Strewth, if a person can't go without a beer for a couple of hours, especially when being entertained, asks the question why don't they just go to a club and catch the booze bus home.

Maybe this restriction is to help reduce heated discussions and violent outbursts that often happen after too many beers, something the average family ticket holders shouldn't have to suffer.

I would go as far to say all sporting fixtures where children and families are present should be alcohol-free areas.

Most public parks are alcohol free for obvious reasons, why is the footy any different?

IN reply to John Pritchard (Letters, 24/6): regarding the possibility of "collusion between builders and certifiers", I share my experience of dealing with a certifier involved with the building of units near me and suggest these observations illustrate some of the points Mr Pritchard is making.

From the beginning of this enterprise, I believe, stated working hours were ignored and noisy operations were carried out beyond the stated hours.

I contacted City of Newcastle and was told that as there was a certifier appointed for that construction, I should contact him as the council was unable to assist.

The certifier responded to the first two telephone complaints, saying he would take the matter up with the building company. After that, any further phone calls were unanswered and messages requesting a return call were ignored.

After contacting the certifier in writing and indicating that I was intending to take my complaints further, the certifier arrived the following morning with a written reply.

I advised the certifier that I had also observed many of the council's consent orders had not been adhered to, providing documented and photographed evidence. His response was that consent orders were "nothing to do with me, the council makes them up - it's up to them to police them".

I have observed that local building sites by the same building firm all nominate the same certifier.

SO we get a tax reduction ('Windfall for workers as tax cuts get nod', Newcastle Herald 5/7). Where are they going to take the monies from and what services are going to be affected? If it is coming from a surplus, wouldn't it been better to put it into services for the benefit of the country? I bet I know where it is not coming from: their pockets.

I WAS disappointed to read opinion piece from former Liberal candidate turned independent councillor John Church about the City of Newcastle's budget ('Why I will vote against the council's budget', Opinion 25/6). With so many criticisms of the city's priorities, you'd expect Cr Church's favourite word must be no.

Yet Cr Church, I believe, had one thing printed in the paper but acted entirely differently in the council chamber. Take these examples.

Cr Church lists the special rate variation (SRV) as his top reason to vote against the city's budget. SRV funding is delivering upgrades throughout the city including coastal revitalisation, upgrades at Blackbutt Reserve and reducing the city's infrastructure backlog.

Oddly, when given the chance in the council chamber just hours later Cr Church actually voted in favour of the funding for 2019/20, the exact opposite of the position claimed in his opinion piece.

The piece also moaned about having "real concerns" regarding council's administrative headquarters moving to Newcastle West.

Given this complaint you would think that Cr Church must have voted against the move? Well, you'd be wrong.

In October 2017, when council considered the move, Cr Church voted to support the new office building in the West End, and supported council officers' recommendation for the financials of the lease to remain commercial in confidence (consistent with standard practice for commercial lease arrangements).

It's a real shame for the city that Cr Church has chosen to oppose, rather than back, Labor's impressive budget. In adopting this year's budget, Labor will deliver the city's sixth consecutive budget surplus (without cutting services) while also committing to deliver a massive $81 million capital works program, including flood mitigation in Wallsend, environmental initiatives including a new green waste composting facility, new footpaths and better roads, upgraded cultural facilities, off leash dog parks and much more.

With so much going on in Newcastle, we really do need to highlight Cr Church telling one story in the media and voting differently in the chamber.

I HAVE been a resident of Gibson Street in Newcastle for approximately 30 years. We live in homes on tiny, inner city land blocks in existence since the 1860s.

Parking off the street is generally not an option. City of Newcastle council installed parking meters in Gibson Street approximately 19 years ago, with metered restricted parking until 9pm each week night.

That, we thought, would give us some chance of parking near our homes at night.

Alas, no.

The council have not monitored these meters after normal business hours on weeknights since their installation despite the many and varied requests. A parking officer noted to me recently that he had worked as a parking officer with the council since 2003 and had never been in Gibson Street after normal business hours, but that he had done so in other areas of the city.

Why the selective monitoring?

The latest advice from the council, through our elected state member, was: "City of Newcastle thanks you for bringing this matter to our attention, the information will be considered during the development of future strategies. Please feel free to pass this information on to your constituents".

I am not sure what is most concerning. This problem has been brought to the council's attention for many years by many affected and distressed residents, so why no acknowledgement of this?

Conversely, a strategy is apparently required for the simple action of scheduling a parking officer to attend meters in Gibson Street after 5pm. Wow.