Letters To The Editor – April 19, 2018

Noble mind departs anon on Bard’s birthday

Dear Editor,

We are not alone in having local government impose quaint or odd restrictions on us.

A rural council fined its citizens for allowing dogs to go unmuzzled, for ducks that wandered, for failing to sweep gutters, and for maintaining backyard compost heaps. This town was Stratford-On-Avon in the medieval days of the 1550s.

People were fined for playing cards “or any other unlawful games”, and for not having their children home by 8pm in summertime.

Ale-tasters haunted the innkeepers to determine they were putting “no hops nor other subtle things in their brewing”.

So who are we to complain about the use of chainsaws and what we can put in the recycle bin? Dear Reader, it has been ever thus.

“What’s brought all this on?” you may well be asking.

It’s William Shakespeare’s birthday on April 23. Do you know what The Bard would be famous for if he was alive today?

Well, he’d be 454 years old!

Now, before you murmur, “Oh, what a noble mind is here o’erthrown” I shall seize upon another Shakespearean quote “Brevity is the soul of wit” and I shall depart anon.

Three cheers for the Bard of Avon!

And Happy Birthday to anyone who shares his birthday!

Melva Stott
Anglesea

---

Address the chair

Dear Editor,

Ratepayers and members of the public may ask questions at City of Greater Geelong fortnightly meetings. They may submit questions in advance, and have answers in writing.

There are notes for Public Question Time, speakers are welcome and limited to three minutes or so.

In actual fact, Council Local Law provides for 10 minutes or more, but this is not mentioned.

The notes are to assist the public, but are unworkable and not followed by the Mayor.

A list of public misdemeanours is included, ranging from questions “not the business of Council” (not allowed), to “embarrassing”, offensive to Council or staff.

One does not know where all these “discredits” of the public may end. They are embarrassing.

I have asked for a list to be provided of what is “disallowed”, but that cannot be done.

How does one know beforehand what things are forbidden, to be able to avoid them?

The solution is, if I understand it correctly, that contrary to the notes, any question may in fact be asked, and the Mayor then decides what is disallowed – and then ought not to have been asked.

The old “Catch-22”, a tricky one.

Thus the “welcome” to visitors at Council is a mixed and mitigated one.

The “notes” very clearly are only guidance approved for the chair, supplied wrongly to the public.

The correction should not be an addition of explanation but to remove what is unnecessary, unworkable and absurd. The unending list of what can go wrong should rather be a request for courtesy and “to address the Chair, as in any public meeting, honoured by their absence from council notes.

Such a more realistic approach is badly needed. Performance and image at City Hall is of course up to elected Mayor and Councillors.

Peter Linaker
Ocean Grove

---

Skate park barely worthy of the name

Dear Editor,

Hopefully your front-page photo and story (Bellarine Times, April 12) helps the kids in Clifton Springs get an expanded skate park.

There is one skate park in much more need of attention at St Leonards.

This “park” – it hardly fits such a definition – is especially underwhelming for kids to use who come down for the summer and Easter holidays, let alone the local kids.

When my skateboarding fanatic nephew used to visit, he’d never bother spending time there as it was so lacking appeal.

It’s the fraction of a size of a real skate park, and would be at least 20 times smaller than the one at Clifton Springs.

Then again, in this area of the Bellarine, we lack any council-funded aquatic facility and probably have one of the worst public tennis courts on the foreshore at Indented Head.

Our elected representatives need to take more notice!

Dean Kennedy
St Leonards

---

The impact of no impact study

Dear Editor,

After reading the Surf Coast Times this week, it has now become clear that the Surf Coast Shire has and is failing miserably in representing the communities that voted for them.

One can only start using terms such as negligence, hypocrisy, empty rhetoric, political agendas, contempt, to describe the current Surf Coast Shire political environment, where there is little respect and trust now, between the community and the shire.

At last week’s council meeting Sue O’Shanassy on behalf of the community 3228 group, asked, “where are we at with the 2009 Impact Study?”.

The shire’s illogical, nonsensical answer was that it was anticipated that in year four of this council (2020) as the development of Armstrong Creek will have progressed and can be better analysed. Which means nothing will be done for another couple of years, which we all know is too late!

The shire’s latest position is at best negligent and shows no duty of care to the community that they represent.

In 2009, tears were shed (crocodile?) when the Spring Creek development was passed, but council passed a motion from Rose Hodge that there be an impact study carried out on the effects that Armstrong Creek would have on Torquay, as this study would be a key component in planning for the future of the Surf Coast’s culture/economy/infrastructure/environment, so what changed?

An impact statement was critical to planning everybody’s future on the Surf Coast.

It is obvious that developers/state government/Surf Coast Shire are working together, and the shire community will be the one that suffers in the long term as they have carte blanche to develop unhindered by an impact statement, which should be the foundation of any and all further development e.g. there are new sea level predictions that show the Sands golf course and parts of North Torquay are at risk of inundation by 2050.

This year’s Easter traffic/crowds will become our everyday norm. What industry will support Torquay, how many people from Armstrong Creek will use shire beaches, goods and services. The list of questions goes on, and by refusing to even consider what they promised in 2009, is just plain hypocritical, shows the system is broken, and we are being treated with contempt!

So now the policy is, develop as much you can and we will deal with the consequences later when it’s too late.

The Torquay community has an expectation not to be treated like mushrooms and lied to.

Where is the due diligence on behalf of the community in ascertaining and creating a sustainable future for our children.

All we get is empty rhetoric about “sustainable housing, keeping the Torquay lifestyle blah, blah, blah!”

The politics involved from a federal/state/local level has never been more apparent when you read about the hypocrisy of Libby Coker, when she and her Labor council colleagues rejected a pool for Torquay, and backed indoor stadiums, yet she as the federal Labor candidate for Corangamite headed a Labor think tank in Anglesea, into “swimming and water safety” and calls for a “national policy to fund and bolster swimming and water safety”.

So “councillor Libby” says no pool and the other “Libby the Candidate” is spruiking swimming safety, and still no pool just more sports stadiums.

It has become increasingly apparent that the Surf Coast communities must take matters into their own hands, do their own impact study, which might call for a roll back of developments that have already been approved, highlight the shortcomings of the planning/developers processes, and lack of any planning by the Surf Coast Shire.

A meeting has been held to formally create a community group, including the Anglesea residents. United we stand, divided we fall, get ready for a call to arms!

Maurice Cole
Torquay

---

The vagaries of a name change

Dear Editor,

Changes to electoral boundaries are inevitable due to population movements.

However, changing the name of an electorate seems somewhat arbitrary. Why change a good indigenous name like Corangamite to a vague Cox?

The AEC offers a very insipid reason for making the name change based on reverse sexism.

What good reason is there to change the present Aboriginal name of Corangamite? The name comes from the Colijon word koraiyn, meaning bitter or salty (Lake Corangamite).

But looks like political correctness is going to trump everything. Why use Mary Cox? Because she is a female? Ms Cox died in New South Wales so why the rush to use her name?

There are probably many more high achieving men who are more worthy than Cox but get pushed aside because they are male.

Take for example, James Harrison, the local inventor of refrigeration, or local pioneers Lt John Murray who surveyed Geelong, or how about local VC winner James Newland?

But no, it seems the AEC must give it to a woman because she is a she.

Leave the political correctness aside AEC and just retain the present name of Corangamite. It has served this region well so why change it?

Alan Barron
Grovedale

---

Gambling prevention grants available

Dear Editor,

The Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation encourages local organisations to apply for funding of up to $50,000 ex GST for gambling harm prevention projects under our Prevention Grants for Regional and Rural Victoria program.

The program supports collaborative projects that investigate the impact of gambling harm on regional and rural communities, raise awareness of the risks of gambling harm, increase our knowledge of effective prevention practices, and build local capacity to deliver gambling harm prevention programs.

There is a spectrum of gambling harm, from low to severe. Typically, harm involves one or a combination of financial hardship, emotional distress, family conflict and difficulty with work or study, and it can happen much earlier than many people realise.

The Foundation supports initiatives that seek to prevent or reduce gambling harm. And we fund professional services for anyone affected by gambling harm.

Gambling harm is a community issue that requires a community response. We want to support you to develop local initiatives that can enhance the lives of people in your community who struggle with this issue.

For more information, visit responsiblegambling.vic.gov.au/regional. Applications close at 5pm AEST on Thursday May 3.

Louise Glanville
Chief Executive Officer, Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation