Make Toondah an election issue in spite of obfuscation by ALP & LNP

If the content of this week’s letters anything to go by, then the major parties are out of step with community and the issues of concern.

This week letter writers make and iterate key points and concerns about the mega Toondah development. Yet candidates for both the the ALP and the LNP seem to want Toondah to be an election issue. How smart is that?

Is it that both parties want the the biggest development in the history of Redland City to be consigned to a footnote in the upcoming election. More views and opinions are anticipated over the coming weeks. Personal narratives of community interactions with all candidates about Toondah are welcomed.

---

If Toondah is a great deal…why are ratepayers kept in the dark?

The proposal put forward by Walker corporation has changed a number of times since 2014. So what exactly did Council approve in 2014? How could the Council not have a view on subsequent proposals? But if there was a view what was it? Or, more to the point, why is it a secret?

What were the conditions of the agreement? Was Walker Corporation given the freedom to change the proposal as it saw fit? The agreement (between Walkers, Council and the State government) seems to be highly skewed in favour of the Walker Corporation and it excludes Redlands’ ratepayers.

What I find particularly disturbing in this whole affair is that Council, by supporting Walker’s initial proposal, has since been effectively stopped from representing the ratepayers’ of Redlands best interests. If RCC is up for $90 million in infrastructure upgrades it would have been cheaper to upgrade the port facilities and not get involved with Walker Corporation’s proposal. Then on top of that, there are the social and environmental costs of the development on the local community and the economic impacts on the CBD of Cleveland and the traders of Raby Bay.

Surely Toondah PDA is an example of very poor planning and shows the weakness of the so-called fast track PDA mechanism. I thought another advance of the PDA approach was to circumvent public consultation and so fast track development. Surely, the idea of the PDA was not to fleece the ratepayer???

How can the PDA mechanism be in the public interest?  On this issue I question the constitutionality of the legislation that enabled the PDA in the first place. How did it demonstrate it served the public interest. I think the use of PDA tool at Toondah Harbour would be inconsistent with the government’s responsibility to protect its constituents?

How would it be if the Queensland Government asked RCC ratepayers to pay $90 million to the government so it could use that to give other people in Qld a financial benefit? How does that change when we introduce a third party into the system? Ratepayers will be slugged about $90 million in infrastructure to meet Walker Corporations needs so it can build 3600 units that benefit Walker Corporation. What a deal, did Council really fall for that?

On top of that, the scale of the development seriously detracts from social, heritage and environmental structure and amenities available to Redlands ratepayers.

So, why is the state government is giving Walker Corporation land worth $300-400 million without any public consultation? What happens to the former CSIRO site that Council owns?

Overall, the whole deal is heavily skewed toward Walker’s and Council seems to have bound itself into the deal of the century (for benefit of the Walker Corporation).

KH

Vistoria Point

---

Toondah: disappointment with the ALP’s Oodgeroo candidate

To The Editor

I write to voice my disappointment at the lack of awareness of the Labor party candidate for Oodgeroo in the upcoming election about the Toondah Harbour fiasco.  In a short exchange recently, Irene Henley (Labor) claimed no knowledge of the request by Trad and Miles to the Federal Government (https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/feb/01/queensland-pushed-for-wetlands-boundary-change-before-development-letters-suggest) to expunge a section of Toondah Harbour from the RAMSAR wetlands agreement.  

Ms Henley went on to assume (incorrectly) that my vote would be for Mark Robinson (Liberal National) as she correctly indicated that the LNP will also support the Walker Corporation proposal.  It is beyond belief that neither Labor nor LNP wish to take advantage of the upcoming election forum arranged by Redlands 2030 to defend their policies.

I suspect they want the Walker Corporation development to be a non-issue and amazingly, appear to support each other!  So, is Labor too embarrassed to answer questions on their obvious and unrelenting hypocrisy on this issue and the LNP arrogant enough to believe they will win anyway?

Ms Henley also suggested that it was “too late” for the Queensland Government to stop the process.  Again, her lack of knowledge of government process and contract law was only exceeded by her lack of enthusiasm to protect Moreton Bay and the living environment for both current and more importantly future citizens of the Oodgeroo electorate.

I agree that the longer the process is allowed to continue, the greater the potential retribution to Walker Corporation.  However, if she (ms Henley) truly believes the situation originally described by Ms Trad (Queensland Parliament. Record of Proceedings, November 28 2012) as: “…nothing more than the LNP making a power grab to buy up land to develop it at its will and to give it away to its developer mates”, then this should sharpen her focus to resolve the matter urgently.  Her lack of enthusiasm was further reflected in the deflection to the Federal Government and the yet to be completed EIS process as a weak relinquishment of responsibility.

I am pleased that Claire Richardson (Independent) is prepared to openly debate issues relevant to Oodgeroo citizens and to provide an option for informed policy on the Toondah Harbour development.

Dr Nev Schefe
Cleveland

---

Stop Toondah: Maintain the Rage

My concern about the Toondah PDA development goes against the grain because I usually criticise the erstwhile “greenies” but the fight to stop the Toondah debacle deserves the support of all. It is a project being foisted upon our community by those who should know better!

I feel that those who are pushing for this project have realised that there is a large proportion of our community who are against it. Their strategy now is that by lying low for a while, they hope that people may lose interest in continuing to maintain their rage. They will then begin again with more subtle approaches to make things happen without raising too much noise. If they can get to the point of having all the approvals in place then it will be full steam ahead to make Toondah a reality. 

If this is the strategy of Walker and co. then it would seem that, as a community, we have to maintain the rage and use all the ammunition we can muster to save our home and our environs. This includes all the objections that many people have already been making about the project and on this aspect, I iterate some of these issues the inappropriate high rise apartments, a total of 3600 units, the loss of community greenspace, loss of foreshore access at GJ Walter Park, destruction of Ramsar protected wetlands, the intrusion of a large marina (for wealthy boat owners), commercial competition against the Cleveland CBD, traffic congestion, and so on!

I agree that issues around the effects of construction traffic only adds to the list of negatives. 

It would be an interesting exercise to have a public debate where the positive and negatives were presented clearly in an appropriate forum for all the community to hear. We could then have the community vote on the outcome? I realise this will never happen but the idea may bring a focus on the truth about how this project will affect our community in a most undesirable way.

BP

Cleveland

---

More Letters To Redlands2030

Toondah Q&A process questioned in letters

Letter To The Editor Re Walker Corporation’s Online Information Session About The Toondah PDA

Koalas, land clearing and 3,600 apartments

Toondah, Redlands’ rates and failed planning

Redlands2030 18 September 2020

Any election material in this article is authorised by Steve MacDonald of 104 Channel Street Cleveland.