Stephanie Hunt

I HAVE just read Alan Findlay’s letter suggesting that the old Wally Sutherland’s site would be ideal as a retirement village.

He had several excellent reasons why it would be great.

He’s done the research, and it shows that we already have multiple arts/cultural centres which we as ratepayers fund, and that maybe aren’t used to their full potential.

Why add another one?

The retirement village idea makes huge sense, if you read all the pluses he put forward.

Why does council simply reply: “The building has been identified as being ideal for an Arts Centre.”

Says who? Is this just another (of many) crazy unthought-out council ideas that swing into action and turn out to be a big flop?

Come on council, give Alan’s idea some respectful consideration.