Bogus Report Cards
Self-assessment is always fraught with danger so I’m sure that many of us who saw what our representatives on the Fraser Coast Regional Council thought of themselves a few weeks back was almost funny.
If you missed it, most of our esteemed councillors thought that they were doing an absolutely wonderful job and gave themselves an A or 10 out of 10 for the effort they were putting into the Council. They were so happy with themselves that I bet they all thought that they deserved a raise.
But now we’re discovering that if that’s their best effort then it just isn’t good enough because we’re sinking into a very deep financial mess. It seems the Council budgeted for receipts of around $7.7 million from developers … after all the Council knew that every developer and his dog wanted to build something in Hervey Bay.
Unfortunately … while they might have wanted to build something in Hervey Bay … they weren’t prepared to pay the sort of money that the Fraser Coast Regional Council expected so they didn’t. Instead they stopped their developments and went off to places where Councils didn’t want to kill the goose that layed the golden egg.
So now … instead of sitting on a cash pile worth $7.7 million dollars … the Council has only received $300,000 and that means that we could be broke and the Council is running around looking for excuses … almagamation costs is a good one to trot out at times like this and that’s what Mick did today in the Chronicle. But I’m not quite sure what amalgamation costs have got to do with developers fees so maybe there’ll be some more excuses coming in the next few days.
I wonder what those report cards would have looked like if they had been written by someone who really knew what was going on inside Council. How much longer are we stuck with this lot?
January 30th, 2010 at 2:40 pm
Sorry, but I do not think the above rings true. The suggested loss of $7.7 million in development charges, has more to do with the GFC than the charges themselves.
Do we really think developers should be subsidised by ratepayers?
There has not been an increase in council’s developer chareges for six years !! The last increase was watered down because the developers cried poor.
We could have full imployment on the Fraser Coast, if we were prepared to work for 50 cents per hour. If that is what you all want and it appears that is the case !! Why charge the developers any thing, let’s pay them to come here.
January 30th, 2010 at 3:28 pm
There seems to be an assumption that everything written in the Chronicle is accurate. From past history and recently with the “Centro Affair” this is certainly not true. The facts are manipulated to make a good headline. Given the economic downturn of the past year, many developers have no doubt pulled out due to financial constraints or as in many cases gained approval for a development and immediately put the property on the market to hopefully make a quick profit. At the moment we don’t really need any more land for housing, unit developments or industrial estates as one only has to look at those which are desperately trying to sell land and units or fill their industrial premises. We do need industries which create employment but only if they are on a viable commercial footing and not heavily subsidised by the ratepayers as was going to be the case with the flight training school.
January 30th, 2010 at 4:00 pm
John and The Observer
There is no way that I think that ratepayers here in Hervey Bay should subsidise developers … in fact let me say here that I’m not a big fan of more development for Hervey Bay. I’m also pretty much in agreement with The Observer … we already have enough development when it comes to residential land and industrial estates and we sure as heck don’t need anymore tourist accommodation.
But what does concern me is that Council may well be turning away development that would bring genuine jobs to this area. The fish farm and Urangan Fisheries are two that spring to mind and they were only resolved when common sense prevailed and the Council backed down.
On the one hand Council is saying to these people that they want more money to approve the developments but then they’ll back down if the developer complains. Mick was willing to knock around $2 million off the Centro development so why ask for inflated development fees in the first place?
And why demand that developers provide “public art” when there seems to be no guidelines that define this “public art” and it doesn’t seem to have to be placed where we … the public … can see it.
There’s also the question of whether or not the Council has already spent the money they didn’t get for those developments that didn’t happen. The Council’s response to the Chronicle’s enquiry does leave you wondering and it tends to be at odds with what Sue Brooks said in another place about Council Officers always being available to answer questions.
They’re just my thoughts on it and I’m happy you want to debate it because it’s an important issue that I’m sure many Councillors wish would just go away.
January 30th, 2010 at 4:30 pm
As for the Centro development, I believe the infrastructure charges as quoted in the Chronicle were always there from the beginning, when the project was approved. It appears that there may have been some misunderstanding in interpretation of the conditions and the developer was obviously trying to get the best deal out of council. If, as you suggest Mick did a “discount deal”, the ratepayers will most likely pick up any shortfall for essential infrastructure.
As for “Public Art” I understand that this is not “art” as in statues, paintings, etc, it is a term which covers landscaping, street furniture, etc., all items which are part of a good balanced development project.
January 30th, 2010 at 7:34 pm
Much of what I say is based on conjecture and I would suggest that is the case with many others. All of which points to a lack of “open and transparent council” which we were promised prior to the last election.
Sadly until more of the electorate takes an active interest in council, things will not improve. You only have to read the “local” or listen to people to know they know very little about our council or it’s deliberations.