Letter to the Editor: Some foreshores non-negotiables

DEAR News Of The Area,

I’M late coming to the foreshores conversation.

Perhaps naively I’ve believed that community sentiment would prevail so that which I want protected is protected.

Thankyou Ian Hogbin for pointing out the imperative to get some basics sorted.

The debate about the foreshores plan has ignored providing for long term needs of key infrastructure – the jetty and the harbour itself.

I’d add:

• The delicate adjoining ecosystems that sustain the harbour, including the (unnamed?) watercourse running down Beacon Hill nourishing the sometimes wetlands behind Jordan Esplanade and feeding freshwater into the southern end of the beach.

This is the freshwater that sustained Gumbaynggir ceremonial gatherings for centuries.

• Protecting our iconic migratory muttonbirds.

Anything that increases artificial lighting is deadly.

More artificial lighting is simply not an option.

My final non-negotiable: No person or corporation – whether because of privilege, power or luck – can ever be permitted to exclusively occupy any part of the land east of the railway.

No accommodation.

Ever (Gumbaynggir nation peoples excepted – it is your land).

Like many contentious political issues, most of us will agree with most of what is proposed.

A poll in conjunction with the September local government elections is a great idea.

Let’s ask the hard questions of all the people.

Jennifer GRANT,
Coffs Harbour.

One thought on “Letter to the Editor: Some foreshores non-negotiables

  1. We’ve had 2 surveys both majority voted for development and then the state election Singh for development versus Judge for no development. Result Singh wins with an overwhelming majority.
    We don’t need another waste of money poll.

Leave a Reply