It saddens my heart every day that I drive along the Princes Highway past the new Summerfields estate to see yet more trees being savaged and ruthlessly shredded on site.
A once shady forest which sheltered that part of the highway - suddenly gone. The once pleasant verge now a barren desert of raw earth. Not even a corridor of trees for the wildlife. No shade for the proposed new homes.
Surely there must be some rules for developers to maintain some groups of old forest trees for shade and to prevent erosion.
All it will take now is another wild wind event or a heavy downpour and all that soil will end up washed down to the houses below and even out to sea.
In the past few days even more trees have been removed. I had been lulled into a false sense of hope that the trees at the front of the estate were to be preserved: but no - the last bastion of " this green and pleasant land" has turned to dust.
Of course we need housing; but could we not preserve the beautiful trees that have been so long a part of this environment as part of the new housing developments?
J. McWilliam, Milton
Neighbours don't always get along but one case is being reported around the world because a vegan is involved.
A spat in Perth has ended up in the Supreme Court, and the person who complained about her neighbours smoking, cooking fish near the fence, and making noise faces major harassment. Thousands of people said they would accept an invitation on social media to attend a cookout outside her home. Comments on Facebook included such threats as "[s]omeone should go round and bitch slap some sence [sic] into the vegan idiots".
This was clear harassment, via a carriage service. Yet the federal government is silent, despite recently proposing a law to protect farmers against "individuals who use a carriage service, such as the internet, to incite another person to trespass, damage, destroy or steal property".
There is one law for those who (legally) abuse animals and another for those who refuse to harm other sentient beings.
D. Bellamy, PETA Australia
CT scanner not needed
I am writing in response to your recent editorial about CT scanning at Milton Ulladulla Hospital in which you dispute the number of scans done on Hospital patients.
The average number of patients transferred to Shoalhaven Hospital for a CT scan over the past two years is five per week. Most of those patients then need to stay or be referred for complex types of care that can only be provided in larger hospitals, in other words would have needed transfer in any case.
I believe that it is incumbent upon you to provide the data upon which you base your assertions.
You mention capital raising but have not considered that major new equipment purchases can also demand new buildings, new staff, new skills, new maintenance schedules, and new upgrade costs in the future - all of which must be funded.
There is not enough demand to justify such a major investment when the funds could be better utilised at Milton.
The District cannot in good faith accept funding or donations for equipment that it knows will be underutilised and will come at the expense of services that will provide far greater benefit to the community.
I was particularly disappointed with your highly negative tone and sensationalist language.
Accusations of lies and of deliberate obstruction are inaccurate, irresponsible and terribly misleading.
They are also highly offensive to the hardworking and dedicated teams at Milton and in the District.