Errol Smith, Lakeside
Your article just made my wheels come off when I read Leigh Barrett’s response.
She obviously cannot see the wood for the trees when she jumps on the issue of stating that the fencing would not solve the homeless problem. Where on earth was there any reference to any attempt to solve the homeless issue?
It has distressed me to think that she could so misconstrue the whole issue and become a classic naysayer, jumping on what must be her hobby horse.
Protecting municipal property and caring for the homeless are two totally different issues, and one would think she knows the difference.
I am totally in favour of protecting municipal property, which (though she may have forgotten or does not know) she and I actually pay for.
Public facilities, paid for by our taxes, are frequently vandalised for no obvious reason.
I too have been involved in many such projects over the years in which, at great expense, we have erected fences and access control in order just to keep safe that which belongs to people who pay their taxes from those who break and vandalise whatever takes their fancy.
Then, on a totally different leg, I have been, and still am, involved in several NGOs that seek to serve and assist the homeless and destitute. But that is a totally different thing and cannot be equated to the act of protecting private and municipal property.
I think Ms Barrett should do some more research before making an issue of something that will reveal her ignorance to the public.
Thank you for the article and clarifying the reasons for the fencing, which I saw for myself when I took my wife there for her driver’s licence renewal.
May I just add that it was a very delightful experience for her renewing her licence. The staff there were hugely helpful and very friendly.
