He is quite wrong to say that "cost/benefit calculations ... have little to do with financing". In any properly governed city, projects for which the cost/benefit ratio is predicted to be poor should never be financed.

However in his next paragraphs Kevin is quite right that "[he] and any other Canberran should know what the investment terms are", and that "we should have robust discussions on what infrastructure to build".

It's even true that financiers of big projects like light rail "are guaranteed a handsome return" if interest on the total project debt greatly exceeds the initial contract cost as he assumes. That's where the sense ends, though.

Who guarantees that return? Answer: the government controlling the project, and so ultimately the taxpayers. The infamous South Sea Bubble of the early 1700s, after ruining many investors in its non-projects, led to the Bubble Act requiring all such public-private partnerships to obtain a Royal Charter or their own Act of Parliament.

In modern terms, that meant firstly that only predictably profitable schemes should be approved, and then that investors in them would buy government bonds rather than shares or bits of bitcoin.

Why would a citizen buy a light rail bond (by any name), for $1000 or whatever the issue price might be? Why, when that citizen is already propping up the scheme with increasing rates and taxes?

It must be the "high-value annuity payments" that Kevin offers (as did the South Sea Company). But when the project is a long-term loser, the higher the annuities, the higher the rates and taxes!

Kevin wrote "the history of money shows that communities who fund infrastructure from internal sources are always better off", but that is nonsense unless the project is truly profitable.

Brian Stone, Weetangera

Letters by Kevin Cox (Dec 24, 2017 and Jan 2, 2018) on how light rail should be financed by citizens 'investing' in the system, leaves me somewhat bewildered.

Mr Cox seems to be proposing that ACT taxpayers should fund light rail by investing in shares in some government sponsored 'firm' to buy and operate light rail. Given that light rail stage 1 will be a complete financial flop, let alone later stages, who in their right mind would voluntarily waste their money in that way.

No, we prefer to let the government waste our money for us. The reality is this. The government cannot build it itself so has to contract out the job to private industry. For stage 1, it has negotiated contracts with private firms, with the 'help' of UnionsACT and the CMFEU, to build the stage and to operate it for 20years.

We suckers do not know any significant detail of the contracts, eg whether they fixed or variable price, but it would be a sure bet that if costs blow out, ACT taxpayers will be paying, not the contractors.

In respect of the operations and maintenance contract, we do know that the government has accepted virtually all of the risk, including 100 per cent of the 'patronage risk', ie lack of paying passengers.

Consequently, the contractors and their unions buddies are on a gravy train at our expense and it will get progressively worse as other far less economic stages may be approved. For stage 1, the government is committed to pay a down payment of $375million of the ostensible $710 million build cost, "when the trams start running", all of which has to be paid for, including very substantial interest and operating subsidies, over the 20 years of operation.

The government can in fact borrow money much cheaper than a private enterprise, so why is the government not paying for all of the build cost, as it will pay for all of the operating subsidies? I have asked this question of government in the past, without response.

M. Flint, co-ordinator Smart Canberra Transport, Erindale

Mr Cox (Letters, January 2) outlines a sensible way for the public to invest in light rail – and a good idea should be extended if possible.

There is just enough time to do this before the Woden light rail stage is built.

If you've not heard about Woden, it is thought by some to be the basis for a sequel to the movie Dumb and Dumber but the location is still under discussion.

Every resident/ratepayer should have the opportunity to vote on ... lets say three propositions: 1. Allow resident/ratepayer investors the opportunity to invest in light rail, as Mr Cox suggested – with returns to them like those that would otherwise go to the private-public partner involved.

OR 2. Allow as for 1 above but with the capital costs saved by implementing an O-Bahn type rapid bus system rather than light rail to be added into investor returns.

OR 3. Allow as for 1 above but delaying five years, then moving to either autonomous vehicles or 1 or 2 above after that time – with investors getting the rate of return in 1 above for the first five years, then as calculated on a rational basis consistent with this approach the approach finally adopted – this would most likely be options 2 or 3.

There are other options, and one could be a zero capital cost autonomous system.

But for now for the options as above, why not?

Trevor McPherson, Aranda

Alan Robertson (Letters, December 30) claims that 'a critical factor [in relation to right lane huggers] is the accuracy of speedometers'. Critical? I doubt that very much.

Assume a journey of 20km with a speed limit of 80km/h. The minimum actual moving time would be 15 minutes.

The total journey time (including stops, acceleration and deceleration) would be about 20 minutes.

If throughout the whole of such a journey Alan was prevented from travelling at more than 75km/h because of 'smug right lane huggers' with faulty speedometers (an extremely unlikely scenario) then his total time for the journey would be increased by about a minute.

A more realistic assumption is that his total delay caused by 'smug' drivers would be about 10seconds.

Alan recommends that to 'result in less aggravation and dangerous driving on our roads' drivers check the accuracy of their speedometers.

If a delay such as that described above causes some drivers to drive dangerously, then I suggest that it is not speedometers which need to be checked but rather the psychological competence of such drivers to hold driving licences.

The most dangerous factor in road safety is impatience.

Bob Salmond, Melba

Arguments about the benefits to individuals and cities of urban green spaces are water off a duck's back to the ACT government, which is set to start infill work in Lake Burley Griffin early this year with land releases for an apartment estate to start in 2020.

The City to the Lake Strategic Urban Design Framework spruiked by Ryan Hemsley (Letters, December 1) is full of propaganda complete with illustrations designed to fool the public such as West Basin apartments shown as faint ghosts of what's to come rather than solid vista blockers that will cast shadows onto the public strip.

The framework's boast of heritage is embarrassingly ignorant.

The lake and parklands with a naturalistic edging brought to life by Menzies' NCDC, is Australia's heritage. The Griffin promenade strip is but an overworked ploy to give credibility to selling lakebed and parkland as real estate to investors.

Griffin's vision did not have city buildings extending to the West Basin lakeshore.

All the public consultation claimed by Hemsley is meaningless — no notice is taken of well-researched criticisms and about 80 per cent of the public know nothing about the West Basin proposal.

Meanwhile, the ACT government continues to thwart the Commonwealth and National Heritage listings for the lake and central Canberra, to ensure the green heart of Canberra is open slather for development.

Canberra needs the West Basin free space for gatherings, recreation and crowd events. Unhappily, 2018 is set to see the dispiriting work commence with the infill of 2 hectares of Lake Burley Griffin.

Juliet Ramsay, Burra, NSW

I was a strong supporter of the proposed waste to energy project, but now, although I still support the science, I have been persuaded that we cannot trust the ACT government to implement it correctly (they could allow inferior procedures and not monitor regulations effectively) so there could be risk to people and the environment.

Unfortunately the ACT government has a history of overturning the legal decisions of public servants to advantage special interests.

Frequently they overturn decisions of conservators and allow trees to be cut down on private property. Approvals for buildings that are counter to the law are also frequent.

And despite the ACT Planning Unit winning a case in ACAT to stop YMCA moving its corporate office into the YMCA Sailing Club Building eight years ago, political influence is still stopping the law being applied and them being made to move out.

The ACT has some excellent public servants who are rigorous, professional and ethical. Good public servants will only stay if politicians adhere to and respect the law. Politicians are not above the law and the public can discover their transgressions easily in this information age.

Thank heavens we will soon have an ACT Anti-Corruption and Integrity Commission, which hopefully will prevent such behaviour in future.

I look forward to the day when we no longer have breakdowns in democratic governance.

Caroline Fitzwarryne, Yarralumla

Prime Minister Turnbull, following established procedure, is sitting on the political fence. He suggested either a plebiscite or a postal survey to determine the preferred model for a republic after the Queen dies ("Turnbull open to republic vote", January 2, p6).

The problem is a great deal more complex than "an honest, open discussion about how a president would be elected", which Mr Turnbull proposed.

A simple proposal is to replace our head of state with an Australian appointed periodically, either directly or indirectly by the entire electorate, but the process would be hijacked by those contesting not just the tenure and selection of our new head of state but also the powers of the office.

We are currently watching such a hijacking of the effort to remove the racist section 25 of the constitution, by those who seek a massive power grab, descend into bitter vitriol.

That Labor leader "Mr Shorten pledged to hold a simple 'Yes' or 'No' vote" poses an even greater problem. Such an (initial) referendum for a republic could arguably give the government a carte blanche to impose any form of republic it chose without meeting the majority requirement for constitutional change.

Gary J. Wilson, Macgregor

Neil James ("Merits of monarchies", Letters, January 3) invites us to conclude that the Australian constitution defines the monarchy's role so as to separate power and authority.

While unwritten constitutional evolution may have almost achieved that state in Britain (Charles Windsor's periodic powerful wielding of his purported authority aside) the written Australian constitution falls well short.

It explicitly vests the executive power and authority of Australia in the monarch. All the other players in executive government are formally merely agents, delegates and advisers.

It designates the monarch as an explicit and separate element of the Parliament, alongside, but probably above, the two houses. (Third chamber fears anyone?).

None of the monarch's, and only some of the governor general's, powers are explicitly required to be exercised "with advice". They are nowhere explicitly constrained to be exercised only in compliance with that advice.

(In 2017 the Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia compelled the outgoing premier to offer advice, and then took the opposite action in denying a fresh election and commissioning an alternative government.)

While Australian practice may have evolved benignly under the current monarch this has not changed the brutal literal letter of our Constitution.

We cannot be confident that remote monarchical benevolence and deference will sustain until we change our written constitution.

Mike Hutchinson, Reid

I am not taking sides, but before the republic debate goes any further, could we have a cost/benefit analysis?

Colin Beaton, Weston

BLACKMAIL ATTEMPT?

I recall seeing the glorious 1210 delivered to the plinth outside the Canberra Station where no dirty bludger filched its vital components.

Is this a blackmail job? What can "they" do with the metal now? Should we post a reward for the object's return?

Stuart J.McIntosh, Isabella Plains

LIVING WITHOUT HOPE

As I greet the new year, I fervently hope that the suffering of the refugees on Manus and Nauru will be brought to an end. Although some will go to the US, many will not and they are still living without hope. They have already been incarcerated for up to five years despite having committed no crime.

Clare Conway, Ainslie

A NATION OF TAKERS

I was both dismayed and saddened to read contractors are now being employed to patrol beaches. Once, it would have been considered an honour and a privilege to be an honorary active member of a surf lifesaving club. Australia has now become a nation of takers and no givers .

Mario Stivala, Spence

THE WEDDING RING EFFECT

Greg Baum and David Stephens (Canberra Times letters December19 and December28) dispute Starc's wonder "off-break or "leg-break" ball. Was this superb, gem of a ball helped by a large wedding ring?

P.R.Temple, Macquarie

ABORIGINAL EQUALITY

Yes, Michael McCarthy (Letters, January3), it is time for Aboriginal equality. Aboriginal people and their leaders have been telling us for years how to achieve this. We just never listen.

Patricia Saunders, Chapman

FREE THE WORLD

Australia's term on the UN Human Rights Council should be used to encourage the adoption of democracy and democratic freedoms globally.

Rod Matthews, Fairfield, Vic

FLYING HIGH IN CALIFORNIA

Now that California has legalised recreational marijuana, will people be flying there so that they can continue flying high?

Dennis Fitzgerald, Box Hill, Vic

GOOD YEAR FOR SOME

I'm glad Taylor Swift had a good year. We can't all be moaning like Bob Dylan about impending doom.

Matt Ford, Crookwell, NSW

COAL'S POWER BASE

If coal energy is a good investment, why doesn't the coal industry fund, build and operate its own new power stations?

Geoff Davidson, Braddon

HORROR MOVIE IN WAITING

Thank-you, Geoff Murray, for your "Elf surveillance alert" (Letters, January3). This is a horror movie waiting to be made.

M.Moore, Bonython