In the July 8 edition, I believe that writers Stephen Oh and ‘Name and address supplied’ are both correct in their opinions.
For example, the so-called ‘local government reform’ is simply government from the top down and will lead to higher costs, less accessibility and even less accountability.
Every visitor from the eastern states has been telling the same story.
I thought reforms should lead to better outcomes.
The second contributor believes that charity starts at home and not in the Indian Ocean, the Sudan or Iraq. I believe the same for Australia.
Otherwise, why do we have in this country some 40 foundations and more than 600 charities, plus countless ambassadors?
In the July 15 edition, writer Brad Capes points out very relevant problems because of global population growth. How does he recognise them?
No planner, politician, opinion maker or demographer sees the cause of bursting infrastructures.
The rebranders of the term family planning do not see beyond their noses.
Does anybody know this country grows by more than 400,000 people a year?
Why does the Riseley area need upgrading? The mayor made it clear in your paper and I quote ‘to concentrate population growth and development near public transport nodes and activity centres’.
It is intellectually dishonest to claim sustainability without reducing the rate of population growth and limit the rate of (limited) resource consumption.
I also draw readers’ attention to our (unreal) State Planning Strategy draft (December, 2012).
OTTO MUELLER, Murdoch