fly
in to Manapouri?
There were plans for a terminal
to be built for $360,000. On
whose authority was it to spend
$1.1million of ratepayers’ money?
Why was it necessary to build a
cross-runway that heavy aircraft
cannot use; lengthen and widen the
sealed runway when Pionair and
Dash 8 aircraft were happily using
the old runway?
How much has Projenz been paid
to make a number of very basic
major design faults with the layout?
I and some other pilots were put on
a committee to sort this out which
we did in one meeting! Projenz then
drew up more plans contrary to
what we had agreed on. Finally our
plan was implemented.
Who was responsible to signing off
earthworks that were not completed
properly, i.e. screening stones on the
cross runway and taxi way levels?
Is it true that we are paying $60,000
per year to a company to manage
the Manapouri airport and that the
manager is here a few days per
month? If it needs to be managed,
why is a local not doing it?
The airfield now costs ratepayers
more than it does to empty your
wheelie bin each week. Airport
(more to come) $176.60. Wheelie
The final solution: Sell the airfield,
the council should not be involved
in this sort of venture, the flights
will still come in to the hotel that
arranges them and the ratepayer
will not be burdened with ever
I am an American, a ratepayer who
lives in Te Anau part of the year. I
fly often, and so I am representative
of the local market for air services.
It takes me about 1-3⁄4 hours to get
to the Frankton airport costing $36
when I use a shuttle. Assuming
there ever is regular air service from
Te Anau to, say Queenstown, by the
time I would drive to Manapouri,
arrive at least 1⁄2 hour before flight
time (which is required), and then
fly to Queenstown, it would take
me almost as much time as it
to drive there, and flying from Te
Anau would certainly cost more
than $36. So I’m unclear how the
board justified the expense of a
Upgrading our medical facilities
has been a pressing and critical
need of every person in the Te
Anau basin, as is providing local
facilities for old and disabled
people. In my opinion, both of
these are more important to the
community than was a new airport.
I have heard the board’s reason for
spending this money on an airport
as opposed to health or care
facilities was that our health centre
is a ‘commercial enterprise’, and
that the board cannot support
a commercial enterprise. Then
how was the board able to fund
the new airport, which clearly
provides support for “commercial
enterprises”, including commercial
airlines, rental car companies, etc?
In the US, local, large publicly
funded expenditures such as
our new airport are often first
approved by a vote of the citizens.
This provides an opportunity to
debate and approve a project
before it proceeds, rather than
Notes from the editor
• Apologies to readers for the gremlins in the system
last week which resulted part of the caption from the
same page the previous week being intertwined with one
alongside the Wapiti Bugle article. We’ll try to make sure
that doesn’t happen again!
• Aaron Nicholson has done some investigation into the
jet aeroplane he photographed last week. It appears the
airliner was most likely a flight from Buenos Aires to Sydney
that was flying south to avoid a bad weather system over
• Some of the letters we’ve been receiving for the Hot Topic
page lately have been getting a bit long. We only have a
limited amount of space so please try to write them the way
you like to read them – short, snappy and to the point.
Links Archive Fiordland Advocate 20 March 2009 Fiordland Advocate 3 April 2009 Navigation Previous Page Next Page