Minister Andrew Barr (''Grocery top spots free in Dickson'', February 4, p3) has again announced some bad planning for Canberra. The medium-sized centre could never sustain or cope with three supermarkets, so this move is an election stunt and just a wish list.
However, the two parking sites can easily be developed as is proposed, since they are owned by the ACT government. Perhaps Dickson could bear only one more supermarket.
Mitchell is likely to have more businesses to serve new suburbs, thus taking business away from Dickson.
My advice is to allow one of Dickson's shop car parks to become a supermarket and let retail developers come up with ideas for the other site (mixed office space/retail?). And please, let us have no allocation of valuable land to preferred businesses. This can only lead to corrupt practices. Let the new supermarket site be open to competition.
John Holland, Dickson
Dickson is to have two more supermarkets, one to be Aldi (to be given one site by the government), and the other to be competed for by Coles, Supabarn and IGA. This is a classic example of a government not understanding what competition is all about, and therefore floundering about with conflicting competition policies.
How on earth can it possibly justify ''picking winners'' for one of the sites instead of letting competition do that, and making the other supermarkets compete for the other site?
Doesn't it understand that ''competition'' shouldn't be confined to selling fruit and vegetables, but should also apply to the purchase of the land to be able to sell fruit and vegetables?
R.S. Gilbert, Braddon
INFILL IS VITAL
I am not familiar with the details of the Dickson development plan and whether perhaps 10 units were too many (''Residents win battle to stop units'', February 1, p3) , so it is difficult to make a blanket comment.
However, the principle of infill is vital to the viable future of Canberra and it is sad to see so many automatic NIMBY resistance efforts. This one seems to have struck at an extreme view with its emotive propaganda campaign.
My small street in Narrabundah had a redevelopment with many units (about 20) and there has been a zero impact on traffic and parking. Disingenuous campaigns should in most cases be rejected by the authorities.
R.C. Warn, Narrabundah
INHARMONIOUS ASIO
David Fricker, who was deputy director-general of ASIO while its new building was being planned, has the nerve to claim that it is ''quite harmonious with the landscape'' (''New ASIO site on time, on budget'', February 4, p5). He obviously can't have viewed it from Legacy Park.
The building's massive Constitution Avenue facade, which ordinary citizens in Campbell have to look at, cannot possibly be described as ''architecturally a good response''.
Andrew Schuller, Campbell
CARING FOR OUR LAKES
Eric Lindemann (Letters, February 7) makes a good point about the health of Lake Burley Griffin and that while the native fish might be doing okay (apparently), there are lots of other reasons we can't afford to be complacent about water quality. I'd also add to that carp, redfin, litter, stormwater pollution and invasive weeds.
Our not-for-profit organisation will soon launch a lakecare program designed to help those interested to get involved with activities to improve the amenity and health of our major urban lakes, including Lake Tuggeranong, which is in poor condition.
Visit our website riversmart.org.au. Collectively we can make a difference.
Bill Phillips, Waramanga
.gif)
