Land Reclassifications

We have lots of people moving to the area so I dont get why we are selling off open space - we need more not less. These areas can be improved with money from developers.

I dont know all the parcels being sold but it seems to me there mst be bette ways to raise money than selling land. Council can use developer contributions and riases a lot in rates - it should manage budgets more effectively.

What a crazy policy this is!!! To sell off an apprciating assett to build a deprciating one is beyond belief at best - and down right commonsence at worst!

Councilor Penny George is incorrect when she commented that we are simply replacing one asset for another. This is true however one will always be growing in value while the other will be falling! All of this to fund a leisure centre that the community may not even want - or use!!! The ratepayers of this shire should have a say in how $17mil is being spent!

The argument that the question was already asked and answered is incorrect to the extreme! This is for the following reasons:

1. When I voted for a change in council I did it on a range of issues, not just one!

2. I was not informed at the time of voting that this was an unquestionable conformation of my support for a leisure centre no matter what the cost!

3. At the time of the last election the cost of the centre was quoted at approx. $7mil!

4. We were not told that with our vote we were voting to sell off numerous parks and other recreational facilities!

5. We were not told at time of voting that the shires infrastructure was in a financial and maintenace mess!

6. We were not told that rates would be lifted by up to 80% higher then current levels.

7. We were told that other swimming centres would not be closed.

8. We have not seen any research into a public/private partnership to develop the current Bowral swimming centre into a combination unit development/ leisure centre!

9. We still do not have a fixed price contract to stop the costs blowing out to in excess of $25mil!

10. We did not know at time of voting last election that the council would lose somehwere near $2.5mil on investment funds.

11. We were told that the leisure centre would be a truly all encompasing facility not just a glorified water polo stadium!

12. The most imoportant point is that now the council has all the facts, as indicated above, why wont they give the community a say in wether or not as ratepayers they are willing to spend that much capital on a facility like this??

If the community votes for it, then I am happy to get behind it also, but let the ratepayers decide!!

The only possible reason for not wanting to do this is that they are afraid of the answer!!

I understand where they are coming from in regard to Theo's offer to do a survey, which I also agree may not give the correct indication.

My suggestion is to put a referendum to the ratepayers at next September council elections. It can be a seperate question with a seperate voting form. The question does not have to be complex.

Do you want a leisure centre - as put forward in the current plans and with the current budget of $16.75mil???

If the answer is yes, all systems go! if the answer is NO then dont proceed!

This is a wild suggestion I know - I think they call it DEMOCRACY!!!!

I strongly agree with Nick Cleary.

The community of the Wingecarribee is NOT calling for a centralised "Leisure Centre". And we certainly are not in favour of selling off our public parks to pay for it.

In the case of Robertson, the blocks in question were given to the Council, as a public facility - to form part of the Park. Now the proposal is to STEAL that public land.

It is an outrage, which should be stopped. Councillors who support this deal ought hang their heads in shame.

I think its good to see council managing their assets actively - it costs cash to manage land.. not sure if a leisure centre is the thing but that is why we elect council to make these decisions

There are far more urgent and necessary issues in this shire that need to be addressed before money is literally throw down the river. Some repairs to footpaths would be good and more built around the shire that we can all use all the time would be a good start. If this Council became more proactive rather then reactive the infrastructure would not be in the mess its in. Last election I certainly did not vote for a leisure centre and nor did any one that you talk to at the moment. This will be far from an "assett", try a very expensive liability. If the land is to be sold the money should be put back into the respectice towns and villages that it comes from. Not there solely for Bowral. I also have to wonder if anyone has done any homework on how the Council came by these lots of public land and if in fact they can legally sell them!

My question is. what was the criteria used to determine that a Park was surplus? Wa sit a decision of an employeeof council or were guidelines give by Councillors to the staff.

Did the Councillors seek residents /ratepayers views before they voted to sell off the parks./ If they did, when was it and it they have not , why not.

The councillos are there to represent us and should seek our views and not leave it till the last minute.. .

n

If these parcels of land are to be sold then there should be an open and frank debate on how best to spend the windfall. The time for this debate is now before the land is sold, not after. The scope and cost of the leisure centre has changed from that previously advised by Council. As such, Council do not have a clear mandate to proceed with the completion of the leisure centre. It is time for Council to open up a debate on the leisure centre. I am concerned that the money being budgeted for the centre would fix a lot of infrastructure problems which Council are continuing to complain about and raising rates to pay for. Lets get the priorities right!

Whilst not being against a leisure centre, I am against the selling of parkland to subsidise the few that can actually be in a position to use the proposed centre at Edridge Park

I live by, and use Thwaites Park at Moss Vale like many others,and to loose such a recreation area would limit the availabilty of local children a safe place to play,and restrict older residents from exercise, that all experts in health are advocating.Never in my time here, has there being more a contentious issue.With more people being aware now of the consequences of such radical plans by our council,let us hope that our councilors will be prepared to accept that a lot of peoples opinions have now changed.The whole issue has become personal and politcal in the eyes of many,and does undermine the good work done generally by our council.

Council has its priorities all wrong. The Robertson parkland designated for rezoning and sale is in a residential street in the heart of Robertson village that is not sealed and is full of potholes, one block from Hoddle street. This is not rural back blocks, but medium density residential. In 2008, fixing this and similar third world problems is surely more important than providing a heated indoor swimming pool for a few in a cold climate region at vast expense and with severe carbon consequenses to the environment, considering:

a. Council, through greedy and foolish investment policies has just lost millions

b Council is always crying poor because people won't voluntarily contribute more rates

c. Governments at all levels should be reducing demand for services to keep inflation and interest rates in check.

I note that council has not included these blocks in the parkland mowed under the current mowing contract, presumably to present a fait accompli, in proving that they are not used even passively, when they are knee high in weeds.

Do not sell Roberson parkland to build an expensive uneconomic luxury facility to be used by a few in Bowral!

Removed by moderator. Comment was deemed offensive, inappropriate or spam.

A further comment penned after my second mug of tea this Friday morning.

If you wish to comment, criticise, compliment council on the issue, then PLEASE consider the concluding comments in my earlier posting.

I object the overarching issue, which of course means each parcel of land / asset that is currently the subject matter of the public hearings and the manner in which process is being followed, but out of order. Given my justified mistrust of any 'authority', the reason can only be to mislead and entrap people.

Remember that the ways bureaucratic minds work is different to normal people. Here is how it works:

At the first meeting when the convenor was outlining the process, for discussion - essentially it is this:

a) You register on entry and tick the boxes that are of concern to you, and if you would like to comment.

b) Each asset is then outlined then those who registered to comment are invited to say their two bobs worth.

c) That is fine if you wish to only comment on one or so assets that are of concern / familiar to you, but becomes on second thought more sinister.

d) If you have concerns about the overall issue, then no opportunity is available for you to comment at these hearings.

The ONLY way you can object to the overall issue is to state that objection at EACH asset as it arises - or provide a written submission.

Remember now that the business plan or a summary of it is not available - yet the process rolls along and worse, written submission close today (Friday 08 of Feb) but the public hearings finish on 20 Feb.

At first glance the process of public consultation apears ot be fair, but it is far from being fair and is not a logical process.

A major issue has been bypassed, and based on the assumption that all ratepayers AGREE with the blank chequebook the Council is waving around for the enclosed swimming centre. That is why they are discussing the details, not the core principle.

The next step is to take this to Sartor (whom of course we all trust) - he waves his magic wand over it and presto - we are by our inability to resist, then committed to the decisions of a few.

Governments are out of control everywhere, and if you cast your eyes back a few years to the Sara Murray era, you will see that ALL ratepayers in NSW were committed to the NSW Local Government Association's letter that was sent to the President of USA, our PM, Koffi Anan, Sadam Hussein and a host of others, where they (meaning YOU - regardless of what you thought) objected to Australia's involvement in Iraq. They - local government egos - were so bloodywell inflated and self important that they meddles in foreign affairs.

You can now see why they don't want people to have guns!

ALL readers here NEED to NOW get out there and get people off their arses by making them aware of how they are being screwed.

Peter Cunningham

Dear Wingecarribee residents,

Council hosted a resident's meeting in the School of Arts at Robertson last night (Thursday 6/2/2008). The meeting was not sufficiently well attended, but all Roberston residents that spoke were against the plan. One lone voice from Yerinbool was keen on selling Robertson parkland! It was not till the meeting was underway that the agenda really became clear to me. Council are just going through the statutory motions to clear the way for what is a done deal.

The ground has been well prepared to sell off critical corner blocks in Hampden Park, Robertson. As well as being the "green heart" of the Southern Highlands, Robertson is also the weed capital. With its rich volcanic soil and high rainfall it can grow knee high weeds in a few weeks. By Council selectively not mowing any desired section of the park, it is possible to ensure that that part is not used by most people. Thus council can create "inadequately used surplus land" at will. The case for low usage can be made even stronger by Council doing nothing to upgrade the access road from unsealed potholes to the same standard as the rest of the inner village.

However just any old park section will not do. It must be a nice corner block with good potential for resale value, the best views of the park and surrounds, and must set a pattern so that adjoining blocks can be sold when council has another project to fund.

I think the same process and careful planning could see a corner of Corbett Gardens hived off as well.

This is the thin edge of the wedge. Once council has a precedent for selling parcels of park, it will continue to do so unfettered. Do not let it happen.

A clarification - My comment was removed NOT because it was offensive, inappropriate or spam. The moderator sent me a note saying that it was a duplicate. It was just that, but WHY?

When a more appropriate thread surfaced, I copy pasted that posting to the new thread. Moderator deemed it duplication, potential spam and contacted me.

It is GOOD to see some control over comment. I have no grief with the decision, but would have preferred a non standard entry. It implies I have been other than civil, and that I hope is wrong.

Anyway - compliments to the site, its structure and management. It is the best electronic sidewalk I have ever trodden.

Peter Cunningham

I want to complain and change the cut of by coucil for email submissions (this was done ellectronically to me)...

it would be better if we could say something after hearing what issues people have reaised at the public hearings...

can bangthetable have a spell checker and hwo runs this web...

can and will parks be sold below market value

next meetings

18 Feb 2008 - Bundanoon - Belinda Barnett (Ben Nevis Circuit & Broughton Street)

19 Feb 2008 - Mittagong - Belinda Barnett (Rainbow Road, Rotary Park, Iron Mines Oval & Old Hume Highway Berrima)

20 Feb 2008 - Colo Vale - Belinda Barnett (Waratah Park, Government Road/Drapers Road, Wilson Drive & Hill Top Memorial Hall) more

I want my strongest objection recorded for prosperity against the proposed re-classification of public lands to operational (for the purpose of sale).

I use my democratic right to object to this proposal in full voice.

It is not my intention to defame any individual.

As a resident of Moss Vale for 40 years, I appreciate the benefits of the public lands of Moss Vale and the entire Wingecarribee Shire.

I do not have specialist knowledge of the relevant local government legislature.

I object strongly to the Wingecarribee Shire Council (WSC - local council) hiring specialists at great public expense to give clever and creative interpretation to re-classifying and selling of public lands.

I find such processes lack transparency and that local electors and the community will be cheated.

If the WSC can not afford a costly $11 Million white elephant Leisure Centre, then do not proceed with the project.

I understand the Leisure Centre is little more than a covered 50 metre swimming pool - pathetic.

The viability of the Leisure Centre is also questionable and dubious.

"minimum population of 70 000 people is required to meet operational costs"

- expert

"coffee shop sales to help meet Leisure Centre costs" - expert

What a clutch at straws.

If current WSC councillors who initiated the Leisure Centre project are not prepared to stand for Local Government Area (LGA) elections in 2008 in order to continue to lead the project - then do not proceed with the Leisure Centre project.

If current WSC councillors who initiated the Leisure Centre project are not prepared to stand for LGA elections in 2008 or prepared to lead the Leisure Centre project or the heavy lifting of fund raising - then do not proceed with the Leisure Centre.

Do not bother to set up a mess for others to clean up.

I can remember when real men led such community projects.

The Moss Vale Swimming Centre project of the 1960's was raised by funding predominately generated by the community and local industry.

I understand Bundanoon Community raised the Bundanoon Pool in a similar exercise.

My observation is that the Leisure Centre does not have the leadership prepared to make such a commitment.

No funds - no project - not our parks!

Public lands were not re-classified to operational (for the purpose of sale) in the 1960's to build Moss Vale Swimming Centre.

If managing the local pools and the local parks is now so costly and so reliant on LGA experts - how on earth can we proceed with the $11 Million white elephant Leisure Centre?

The public lands under review for the re-classification to operational are our heritage and our children's heritage.

If the Leisure Centre can not excite enough interest to perpetuate it's own benefactors, industrial patrons, supporters and ardent workers - then review the concept. Do not just sell public lands.

I understand Local Landcare groups are prepared to assist with the maintenance and upkeep of park lands.

Similar recommendations were previously made at Moss Vale Parks and Gardens meetings.

It is also plausible to invite indigenous communities to maintain parks - particularly in these post "sorry" times.

Many appropriate and significant NSW State and Federal Government grants go without application from the WSC. Due to indifference or possible sloth - get on the ball.

In conclusion, I am strongly opposed to the re-classification of public lands to operational (for the purpose of sale) by the WSC.

I want my submission to be recorded as my opposition to this proposal.

If the $11 Million Leisure Centre is a legitimate project - let it be led by it's own support team prepared to make the commitment to building the project and raising their own funds.

The Leisure Centre is not the fully responsibility of the WSC.

If local pools and parks are now purely reviewed in terms of costs - give the process to people such as Landcare and the indigenous community

Wingicarribee Shire

These public lands have great potential and simply can not be reclassified as operational are located across the shire and are to the benefit to countless people of numerous demographics and socio income groups-(at no cost)-

why do I have to add comment when all I want is the maps of the parks that council wants to reclassify.......

the lack of information on council web site must be deliberate

I am very disappointed that more people have not found their way to this very useful forum for expressing their views on the Wingecarribee Council's planned land re-classifications and re-zoning.

Judging by the meetings I have attended, the papers I have read, the radio stations I have listened to, and the people I have spoken to, there is an overwhelming majority of residents opposed to the council's plans to sell off our parks and bushlands, just to fund a leisure centre....no matter how worthwhile that project might be.

Most of us, indeed, don't have a problem, in principle, about building a leisure centre but many of us agree that we simply cannot afford something along the lines being proposed for Eridge Park.

And, if we are looking for such funds, there should be other options considered before giving any thought to selling off our valuable open spaces, which would be lost forever.

Everybody I have spoken to would prefer more such open spaces in our residential areas....not fewer.

I could go on in more detail but so many others have already spoken out elsewhere about why we need all of our parks and bushland and, hopefully, written along these lines in their submissions to council.

But the point I want to make here is that despite the limited number of responses to this website, there is massive opposition to selling our parks and bushlands.

This is especially so when we are`talking about the proceeds being used to fund an expensive leisure centre, which no one really knows what it will cost now and in the future.

To go ahead and decide to sell off our parks and bushlands now, just months before an election is, to my mind, the wrong thing to do.

The new council, especially if there is a strong voter backlash over the issue, should not have to deal with a situation, which could be costly to turn around.

Surely, we should all be able to wait a few months and let everyone have a chance to express their positions at the forthcoming council election.

I have just read the Wingecarribee Febuary issue 55.

The comments by our Mayor in the opening item.

The need to "preserve the Shire's lifestyle and aesthetic values"

" is contary to Councils plan to sell off the Parks within the Shire.

How can Council now sell off the Parks when such importance has been placed on such in the Mayors comment ?