Containers at Boat Harbour
Council have annouced what they have described as a "punitive measure" whereby they intend to place 2 shipping containers (one on top of the other, they claim that they have little alternative, firstly to protect the new trees to be planted, but secondly to "send a message" supposedly to those that removed the trees,It seems somewhat strange that if "Joe citizen" wanted to place continers on the side of road near there property we would have to submit a DA, this of course would be rejected on the basis of visual ammenity, to claim that the placement is being done under the sham of "protecting the trees" is insulting, We live in a country whereby our system of law punishs those that are convicted, these basic rights are part of the constitution, here we have a group of so called elected officals that are going to punish a whole community, but they have said they do regret / acknowledge that innocent people will also be effected, perhaps this is the magic pill for the proposed foreshore management plan???? This is a prime example of what is so wrong with this council, its not councils role to deal out "punitive measures" to the community like some naughty child, WAKE UP
This online discussion forum has concluded. You can still browse the site but the discussion area will no longer accept new comments or votes.
balad60 Comment 1 14 Mar 2008, 4:23 PM
Trees along the foreshore are cut down every day so that new buyers can improve their view of the water, or sellers wish to enhance the price of their properties.
I had a foreshore block at Boat Harbour and someone further back drilled and poisoned two large trees IN OUR BLOCK. It was obviouds which one did it because they had just built a new high balcony on their house.
BUT nothing can be done unless you film the tree killers in action.
Council is in a no win position here, but without them we would have a desert along the foreshore
roberthale Comment 1.1 12 Apr 2008, 2:47 PM
Council has no choice to act on behalf of all of us where some won't abide by the rules. At least Pt. Stevo is still saveable.
Corlette ratepayer Comment 2 16 Mar 2008, 12:52 PM
Unfortunately David, you have no idea what you're talking about. If Council does not take responsibility for looking after our environment, who will? Unfortunately the majority of people only think of themselves and have scant regard for their environment. Even some of our Councillors are not averse to a little bit of environmental vandalilsm and with what penalty? The Swan Bay aircraft noise decision shows that Council must sometimes take the role of a parent and make decisions that are in the best interests of the whole community, not a noisy minority.
David Comment 2.1 16 Mar 2008, 9:10 PM
Well Corlette Ratepayer, thanks for well thought out commentary, I have an understanding of the law and the environment, your comment re: "If Council does not take responsibility for looking after our environment, who will?" have you actually read the document (foreshore management plan) or the Tillergery catchment management plan??? guess not, council is not here to meter out punishments such as this, by no means am i supporting the vandal who removed the trees, to the contry, they should be pursued and the full force of the law should be extended, Council cant make these things up as they see fit, have you bothered to go down to Boat Harbor and see for your self just how foolish this council looks? Guess not, whilst I don’t want to embarrass you with your comment RE the swan bay aircraft noise, (council were successfully litigated) do you actually believe that council have got the air craft noise issue under control? and please "council take the role of a parent" please, no parent in there right mind would make this type of call, and lastly please explain how this farce is in the interests of the whole community???? All the residents of the area that i have contacted over this stupidity have been outraged
Well Corlette Ratepayer, thanks for well thought out commentary, I have an understanding of the law and the environment, your comment re: "If Council does not take responsibility for looking after our environment, who will?" have you actually read the document (foreshore management plan) or the Tillergery
more…
Corlette ratepayer Comment 2.1.1 21 Mar 2008, 7:42 PM
You obviously dont have an understanding of the law and the environment or you wouldn't have so many detractors David. The Swan Bay decision indicated that the warnings Council gave the developers of the land in relation to aircraft noise were not sufficient and that the Council should have known better on their behalf than to allow the development to go ahead. It seems that people would rather put their own selfish interests ahead of the environment and I for one have no problems with the action Council has taken in this instance.
David Comment 2.1.1.1 21 Mar 2008, 9:54 PM
Oh so because people a few people have disagreed that means i dont have an understanding, well of course not, it obvious that you have little or no understanding of the facts surounding the aircreft noise issue or the plain and simple fact that councils actions are going unchallenged, so be comfortable with the apathty
admin Comment 2.2 23 Mar 2008, 10:30 PM
This is clearly an issue that is very important to the local community.
Nevertheless, I would ask everyone to note that there are only three rules for using this site, one of which is to respect the views of the other contributors.
Please try to respect the opportunity for constructive debate offered by this space.
all the best, regards
Admin
banksia Comment 3 20 Mar 2008, 8:47 AM
It is absolutely the right and responsibility of PS Council to respond to environmental vandalism in this manner. In most cases, including this one, the amount of damage done is extensive enough that it could not have been done without observation. So if the affected residents are so upset they should dob the responsible party and make them pay the price. You can't have it both ways. There must be a deterrent to this sort of behaviour and in the absence of a party to prosecute this seems the logical alternative.
David Comment 3.1 20 Mar 2008, 12:25 PM
Its the old addage, as long as its not in my back yard, Council are there (supposedly) to serve the comunity it represents, not the other way around, the deterrent is common law, which has nothing to do with Council (and thank goodness it doesnt), as a comparison it would be like punishing an entire suburb for an unsolved crime, these actions need to be investigated as the law dictates and as such those responsible punished as the law determines, not have some self interested group (the council) throw there weight around
banksia Comment 3.1.1 21 Mar 2008, 1:47 PM
Guess what ... it is my back yard! Five years ago I might have agreed with you but now I'm fed up. People continue to rape public lands for their own benefit ... no one ever sees them (not true) so they are not caught, charged or prosecuted. My opinion ... if you witness a crime and don't step forward to stop it or provide evidence to identify the perpetrator(s), then you've condoned it ... and you must bear some guilt as well. Not according to common law you say. Perhaps not, but morally there's no question. I don't mind looking at ugly containers or bunting until the vegetation grows back if that's what it takes to deter this behaviour in future.
Guess what ... it is my back yard! Five years ago I might have agreed with you but now I'm fed up. People continue to rape public lands for their own benefit ... no one ever sees them (not true) so they are not caught, charged or prosecuted. My opinion ... if you witness a crime and don't step forward
more…
David Comment 3.1.1.1 21 Mar 2008, 2:00 PM
I agree that if indeed the act was witnessed then those people should step forward, my point is council are acting like they set the laws, the have flauted there own rules by not submitting a DA (Ive checked)and allowed all the residants effected to comment about this and whilst i understand you my not be concerned about impact the containers have what will they do next?
Pamco Comment 4 21 Mar 2008, 2:15 PM
Sorry but I dont agree with you David..if council did nothing about this we would live in a desert along the foreshore. If the residents are so upset they should report the one who did it...someone always knows who it was so instead of moaning about the containers do the civic duty thing.
David Comment 4.1 21 Mar 2008, 2:22 PM
no need to appologise Pamco, differences of oppinion are simply that, its the actions of the council IE double standards, do you really believe that a couple of containers or some bunting is going to stop this type of vandalism? hasnt worked so far, if any citizen went out and took the law into there own hands we would end up hung, but council can and does as it pleases in this regard
David Comment 5 23 Mar 2008, 8:48 AM
Its very interesting to read in this weeks Port Stephens examiner (March 20), just how many letters to the editor where published expressing disgust and outrage over this incident, also on page 2 of the paper an article (provocative vandalism, knee jerk and eyesore where just some of the many comments used to describe this ludicrous outrageous action by Mike Trigar, I have a had a close look at the the pad that the containers are resting on and with the wet weather coming cant wait to see how these containers will stay in the position there are now placed (it hasnt been engineered in any fashion) but i guess its more important to "punish" us poor residants then building stable structures
Mike time to start looking in the Herald classifieds "positions vacant"
Its very interesting to read in this weeks Port Stephens examiner (March 20), just how many letters to the editor where published expressing disgust and outrage over this incident, also on page 2 of the paper an article (provocative vandalism, knee jerk and eyesore where just some of the many comments
more…
Global Warming Comment 5.1 26 Mar 2008, 1:35 PM
After more than thirty years spent holidaying and living at Boat Harbour, I am amazed how many foreshore trees have been killed by residents in mostly the last fifteen years. Only three years ago locals wrote to the Examiner declaring that firstly trees need to be removed to create a firebreak (when a road and grassed verge existed between houses and the trees)and removal was done without Firebrigade consultation. Secondly it was claimed that it was done to assist people who hold weddings along the foreshore and others who watch whales. Now residents are claiming that people outside of the area could have done it. Twenty plus trees (some not small) don't get cut down without someone seeing or reporting something. One can only assume that the 'outsider vandals' did it to assist residents. We have lost hundreds of trees along the waterfront in Kinsgley Dve; beautiful mature Banksias near the walkway from the private development on Boat Harbour Beach and in front of the shop; and many Wattles and Banksias at both ends of Boat Harbour Beach. Surely the perpetrators don't expect that the community doesn't care or accepts their banal excuses. If one desires a view so much then buy in a different location and don't vandalize what belongs to the whole community and put our environment and tourism at risk!
After more than thirty years spent holidaying and living at Boat Harbour, I am amazed how many foreshore trees have been killed by residents in mostly the last fifteen years. Only three years ago locals wrote to the Examiner declaring that firstly trees need to be removed to create a firebreak (when
more…
David Comment 5.1.1 27 Mar 2008, 6:07 PM
I dont have any sympathy for the people that have done this, dont support the wanten destruction of trees any where at all, I have heard some of the lame excuses over the years given by people for the removal and agree that these types of excuses are a joke, My issue is councils attitude and there actions, your comment relating to legislative powers if dead wrong, they dont, they MUST abide by the development process and indeed common law
margw Comment 6 23 Mar 2008, 11:16 AM
Not sure why this topic has ended up in discussion about the foreshore management plan which is for around the shores of Port Stephens. I don't agree with trees being cut down to improve views and the Council is caught between the wrong doings of one citizen and the rest of the innocents. However, we did notice an absolutely huge sign in Mossman Bay recently and this would make the shipping containers fade into insignificance! At least the containers would be cheaper!!!
David Comment 6.1 23 Mar 2008, 9:29 PM
Well boat harbour and surounding areas are effected by the foreshore management plan as proposed, also its indicative of councils flagerent disregard for process and lastly its an open forum
Global Warming Comment 7 26 Mar 2008, 9:19 PM
As I said in my reply to David, there has been hundreds of trees removed from public land in Boat Harbour, the majority in the last fifteen years. If safety was a concern of residents with the containers on site, why is it that there appears to have been little public concern for safety with the actual process of felling the trees (repeatedly done in several locations over the years); dangerous building sites; and youths roaming the streets setting signs and letterboxes alight in the early hours of the morning. It appears the only safety concern is one that interferes with a view. One section of foreshore which has been clear felled over a number of years is a very convenient carpark for nearby residents. Residents writing to the Examiner three years ago offered laughable justifications for illegal clearing. That they identify themselves to attempt to justify criminal actions shows just how far people will go by offering support for felling publicly. I understand that the council does have legislative powers to install the containers to deter further criminal activity. It is their role to do so as the vandalism escalates.
As I said in my reply to David, there has been hundreds of trees removed from public land in Boat Harbour, the majority in the last fifteen years. If safety was a concern of residents with the containers on site, why is it that there appears to have been little public concern for safety with the actual
more…