Exorbitant parking fees, allied with very high property rates, has led to empty ships and a lack of customers.

More and more new developments are outside the CBD where meters don't exist and off-street parking can be offered.

I seem to remember that parking meters were introduced to prevent all day parking and give all shoppers an opportunity.

They then became perceived as cash cows and the greedy take has increased year by year. Council needs to remember it is a service instrumentality, set up to serve the needs of its citizens.

The council operates three multi-level car parks, which would be set up solely to cater for shoppers. The first hour at any time of the day should be free, the second hour, or any part of, should be $2, the next hour $4, the next $6 and so on.

Illuminated boards at each could indicate spaces available. Escalating costs would cause all day parking to be a real disincentive.

Shop employees are skilled in locating parking spaces outside the CBD and walking the few blocks to their places of employment - all good exercise.

The new parking meters being installed will probably prove to be the last straw in scaring off the elderly shoppers, whom statistics would show are the most valuable shoppers.

Ah well, Kings Meadows beckons. And it's not only the council being greedy.

Landlords are equally so. Rents need to be more closely allied with income generated by renters in their trading.

Let us see positive action before our CBD takes its last gasp.

"I REFER to your editorial (The Examiner, July 19) regarding the recently released sediment report.

You state "no study has been as comprehensive as the report". Having read the report? I beg to differ.

I have found errors including but not limited to: inventing processes hitherto unknown to estuarine science, simplistic modelling, outlandish ecological claims, inventing proposals which were never suggested to TEMT, misrepresentation of legitimate proposals and over estimation of costs.

The authors have demonstrated a poor understanding of estuarine processes and associated nuances.

Unfortunately the few estuarine scientists who understand the processes at play have been excluded from TEMT, excluded from contributing to the report and excluded from the peer review process. The result - gobbledygook 101.

THE TCCI's calls this week for relaxed regulations of e-cigarette sales as a means to quit smoking (The Examiner, August 4) suggest self-interested lobby groups are seeking to profit at the expense of Australians' health.

Lung Foundation Australia urges all Tasmanians seeking to quit to seek the advice of their GP. We understand how hard it is to quit and we don't seek to demonise you because you smoke. But the answer is not making something that is harmful to your lung health available over the counter, either to smokers or the growing number of young people vaping. Your local GP, not your corner shop, is best qualified to support you to stop smoking and will take into account your individual needs, prescribing the best course of action to improve your lung and overall health.

The TGA has proposed a prescription scheme because the evidence of e-cigarettes as a medicine remains a work in progress. Prescription by GPs of a nicotine-containing product is the safest way forward for smokers seeking to quit and the broader population.

Not even the most hardened smoker would want to inflict a lifetime of addiction on the next generation. Remember that other nicotine replacement therapies started as prescription and while the evidence of vaping being effective in quitting remains vague, e-cigarettes must be properly regulated.

Who do you trust: your GP or the casual person who works behind the counter of your corner store?