OPINION: Don’t use rate payers’ money to fund propaganda

DEAR News Of The Area,

AT the last Council election, none of the candidates now sitting in Council Chambers gave any indication that they opposed the harbour foreshores development.

Now we have the majority of Councillors not only opposing it, but voting to use $20,000 of ratepayers funds to support their personal campaign of opposition.

The Mayor’s revised plan for the foreshores (which states it’s not to scale) is both misleading and mediocre.

The previous Council ignored widespread community opposition to the Cultural and Civic Centre and we now find that Council is broke and had to cut $50,000,00 from its budget.

So as Council can’t afford many of the facilities the residents want, how does it plan to fund the Mayor’s development-free foreshores plan?

We want to see a vibrant foreshores in the next decade, not after Council finishes paying off the $80,000,000 – $90,000,000 glass house we didn’t want.

Councillors, rate payer’s money is not your personal bank account to spend on issues you support or oppose.

As a rate payer, I don’t want to be funding your propaganda, especially as I want to see some good facilities on the foreshores.

We have been through a major exercise in community consultation where there was general support for some significant development of the area.

You were elected to represent the general community, not yourselves and a small minority that has opposed any development of the foreshores for the last 20 years.

You don’t have widespread community support to lead a campaign to frustrate any development, simply because the Mayor and a majority of Councillors don’t like the plan.

It’s unfortunate that it’s taken less than a year for the current group of Councillors to forget that elected representatives are actually servants of the people.

If their aim is to become more unpopular than the last Council, they’re doing a good job.

Patrick WALTERS,
Coffs Harbour.

One thought on “OPINION: Don’t use rate payers’ money to fund propaganda

  1. Mate.
    I dont think anyone would oppose the revitalisation of public land. It’s the sale of public land to build 6 story motels to developers which very many of us oppose. Let alone the building on sand, blocking existing residence and the dumb idea of building big structures in such a place seems to be very stupid??
    Either way the sale of public land to fill the coffers is bad policy. To be in such a high valued area for the sake of a much neglected public space to the detriment of existing landowners is a bad idea from the start..
    Glad they have backed down, despite the incurred costs.

Leave a Reply