ON Monday evening I attended a community meeting in the Town Hall, Newcastle to discuss the repercussions of Supercars and the growing opposition to five more years of this event ("Finish the race, say residents", Newcastle Herald 5/4).
It was a packed house and many were turned away at the door.
I accomplished two important things that night. Firstly, I called out Tim Crakanthorp to speak at the protest meeting to let us know if he was on our side, but there was no real commitment or indication that he would be. Secondly, I got to meet the wonderful fighter Christine Everingham who has been fighting this fight for years now. She is small in stature and not a young woman, but she appears to be tiring and she needs the people of the East End behind her fighting with her. If Monday evening is any indication she certainly has it now.
What we heard was that there appears to be no evidence to prove that Newcastle benefits from Supercars visits and that there are heavy losses to businesses, community, the environment, the parks and roads and generally to the health of the residents especially their hearing. Go away Supercars, we don't want you in our front yard.
Denise Lindus Trummel, Newcastle
Tourism should be the trade-off
REGARDING Sage Swinton's story ("Finish the race, say residents", Herald 5/4): having spent some of my childhood in Bathurst, and being an enthusiastic spectator on Mount Panorama for the annual car race, I have wondered how and why such a race could even be considered in a residential area in Newcastle given the lengthy set up and dismantling period, noise, pollution and apparent disruption to some local businesses. One would hope that the disruption to the locals was temporary and the benefits to the city were favourable and profitable.
The footage of Newcastle during the race is spectacular, displaying our stunning beaches and the beautiful scenic aspects of our city. This should bode well for tourism. I do however sympathise with people who are affected by the chaos the race brings.
Mary Stronach, Newcastle
Business shouldn't dive into debt
SO often we find the need for a company to find more debt or equity funding and if they cannot they fail. Why is this?
It seems in our world many people want their company to expand and be the biggest and yet the expansion of a company on borrowed funds is a plan made to fail. The only winners are the financial institutions and the law firms involved.
It is about time people understood if you trade on borrowed money you trade for a borrowed time. Financial advisors will say that the debt is ok because they have no skin in the trading; they are more concerned when they have skin in the trades. Scott's refridgerated transport was seemingly in a good trading position because of their robust activity, but I believe debt structure has caused it to fail.
When I studied economics I had the impression that many approved trading where the figures showed a good return on borrowed funds yet the reliance of these borrowed funds to trade, in my view, is a trap to take you out of your company. There are many companies where the accounts are healthy yet backing that trading component of the company is a debt structure that means a small change in the loan agreement will cause the company to fail. The lesson is if you must borrow, make sure it is not a noose that one day will tighten and kill your business. Debt should be only a very small component of a successful company. The larger the debt, the larger the noose.
Milton Caine, Birmingham Gardens
We'll foot bill for any port payment
IPART is currently determining the amount by which Hastings Funds Management would have reduced its bid for the Port of Newcastle lease in 2014 due to the government passing through its liability to pay NSW Ports for containers handled at the Port of Newcastle.
In December 2012, Hastings made an indicative bid for the Port Botany and Port Kembla leases without the government offering payment for containers handled at the Port of Newcastle. Hastings increased its bid to $5.056 billion in April 2013 after the government offered the payment. Hastings' bid was publicly disclosed by the then Treasurer. The difference between Hastings' indicative bid and its final bid should reveal the value Hastings placed on being paid by the government for containers handled at the Port of Newcastle.
The Port of Newcastle can extinguish its liability to the government by paying the amount determined by IPART, but this does not extinguish the government's liability to pay NSW Ports. Any difference is paid by the taxpayer. Can Treasurer Daniel Mookhey disclose Hastings' indicative bid to reveal how much a container terminal will cost this state's taxpayers?
Greg Cameron, Wamboin
Not every setback is Chernobyl
MARVYN Smith ("Nuclear's not worth the risk", Letters, 4/3), iodine tablets "probably" would have saved lives at Chernobyl, but Switzerland has been rethinking their costly distribution, last done in 2014, to residents living near nuclear power stations.
Last October Professor Geraldine Thomas, Professor of Molecular Pathology, Imperial College London and founder of the Chernobyl Tissue Bank, told Newsweek that technically the Chernobyl exclusion zone is not uninhabitable because there are people living there, some ever since the accident, most without health issues.
She says wildlife is exploding and living perfectly well with the radiation.
As for the radioactive particles in tuna, are they injurious to human health? Even the soon-to-be-released treated radioactive water from Fukushima still contains radioactive tritium, harmless in small amounts. Nuclear accidents need not be catastrophic. I believe that when Three Mile Island suffered a meltdown in 1979 the only fatalities were strokes and heart attacks caused by media scaremongering.
Peter Dolan, Lambton
Poll comes before super switch
PETER Dolan, ("Taxing the top offers no panacea", Letters, 3/4) you complain that these reductions in unfair tax advantages are not being taken to an election. To be clear - this is the unfair tax advantages for those that have $3 million for an individual (obviously $6 million for a couple).
Your allegation is completely false, fake news that Trump would be proud of. A key component that has been stated over and over again is that the changes will come after the next election, so if you do think the super rich should have such an advantage, you will have your opportunity cast a vote against Labor before it's ever implemented.
Personally, I cannot see the majority of Australians voting against their own interests to the benefit of those that need the money the least. From your attitude to this initiative to rectify unfair tax concessions, I will have to assume you are indeed a wealthy person.
Glen Wilson, Cardiff
SHORT TAKES
AARON Buman's letter claims that supporters of local candidates at polling booths approaching voters constitutes "intimidating behaviour", so do we also ban McDonald's for asking if you want fries, or people asking you to participate in the next promotion? It is time to elect governments that are best equipped to manage the economy with as much democracy that can prevail. I always consider any argument on its merits, but I'm afraid this one can go through to the wicket keeper in my view.
Grahame Danaher, Coal Point
WELCOME to the opinion page Gary Fagg, ("Not quite feeling free to speak", Letters, 3/4), and well done for having the gumption to express your view. The feelings you describe are exactly how the woke want you to feel. They believe they have the high moral ground and seek to cancel any opposing views. The only way is to use your democratic right to push back. I hope to see more from you on this page in the future.
Greg Hunt, Newcastle West
WHY would one be surprised that no Labor councillors were available to attend the community meeting regarding the future of Supercars? This in my opinion explains any ongoing ignorance of ratepayers and other councillors' concerns and expectations.
Peter Mullins, Rankin Park
DENNIS Petrovic, (Short takes 4/4), history tells me that the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia found Slobodan Milosevic guilty of being party to a joint criminal enterprise ethnic cleansing. The International Court of Justice found no evidence of him being involved in the genocide committed by Bosnian forces. However, Milosevic was found to have committed a crime by not naming or taking action against that were responsible for the genocide. No further action was taken because Milosevic died in custody.
Mike Sargent, Cootamundra
PETER Dutton's negativity on the Voice referendum was highlighted and countered by former Liberal minister, Fred Chaney in an article published recently. The article quotes from 1971's Gove land rights case: "The evidence shows a subtle and elaborate system highly adapted to the country in which the people led their lives, which provided a stable order of society and was remarkably free from vagaries of personal whim or influence. If ever a system could be called "a government of laws, and not of men," it is that shown in the evidence before me." How much better would we have been had our political class followed a similar set of principles? With the Voice Referendum, we the people, have possibly our final chance to do what is right.
Barry Swan OAM, Balgownie
THE POLL
WILL you stick to seafood to mark Good Friday?
