17 November 2015
Today, one of the most controversial proposals of the past three years comes before council. It is the vote on the approvals necessary for the Shoreline development.
Much has been made by the developer of the benefits this development will bring to its new residents. Claims have been made by its proponents about the positives for existing Redlands residents.
The facts indicate that this development is not in response to the needs of ratepayers of Redland City. Nor, it would seem, will there be a net benefit to residents given the increasing volumes of traffic it will bring, and the major investment in infrastructure needed to connect this outlying development into the urban footprint.
This development is being driven by the needs of its developers.
Given the controversial nature of this decision, and its expected impact on ratepayers, perhaps councillors should avail themselves of some revision.
- Responsibilities of councillors (Local Government Act 2009)
- Redlands 2030 Community Plan (in its entirety, not some carefully chosen aspects)
- The promise they made when they took office.
Perhaps they should do, as I’m sure some do on a regular basis, and consult their consciences on whether a decision is technically sound, morally right or both.
Should the Shoreline development proceed, I’ll be waiting with interest to hear the justification each of our councillors, especially our Mayor, and my own representative Councillor Hardman, has for approving it.
For the record, I am not anti-development, just in favour of professional governance, and good outcomes for the people of the Redlands.
19 November 2015
On Tuesday evening, I wrote to the editor of Redlands 2030, with a copy to the Mayor, and each councillor.
The Shoreline decision has now been passed 6-5.
In my opinion, as a ratepayer of Redland City, the councillors who voted in favour of the Shoreline development yesterday have failed in their duty.
In committing to this project on our behalf, they have done so with no idea of whether it’s good for the ratepayers or not. They cannot know, because significant risks lurk in the unknowns. Major items not costed. Major risks not quantified and thus no contingencies identified for them.
This is the height of unprofessional governance.
These unknowns seem to be of little concern to them. The pain from unmanaged risks will most likely be felt in the years ahead when the blame for mounting costs can be deflected onto the then current council.
While the many in the community remains concerned about the Council’s behaviour, a small number of developers now have much to be happy about.