My recent return to live in Newcastle has been uplifting.
It is wonderful to see many improvements in the city, including its architecture.
A huge disappointment has been the neglect of our wonderful beachsides. Unlike most other similar areas visited up and down NSW coast, Queensland, WA, Newcastle has a wasteland devoid of trees. Bar Beach is a good example; a huge, hot car park and grassland without one tree to offer protection from the heat of the day, let alone allow time to linger in cool ocean breezes.
As an older person, I can no longer relax by the beach due to lack of natural shade. It is a dash into the water for a few minutes of respite, then back to a hot car to escape home. I cringe at the thought of babies and young children exposed to the intense sun as families try to enjoy holiday activities. We have had the hottest year on record, and I suspect one of the hottest summers for some time. This is not going to change.
As a progressive council, City of Newcastle should make tree planting in these areas a top priority. The minimal impact on views of the few would be low compared with the enjoyment of all residents. Oh and the cafes could certainly do with an upgrade as well.
Jenelle Langham, Adamstown
Why premiums are so steep
Why have premiums increased so astronomically for home and contents?
All insurance is for profit. It works on the twin principles of spreading the risk and utmost good faith ("Through the roof, insurance bill sting", Herald, 30/1).
Global warming has meant more bushfires, rain and flooding in many parts of Australia. But why should homeowners, whose risk has not increased, pay higher premiums to subsidise others whose risk has increased?
To remain profitable and pay claims, home insurance companies find it easier to increase the premiums of lower risk homeowners, such as the Chislers, of Fern Bay, mentioned in the Herald's article.
Guided by their actuaries' revised tables, insurance companies will not insure homes where the short-term expectation of future floods and bushfires makes claims certain, and there is no buck to be made. But, at the same time, insurers do not want people whose risk has increased somewhat, to drop out and not pay. Therefore, these people's premiums are lower than their risk dictates.
To accelerate resettlement to safer places, insurance companies should be obliged to properly factor in revised risks into the premiums they charge.
Where insurance is unobtainable because the risk has increased too much, governments should subsidise home relocation.
Geoff Black, Frankston
Cutting remark about MP
In an article by Sage Swinton ("Grass is leaner on the other side", Herald, 1/2), a Newcastle council spokesperson is quoted as making what I believe to be a derogatory remark about Sonia Hornery MP.
Unknown to readers is whether this anonymous person is a council employee or an elected councillor. If it is the former, they should be sacked for engaging in a public slanging match and probably breaching the council's code of conduct. On the other hand, if it is an elected councillor, they should be named and shamed. Either way, the Herald should not let the comment maker hide behind anonymity.
Shame on the council, just get the grass cut. It is a traffic hazard.
Mike Clarke, Ashtonfield
Frustrating ride on rail
Much has been made recently of what the federal government is doing to bring us a high-speed train.
It looks like we have a business case; another study. Like many others, I'm becoming frustrated at all the studies we are seeing and nothing else. However, this time it seems like they mean business. But, then, we've seen that before.
Even if this government is serious about high-speed rail, it will still be many years before the first train leaves the station. In the meantime, the state government would do well to get out the plans for faster rail and get to work turning them into reality. Faster trains in NSW are needed now, particularly if we are serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption.
Peter Sansom, Kahibah
Recycling rail studies could save $80m
How about we save $80 million of taxpayer funds and spend just a few $1000 and reread, reprint and change the date on some of the many studies already done over the years into a high-speed rail between Sydney and Newcastle? Or is this just a government desperate to change the narrative with $80 million of taxpayer money that could be better spent elsewhere?
Andrew Hirst, Beresfield
Tactical tax increases
The government is slowly running out of "Peter to pay Paul" scenarios, giving with one hand then knowingly taking it away with the other. Increasing the tax on alcohol will achieve two things: people will drink more at home and publicans will reduce staff, because of fewer patrons. Watch the government use this as a tactic to win votes by promising to reduce fuel, income and alcohol taxes in order to say they are focused on easing the cost of living. All this tax increase will achieve is higher unemployment.
Graeme Kime, Muswellbrook
Shame about leaving off name
In another indignity to Newcastle people by Newcastle Council, we are now just a number in our libraries. Borrow books now and request a printed copy and it shows only the last four numbers on your card. Log into your account in their "new" computer and you see the same. Newcastle council, I have a name and expect it to show on my library account.
Christine Chapman, New Lambton
No vendetta evidence
Andrew Hirst's letter ("No supporter of Trump", Letters, 2/2) sounds very much like conspiracy theory stuff. You can't just say the charges against Trump are some sort of vendetta by Democrats without evidence. The example used that Trump overvalued assets to get favourable loans is only half the story. He allegedly then undervalued those same assets to pay less tax. In New York, that is fraud and that is what he may be found guilty of.
Bruce Gain, Newcastle
US certainly unique
Fortunately, a character as morally repulsive and overtly stupid as Donald Trump could never succeed in Australian politics, Julie Robinson ("Questionable state of the US", Letters, 1/2). Like you, I can't believe the GOP could even contemplate nominating him as a presidential candidate. Like they say "only in America".
