The New Year starts with concerns about development near Victoria Point, the Redlands2030 petition to the Council to withdraw its support for the Toondah PDA and another ratepayer very concerned about the operations of the Queensland Crime and Corruption Commission.
Another reader’s perspective challenges some fundamentals about the existence of Redland City Council and is critical of the lack of real “city” scale amenities.
The voices of Redlanders are always welcome on the pages of Redlands2030. Send your letters to email@example.com
Redlands has to get stronger and stop taking spoons to a knife party. The Thornlands residential development at 399-413 Boundary Road Thornlands is a cruel stroke of the Council razor gang.
This one has me shaking me in my boots because 2 months ago we nearly bought a beautiful property on 1.5 acres in Luke St which completely focused on a large dam full of wildlife. The master bedroom, pool, lounge, kitchen and outdoor entertaining had a co-existence with the birdlife. Our Council who we put in to protect our lifestyle and environment voted yesterday to allow it to be filled for units.
I went to Council through the due diligence process and never saw that coming. We reluctantly walked away because I couldn’t put up with the construction noise for 3 years. The development was across the hill and they had scrapped the trees away which we could see through the remaining trees, which will all now be removed.
The thought that the development would go to the fence line would be insane. Council told me the dam was recommended environmental preservation area.
There were large mounds of dirt piled near the duck pond and we assumed for tree planting, protecting the bird life from the development. Now it looks like it was dumped because the developer knew they were going to be allowed to fill the large dam. How stupid of us to think they cared. They will never stop.
Thank you for organising the Stop Toondah petition. I only found out about it just before the closing date but I was able to get 17 signatures at short notice. I think it could have got many more signatures if we had more time.
I am surprised that so many of my friends are still of the view that the PDA is about fixing up the port facilities. They have no idea that the development will extend up to the Grandview and well out to sea. I think that is the fault of the original consultation which gave the impression it was all about the harbour facilities. I think the development is really all about the units and making money and not about the port at all.
I do hope the Councillors treat the petition seriously and consider their position is primarily about the public interest. Also, with so much secrecy surrounding the Toondah PDA I think its time to call a halt and start again.
Redlands ratepayers and the Toondah project
Many ratepayers indicate their strong objection to the development decisions of the Redland City Council.
Organisations like the Koala Group, C.A.R.P., Redland2030 anti Toondah also express opposition, especially decisions that destroy habitat and decimate endangered koalas.
Yet this Council takes no notice and pursues development at ratepayers’ expense.
Once elected Councillors seem to forget their election promises and their obligation to those who elected them.
Can anyone say this Council gives ratepayers the consideration their exhorbitant rates deserve? We should sack the lot, pay our rates direct to the developers and save the $2 million the council costs each year.
Tour Redlands facilities and see how little improvement has occurred in the last 5 years. Redlands still lacks a prestige park with lawns and flower gardens.
Even Ipswich and Logan have wonderful water parks like South Bank. Cleveland and Wellington Point lack comparison with Redcliffe foreshores. Cleveland playgrounds are few, without car parking, shelters and seating. Bay Islands are desperate for roads etc.
Yet Redlands charge the highest rates in all South East Queensland (a Brisbane newspaper comparison).
Council approves the proliferation of skinny houses on small lots without consideration to lifestyle. Where there is nowhere for a child to play, noise is a problem and nowhere for a garden or a tree.
Houses so close you can sit on the loo and baste your neighbours roast in the oven. What will happen if one catches fire?
We even see approvals for buildings outside Councils own building code with destruction of more koala trees against most ratepayers objections.
Now the monstrous proposal for Toondah Harbour with 3,600 units built over lovely bay waters. Buildings to 10 stories high obscuring views of the bay and islands. Where dredging of millions of tons of acid sulphate contaminated soil could destroy coral reefs, fish habitats, seagrass beds and the destruction of environmentally protected mangrove trees.
A development that appears to have been conceived in secret with a Council signed confidentiality agreement. Secret agreements immediately suggest there is something wrong. Why would the Council deny ratepayers information on a project that will have a massive effect on all ratepayers? Firstly, some 4,000 motor vehicles will exit this site into narrow streets with absolutely no parking available in Cleveland’s CBD.
Secondly, Mayor Williams said Toondah would be without cost to ratepayers. However, a previous Redland mayor said ratepayers contributed up to 60% of a developers infrastructure costs. So how many millions of ratepayer dollars will be diverted from ratepayer needs to satisfy a developers greed and a Council’s ego?
The CCC is a toothless tiger and internally very political.
If you check their web site you will see that their definition of corruption means that most complaints do not fit and are dismissed. It’s a fatal flaw in the system. Put simply, if you can’t prove a real material benefit was gained then they won’t even look at the matter so things like a corruption of the system do not meet the test.
This means most of the nefarious characters are safe. Here (below) is the definition that they rely on and read very carefully careful because it’s very carefully worded to allow the CCC to reject most complaints.
Under section 15 of the Crime and Corruption Act 2001 corrupt conduct means conduct of a person, regardless of whether the person holds or held an appointment, that –
(a) adversely affects, or could adversely affect, directly or indirectly, the performance of functions or the exercise of powers of –
(i) a unit of public administration; or
(ii) a person holding an appointment; and(b) results, or could result, directly or indirectly, in the performance of functions or the exercise of powers mentioned in paragraph (a) in a way that –
(i) is not honest or is not impartial; or
(ii) involves a breach of the trust placed in a person holding an appointment either knowingly or recklessly; or
(iii) involves a misuse of information or material acquired in or in connection with the performance of functions or the exercise of powers of a person holding an appointment; and
(c) is engaged in for the purpose of providing a benefit to the person or another person or causing a detriment to another person; and
(d) would, if proved, be –
(i) a criminal offence; or
(ii) a disciplinary breach providing reasonable grounds for terminating the person’s services, if the person is or were the holder of an appointment.