Recently the Redland City Bulletin published a story and an editorial concerning the Redland Investment Corporation’s (RIC) sale of the Woolies carpark.
I’d like to provide some disturbing information from correspondence received late last year, from the Council’s General Manager, Community and Customer Services Dept. and from the Acting Dept. Coordinator of that department, with regard to another public car park sale.
The information received came from my enquiries regarding the sale to LJ Hooker of the shady and much used, public car park at 2-16 Wynyard St. in Cleveland. The car park is the one closest to Coles and the Suncorp Bank.
Basically the response from Council indicated that the parking lot was transferred to RIC in order to generate money and stimulate a rejuvenation of the Cleveland CBD.
No answer was supplied as to why this busy car park was chosen to be sold but, as seems a stock response with the increasing loss of parking in Cleveland, it was suggested that replacement car parking would be provided at the Performing Arts Centre (RPAC) at the other end of town.
Of greatest concern was the response as to the sales process. I asked if the land was made available for public sale and how it was marketed.
Redland Investment Corporation (RIC) questions
I quote “the potential sale of the property was discussed with more than 10 parties in 2015-16. Three of the 10 parties who were approached then presented offers for the land parcel.” And furthermore “the sales process was in line with laws and regulations governing the Redland Investment Corporation’s (RIC) company operations, and it acted in the best financial interest of the Council and the local community.”
Worryingly, in response to my query as to why ratepayers were not given a chance to comment on the sale of such an important piece of public land, the answer was “that there is no obligation to carry out public consultation prior to the sale of land.”
There may be no legal obligation, but one would think a transparent and open Council would do so in every instance.
How can public land be not offered for public sale in order to ensure the best possible return for the community?
The fact that RIC only approached a few, selected “parties” seems not only a dubious sales scheme but one which should loudly sound propriety alarm bells throughout the city.
Even though the RIC apparently met the “laws and regulations governing the RIC” it leaves a decidedly bad smell in the air.
Dr. Brian Whitelaw
Cleveland
Published by Redlands2030 – 28 April 2018
This letter was also published by the Redland City Bulletin, on 25 April 2018
Please note: Offensive or off-topic comments will be deleted. If offended by any published comment please email thereporter@redlands2030.net
7 Comments
I have to agree that there should have been a more open consultation with rate payers regardless of the legal necessity or the lack of it. It’s bad enough that the library car park is now used for eateries so we have lost parking there ( though most of that parking was taken up by council vehicles making it hard for the elderly to park near the library). The Wynyard Street land package houses a very busy car parking area and should have been retained by council for the use of residents. To say that more parking would be available at the Cultural Centre is laughable as it’s at the far end of Middle Street making it totally unsuitable for the elderly or infirm to use. Yet again the Council is not considering the ratepayers and only themselves.
Wynyard street car park has been a well used space but the deal smells who made the decision on which interested parties should be offered the deal to purchase even more interesting did the rest of the large car park go to tender or public advertising. The owner of Pacific Motel has become the owner but I heard on the grapevine that Council is now realising that they have a short fall in car parking so RIC was suggesting they buy some car parking off the new owner of the car park which would cost the ratepayers at least $25,000 per car park
The Councillors seem to have forgotten that they were elected to oversee the business of the Council. Councillors are making the decision to delegate the way Council does its business and then hide behind the decisions of RIC.
It is a poor way to do business.Not one Councillor has stepped up to ask questions about RIC!
We clearly don’t need elected Councillors!
Re Redland Investment (council’s in-house) Corp’s dodgy deals where locals have no say wherever decisions are made to build town houses, etc. In latest Mayoral Message, Div 7’s Cr Murray Elliott in his news to we, the people, who reside in area of Capalaba where I live between Ingham St TAFE fence through to 19 Crotona Rd units with cross streets between Finucane & Crotona Rds on Coolnwynpin Creek, had this to say and I quote:
“Townhouses (13) 9-11 Oaklands St Alexandra Hills are nearing completion with local tradies getting much work on the project..that last year Council decided to provide a quality townhouse project, with potential to deliver quality homes for the Alex Hills community located near shops, schools and public transport within walking distance “.
Were Oakland St residents notified? An Oaklands St resident on seeing project was more extensive than planned, was informed “didn’t you see amendments on the web?”
Site is on cnr across from shops, former childcare centre, re-located end of Woolworth’s parking lot next to a petrol station.
Obviously, Cr Elliott had ratepayers money to spend on softening the blow of seeing 13 box-like town houses in their street about to appear, to buy a ‘ride on lawn mower’ for Oaklands St community garden I was informed had a lot of grass to mow….and that was the only purchase ever made by councillor in the 39 years of living on Oaklands Street.
Other locals told of an aged care home considered for the site, much preferred, as elderly don’t throw wild parties…& certainly would not be driving having long since given up their licenses. In my view, the site would have been perfect for an aged care home…but then, in Redland City, Council’s Development Investment Corp. decide for we, the people of Redlands.
Re Cr Elliott’s Park upgrades providing fun family spaces, I have this to say as to his comments and I quote: “work in park at Capalaba’s Chantelle Crt plus others, have now been completed and equipment has been fully renewed and already proving a hit with local families”.
This is incorrect as regards Chantelle Crt where neighbour’s 3-yr old child was injured using equipment never checked for safety, (lovely photos & safe, I gave Cr Elliott at his listening post outside Woolies were never used)…seems we got what no other councillors wanted for their parks, like the tunnel slide that had a protrusion encircling the slide near exit. Child told her father she hit something. Result was mother taking days off work for x-rays etc. having fractured small toe. Even adults can’t figure out a board game, + a low table? One photo I handed Cr Elliott was perfect for toddlers but we couldn’t have it…saw it at Beth Boyd Park. The only notable piece is the ‘spider’ climbing device & climbing cube stack now in full sun in a.m.
Only other park for the area is at end of Sagamore St at Crotona Rd that had more equipment in it during a previous administration. Other parks have barbeques, we don’t, and all Cr Elliott agreed to for family fun in the parks, are 2 back to back slides and swings in this park.
Capalaba should ASAP be eliminated from Cr Elliott’s areas of responsibility, as it seems he has too many other projects to pay attention to. Received call last evening, in response to my complaint on the unsafe slide, that it was now safe as problem has been fixed. Why is an ailing aged pensioner, receiving this news? Why isn’t our $100,000+ per year public servant paid to look after our needs being called? We deserve better representation in this particular area of Capalaba.
I honestly cannot understand why Redland City Council and all it’s dubious Committees have not been included in the ACCC investigations into Local Councils where Logan, Moreton Bay, Gold Coast and other surrounding councils are currently being found wanting. The mind boggles!
I also agree, their methods of tendering for works and lands sales need careful scrutiny.
I am continually disappointed by their inability to deliver projects on time or in a timely manner with their trotting out the same responses they’ve used previously. Delays due to budgetary concerns when residents were previously assured the money was set aside, already in the budget, foreshore redevelopment begun and then done in parts years apart.
Preferred suppliers call for tenders when in fact they did not respond to the tenders called a year earlier, their having to be directed to local trades, services and businesses that could and would tender but were never included.
Descisions made, reversed, reinstated, delayed, works carried out half completed.
These examples only relate to a small island
Gee, there is nothing new under the sun. The current RCC is certainly consistent with their lack of ethical standards especially when it comes to public land. It would be nice to see more community consultation from the people we pay to manage the area.