In many respects, give or take some features, it is as well served as Launceston which has two plus times the population and some very significant regional assets.

That said I have to say Flagstaff Hill is on the face of it unappealing.

Not the village itself or its location but its lack of visual and physical connectivity to adjacent areas.

By comparison Launceston has two precincts, the Seaport and the Penny Royal, which are connected by location, ease of access and visual presence to the CBD, adjacent parklands, the broader waterfront and gorge area.

Both are similarly eccentric to the CBD but withing easy walking distance.

The Flagstaff Hill entrance facade on Merri Street seems banal, not enticing as it obviously should be and quite out of character with the village itself which is quite out of sight at that point.

From the ocean side the village is quite cut off from the caravan parks and broader recreation area of the Lake Pertobe area by a) the railway line and b) the lack of an entry, say near the Pertobe Road overpass.

All parking is at the top of the hill.

If council were to address these fundamental access and visual connection issues then maybe it would appeal to a serious investor or even make a buck anyway.

Mike Seward, Port Fairy

Our local MLC, Bev McArthur, has argued (The Standard, July 24) that the council's decision doesn't pass the pub test and suggests that the council should stand down or be stood down.

I agree entirely with her reasoning, there is a need for action, but her solution is draconian, costly, undemocratic, and may not lead to the solution this community needs and wants.

If the council is stood down then an administrator will be put in place.

He or she will remain in place for at least a year and during that time the needs of the community will be given second place to the restructuring of council's financial and management structure.

The community will be completely removed from this process.

If, as Ms McArthur suggests, a municipal monitor is put in place, the council is not removed. The monitor simply monitors and reports back to the Minister and, if necessary, to IBAC.

We could expect the monitor to be in place for at least one year.

That could cost the community almost as much as it has cost to sack the CEO.

I think that Ms McArthur is offering Cr Neoh a choice: his grand bicycle path or a Municipal Monitor but not both. They will probably cost about the same and we can afford neither.

There is an election due in just three months.

The community could resolve this at no additional cost, giving the community a voice, a choice and a real stake in the outcome.

Jim Burke, Warrnambool

There are so many disappointing elements apparent in the 'Sexist Attack on MP' article, published in The Standard, July 29, not least of which is the fact that Ms Britnell, ended up agreeing with the perpetrator in the final paragraph.

To have endured constant attacks on her gender as well as that old chestnut, the woman's wardrobe, for five years without having called it out until now is sad and I think irresponsible.

When does this behaviour become shameful, if you do not acknowledge it as such when it occurs?

Even as late as this week a female opposition member in the House of Representatives during the Gillard government, has come out and said she regrets not calling out the appalling treatment of our Prime Minister around the ditch the witch and Bob Brown's bitch incident.

It is not about being tough and resilient because you have to work in male dominated industries.

It is about not tolerating or enduring gender based abuse like that ever. It is about raising expectations for yourself as well as for the next generation.

Its about stamping out vilification.

Strength comes from challenging the status quo, not copping it on the chin again and again and again.

Genevieve Grant, Rosebrook

The Standard on July 27 asks, "We can create clean jobs now - why wait?"

Let me tell you why: the Greens movement in Australia keeps telling the public wrongly that our country can operate entirely on renewable sources of electricity and that we can achieve this simply by investing in their development.

We have been told that in May this year, the United Kingdom existed for one whole week without the burning of coal, however this owed little to renewable supplies - its biggest source of electricity for that week was gas, closely followed by nuclear.

Despite its Atlantic gales, wind played a small irregular part for United Kingdom, and solar even less.

In Australia, base load is taken by coal to the detriment of climate change, with wind producing on average one-third of its capacity with the other two-thirds being balanced in stop-go fashion by open cycle gas (also called single or simple cycle).

Combined cycle gas can produce 50 per cent more electricity, but it is not flexible enough to balance the wind.

From this information it should be obvious that wind turbines are absolutely useless. The United Kingdom no longer subsidises them.

So far as solar is concerned it is worth noting that sunny Egypt is building four pollution-free nuclear reactors under contract with Russia.

In Australia, Labor and the Greens are dead against nuclear, but this is due to ignorance, not knowledge.

Graham Keith, Warrnambool

Please note: The Standard prefers letters to be less than 250 words. Preference is given to shorter contributions. Letters must include the author's name, address and contact phone number for verification purposes. Letters are published at standard.net.au and in print.