Hi All,
Please see a letter that I sent over a week ago to the editor. It seems that the SHN these days is somewhat selective with the letters they print. Not like the good old days when peoples opinions were really valued. I continue to try, but it is difficult getting the message out there. The word on the grapevine is also that the Chambers of commerce and land sales interest groups have the ear of the manager of the paper. It has even been suggested that a minority of the Chambers are dictating what should appear on the front page of the paper. Not having the resources or contacts of the intersts groups is a real hurdle.
Given the serious nature of things to come, it would be good if somebody knows of a like minded person who would be interested in talking about a campaign manager for the community action team for the upcoming elections. It is also a good time to be getting an idea if anybody would eb interested in standing on a Community Action Ticket.If you have any ideas, please drop me a line.
I have a notice of motion going up to the meeting of the 27th February. IF SUCCESSFUL, IT WILL ALLOW cOUNCIL TO GO TO A REFERENDUM ON THE LEISURE CENTRE AND LAND SALES. It will be difficult. NCJ also ahs a motion which in itself is a claytons motion. Theya re obviously feeling teh heat and want to put up a smoke screen. I still think the numbers are against us. I would suggest that you encourage friends and family to lobby Clr Gordon Lewis, Jim Mauger and Duncan Gair heavily. This may be our only chance to put the brakes on the sale of public land.
More to come later.
Larry
Dear Sir,
Having been along to a number of Public Hearings in relation to the proposed sale of Public Land, I am only more convinced that this is a totally unacceptable action on Councils part. The message is loud and clear "leave our land alone". This is the legacy that not only previous Councils have put in place for future generations, it is also a legacy bequeathed by private and also developer gifts.
I stand strong on my commitment to fight to the end, the sale of public land. I will not give up or devalue the
Ideals of our community by ignoring their plea for caution and restraint on this matter.
We need to listen, not just give the appearance of listening. We need to actively process the message and
act accordingly. This is the reason why I believe that the only way to show sincerity to the community on this matter, is to go to the people. If any Councillors believes they can act from this point in defiance against the growing voice and calls for caution within the community on the Leisure Centre, then let them continue at their own peril.
Given our current financial dilemma, I am convinced we need to stop, take a breath and consult with the Community on their current thinking on the Leisure Centre. I am also convinced that we need to go to the community and test the feeling on the sale of public land. Although, it is beyond doubt in my mind that the majority of the community are totally opposed to the "flogging off" of our children's inheritance, I am also equally convinced (frighteningly so), that there are those Councillors who will in some strange way justify their own agenda's and ignore the majority.
Therefore the only way to test the theories of those Councillors who remain in denial is to go to a referendum. I believe anything other is deceptive and nothing more than a smoke screen. If those Councillors who feel they are right and the majority really do want to move forward with land sales and a Leisure Centre, then the referendum that I propose will do nothing more than support their arguments, if not, then surely they need to be mature enough to accept that they are wrong. I certainly am!
If the exercise of providing a facility that is indeed for everyone. Lets make sure that everyone actually wants it and agrees that now is the time to do so.
Faithfully yours,
Clr Larry Whipper
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Saturday, February 9, 2008
This appears to be just another off load it now strategy
Media Release
.
Clr Larry Whipper putting his support behind Clr Duncan Gair’s call for a more considered approach to the future of the Bowral Golf Course said “ It would be highly irresponsible to just hand over the Community’s most valuable asset to a private enterprise without at least considering other options and or ways of maintaining the Golf Course for public use”.
There have been claims that Councillors who have adopted this stand are trying to kill Golf in the Highlands. “This is preposterous! The current proposal does very little more than allow the land to be tied up for around 21 years, possibly for private and personal financial gain. It does not absolve Council and therefore the Community from liability and maintenance responsibilities however”.
“This appears to be just another off load it now strategy, by some Councillors. Like the proposed land sales, there has not been a lot of thought about future consequences.
It is knee-jerk stuff and does not resemble an entrepreneurial attitude in the least. The public meeting in Bowral Hall certainly did have a strong position for retention of the Golf course and there may be alternate ways of meeting everybody’s needs. The important thing is that we need to look at the big picture, not just jump to the dictates of self-interest. Council needs to look in detail at the potential impacts of their decisions and listen to the whole community, not just as some Coucillors have pointed out, those who make the loudest noise”.
Council, not necessarily by any fault, is now in a very uncomfortable financial position. “ The Grange experience, if nothing else, should have taught us that rushing in to decisions may not always be the most appropriate thing to do, even if there are promises of gold attached to sales pitch of those who stand to gain personal profit, above the collective good”.
“Like the call to flog off our community land, I believe that the rush to hand over a valuable community asset, with minimal consideration to the potential future consequences is very dangerous. Calls to just get on with it, may be expedient and suit the platform of some, but what remains is the still unanswered question; is it in the community’s overall best interest. It is my hope that the working group, formed by resolution of Council, will be allowed to do it’s job without any vested pressure being bought to bear”.
“It is my hunch however, that we will see a recession motion come forward to echo the rumblings of at least one private developer in the shire on this matter. In the interests of the ratepayer of the shire, I do hope I am wrong
.
Clr Larry Whipper putting his support behind Clr Duncan Gair’s call for a more considered approach to the future of the Bowral Golf Course said “ It would be highly irresponsible to just hand over the Community’s most valuable asset to a private enterprise without at least considering other options and or ways of maintaining the Golf Course for public use”.
There have been claims that Councillors who have adopted this stand are trying to kill Golf in the Highlands. “This is preposterous! The current proposal does very little more than allow the land to be tied up for around 21 years, possibly for private and personal financial gain. It does not absolve Council and therefore the Community from liability and maintenance responsibilities however”.
“This appears to be just another off load it now strategy, by some Councillors. Like the proposed land sales, there has not been a lot of thought about future consequences.
It is knee-jerk stuff and does not resemble an entrepreneurial attitude in the least. The public meeting in Bowral Hall certainly did have a strong position for retention of the Golf course and there may be alternate ways of meeting everybody’s needs. The important thing is that we need to look at the big picture, not just jump to the dictates of self-interest. Council needs to look in detail at the potential impacts of their decisions and listen to the whole community, not just as some Coucillors have pointed out, those who make the loudest noise”.
Council, not necessarily by any fault, is now in a very uncomfortable financial position. “ The Grange experience, if nothing else, should have taught us that rushing in to decisions may not always be the most appropriate thing to do, even if there are promises of gold attached to sales pitch of those who stand to gain personal profit, above the collective good”.
“Like the call to flog off our community land, I believe that the rush to hand over a valuable community asset, with minimal consideration to the potential future consequences is very dangerous. Calls to just get on with it, may be expedient and suit the platform of some, but what remains is the still unanswered question; is it in the community’s overall best interest. It is my hope that the working group, formed by resolution of Council, will be allowed to do it’s job without any vested pressure being bought to bear”.
“It is my hunch however, that we will see a recession motion come forward to echo the rumblings of at least one private developer in the shire on this matter. In the interests of the ratepayer of the shire, I do hope I am wrong
Friday, February 8, 2008
word on the street
With the Steiner School up for sale, it was always likely that a certain developer with many business interests in the shire would be interested. This is particularly so given that he has a number of development investments in very close proximity. He has also shown a very keen interest in acquiring a 21 year lease of the Bowral Golf Course, it is interesting to note what Councillors are pushing this line as well. I have also heard on the grapevine that teh said developer is putting in a tender to build a medical centre on the Bowral Hospital site? If these rumours are at all true and , it continues the fine tradition of a certain developer feeding off existing community and public infrastructure. I for one have a problem with a developer(no matter who) winning private advantage and profit at a public cost. What do you think?
Thursday, February 7, 2008
two blocks in Hampden Park are surplus and expendable
Tonight I attended the Public Hearing re:possible sale of 2 lots in Hampden park and also the Kangaloon Fire Shed. There were about 50 people in attendance. Quite a significant turn out for a small village the size of Robertson.Presentation again echoed other community concerns.Acknowledgement of our forebears who had vision to preserve the land.Anger at Councils arrogance. Concern that Council had empowered a Hampden Park Committee and a consultant, but have ignored all recommendations relating to these two blocks of land. concerns that no money from a land sale would go to Robertson.
Further concerns that in fact 91% of income from the land sales would be spent in Bowral, Mittagong and Moss Vale. 9% in Bundanoon and none in any of our villages. concerns about the lack of acknowledgement that sport (eg) soccer is increasing " We need more space for young people, not less". There is " also a lack of acknowledgement of volunteer efforts.
Councils claim that land to be sold "presupposes that this is truly the case". IT IS A DONE DEAL! Concerns raised about " the elephant in the room". " The land sales are all about the leisure centre. How will this benefit Robertson or any of the villages"? The concept is not environmentally sound and " ignores greenhouse/global warming problems. Any concept that forces people to travel to a central point is not realistic or environmentally acceptable". A 25 klm trip each way to swim for Robertsom residents is unrealistic.
There was, like Bowral on Tuesday night, only one speaker who supported the sales to fund a lesiure centre. In Bowral it was a representative of the Junior water Polo Team. In Robertson it was Cristine Campbell-Jones. Clr Campbell-Jones wife. A resident of Yerrinbool, but " a teacher at Avoca, who is tired of having to put children into cold water pools" She believes that these two blocks in Hampden Park are surplus and expendable. The sale of public land is after all " for the replacement of one asset for another" whats the problem? This line sounding very much like Clr Nick Campbell-Jones words. I wonder how much she knows about land use and needs in Robertson to be able to make the claim that this land is surplus to our needs? Nick wasn't there only myself and Clr Tuddenham. Hopefully Paul is listening. To date he is supportive of land sales and the leisure centre. I was a little concerned that Mrs Campbell-Jones spoke,particularly echoing Nicks position as all Councillors have been asked not to speak at public meetings. Am I out of order, in holding this concern??
Public objection to sale of Kangaloon shed, pointed out that there is no other community land in Kangaloon. The land was probably donated by adjoining farmer. Council proposes to sell land back to an adjoining neighbour as it is too small for any building etc.
The message is still clear. "Leave our land alone".
Further concerns that in fact 91% of income from the land sales would be spent in Bowral, Mittagong and Moss Vale. 9% in Bundanoon and none in any of our villages. concerns about the lack of acknowledgement that sport (eg) soccer is increasing " We need more space for young people, not less". There is " also a lack of acknowledgement of volunteer efforts.
Councils claim that land to be sold "presupposes that this is truly the case". IT IS A DONE DEAL! Concerns raised about " the elephant in the room". " The land sales are all about the leisure centre. How will this benefit Robertson or any of the villages"? The concept is not environmentally sound and " ignores greenhouse/global warming problems. Any concept that forces people to travel to a central point is not realistic or environmentally acceptable". A 25 klm trip each way to swim for Robertsom residents is unrealistic.
There was, like Bowral on Tuesday night, only one speaker who supported the sales to fund a lesiure centre. In Bowral it was a representative of the Junior water Polo Team. In Robertson it was Cristine Campbell-Jones. Clr Campbell-Jones wife. A resident of Yerrinbool, but " a teacher at Avoca, who is tired of having to put children into cold water pools" She believes that these two blocks in Hampden Park are surplus and expendable. The sale of public land is after all " for the replacement of one asset for another" whats the problem? This line sounding very much like Clr Nick Campbell-Jones words. I wonder how much she knows about land use and needs in Robertson to be able to make the claim that this land is surplus to our needs? Nick wasn't there only myself and Clr Tuddenham. Hopefully Paul is listening. To date he is supportive of land sales and the leisure centre. I was a little concerned that Mrs Campbell-Jones spoke,particularly echoing Nicks position as all Councillors have been asked not to speak at public meetings. Am I out of order, in holding this concern??
Public objection to sale of Kangaloon shed, pointed out that there is no other community land in Kangaloon. The land was probably donated by adjoining farmer. Council proposes to sell land back to an adjoining neighbour as it is too small for any building etc.
The message is still clear. "Leave our land alone".
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
these magpies can't vote
Not surprisingly the first two public hearings on the possible sale of land to fund the leisure centre, produced a very strong message. "Leave our land alone". These meetings have been held in Bowral Memorial Hall. The first night was attended about 130 people, last night about 120 attended. I was at last nights meeting along with a number of other Councillors.
The vast majority from teh community spoke about the fact we had a moral obligation to maintain this land for future generations. They also acknowledged the vision of those who have provided these gifts in the past for future generations. "What right do we have to sell the future?" "Were will the birds and animals live", stories of a family of magpies in Westwood Park that would be displaced, by teh sale and certain removal of trees to provide medium density housing."It's a shame, these magpies can't vote, maybe then someone would listen?". My feeling is that those Councillors intent on the sale, would not even listen then.
There was the message also, to counter some Councillors claims that the land was doing nothing. "The land is serving an enormous social and environmental benefit, by just being there". there was a story about a parcel of land in Soma street which is being considered for sale, and teh susequent refusal of building permission due to land slip. This same land is being considered by Council for sale as a building block?
The meetings will continue over the next couple of weeks. Hopefully those who see the quick sale of land as an answer to fulfill an elelection promise, will see beyond their own wants and listen to the message that thsi is not theirs to sell. It is in sacred trust for future generations and that wes hould be providing more breathing spaces and not less!
The vast majority from teh community spoke about the fact we had a moral obligation to maintain this land for future generations. They also acknowledged the vision of those who have provided these gifts in the past for future generations. "What right do we have to sell the future?" "Were will the birds and animals live", stories of a family of magpies in Westwood Park that would be displaced, by teh sale and certain removal of trees to provide medium density housing."It's a shame, these magpies can't vote, maybe then someone would listen?". My feeling is that those Councillors intent on the sale, would not even listen then.
There was the message also, to counter some Councillors claims that the land was doing nothing. "The land is serving an enormous social and environmental benefit, by just being there". there was a story about a parcel of land in Soma street which is being considered for sale, and teh susequent refusal of building permission due to land slip. This same land is being considered by Council for sale as a building block?
The meetings will continue over the next couple of weeks. Hopefully those who see the quick sale of land as an answer to fulfill an elelection promise, will see beyond their own wants and listen to the message that thsi is not theirs to sell. It is in sacred trust for future generations and that wes hould be providing more breathing spaces and not less!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
