Complaints - Please scroll to the bottom of the page
« Council Briefs | Main | Walkways »


The outrage expressed at the articles appearing in the Peninsula Press is ill-founded. What the Hauraki Trustees have to understand is that Thames business has been completely left out in the cold right from the start, and the recent reaction has been well justified. Whose fault it is is harder to quantify. Certainly, the level of contact in Paeroa and Te Aroha with business appears to have been far greater. There seems to have been an attitude from the start that "Thames is just too hard", and this has been reflected in the way in which we have been treated. This was just just about inevitable as Hauraki was given the entire carriage of the project as the majority of the Cycleway is in that Council area. 

On the other hand, Ben Day could have been far more active in ensuring that Thames was kept 'in the loop' - his propensity for running off on his own and making what I am sure he sees as 'logical'decisions does not endear him to many. He claimed in a recent Council meeting that he had met with the Thames business sector at which the press were excluded, and that they were now "very happy at what had transpired".

That is not what I hear, and certainly the decision to terminate at Rhodes Park has many looking askance, and wondering what the hell is going on - it appears to have been his decision alone - if Hammond was involved, then it represents yet another hasty decision that he may come to regret. Thames means Thames, and the MOU specifies Fisherman's Wharf - how does that constitute Rhodes Park. Sure the crossing of the Kauaeranga is a major head-ache just as we said from the start, but it will not be progressed if we give in to the 'easy' alternative without a fight.

In addition, if anyone thought that Ngati Maru would 'fall over' just because Wati Ngamane was put on the Trust, they need to think again. Frankly, Hammond and Day are just too fresh on the scene to leave it to them, and John Tredigda is hardly the person to be completing these negotiations - he is too far removed, and is flat out with all the other problems associated with getting it off the ground.

As for the resentment at the criticism over the management contract, the fact remains that no apparent attempt was made to organise a local group to tender, and the thought of having this over-riding contract administered by some outfit from Queenstown was always going to 'grate' with local business. Sure they bring experience to the table, but they should not be allowed to compete, and manage at the same time - one or the other - this may need to re-negotiated, otherwise JT and company will have to deal with long term resentment.




PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (2)

It's all very well to moan about the cycleway ending at Rhodes Park, but have any of you stopped to even imagine what the cost would be in building a cycle bridge over the Kauerenga River to bring the track into Thames proper?
Who would pay for this? Remember the big flood of just a few years ago? Any bridge would have be a fairly substantial affair.

May 27, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterN. Young

What about doing a 'Nippon Clippon' to the downstream side of the SH25 road bridge just for bikes? Walkers already have a footpath. Why look for heavily engineered options?

June 23, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterPeter H Wood,

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>