This all relates to the reclassification of lands owned by the ratepayers of the shire to fund a $23 mil "leisure centre". Land to be sold off is a childrens playground in Cherry Lane in East Bowral which as council puts it "is surplus to council requirments....and is totally under utilised...". How can they take the view that a childrens playground is surplus to our needs and underutilised! This is just one example.

Council has shown nothing but contempt for its citizens in not taking any of our views into consideration re the reclassification of lands. This contempt follows right on the heels of another example of council neglect of its ratepayers in regard to fast tracking the construction of the glorified water polo stadium. Council submissions on the leisure centre close tomorrow (8th Feb 08) and yet a business plan has not been released, a fixed price contract has not been signed, a motion to defer construction until after there is enough money was defeated only last week, and yet they continue to tell us the community wants this. My question is simple, if the community wants it simply ask them? Why are you so scared of asking the people who have elected you what they want? If you beleive you have a mandate then prove it?

I was asked by one of the head supporters of this centre's, a high profile councilor, wife why dont I get informed? I would give a simple answer, which I would have done the other night if she had not run away after asking the question:

I would love to be fully informed, however council is hell bent on preventing this, where is the business plan, where is the true costing of construction, true costing of maintaing etc... ?? And even given all the information would council allow me to have my say?? would council then even listen to any of our views? Given there recent action I would suggest they would not listen!!

I agree totally with Nick Cleary's comments.

Additionally, I'd like to draw attention to a letter in today's SHN - written by Patricia Drysdale of Bowral - in relation to Wingecarribee Shire Council's proposed sell-off of parks and reserves for the funding of a facility that would only be used for an elite few in the community. Her last paragraph stating, " ... Council has shown little sensitivity by amalgamating the parks and reserves issue with a total Shire Rezoning issue of considerable magnitude and on which the microscope of public scrutiny must be focussed."

Furthermore, and in relation to a multi-million dollar Leisure Centre (which would only be used by an elite few, at everyone's expense), I am opposed to the concept on grounds of sustainability. A large centralised heated swimming facility is not an appropriate response by the community to address Climate Change!

Please be aware that the entire process is out of kilter.

a) The decision to proceed has been made and is inflexible.

b) The decision to sell assets has been made and discussion on assets reclassification and sale is underway now.

c) No financial plan, and not even a business plan is yet available.

d) I have not seen any risk analysis on the website.

e) I have not seen any alternative structures or layouts.

Council is going through process out of necessity, and proceeding to bulldoze ahead by referring to the "silent majority" and by ignoring those who do take the time to voice their opinion.

But are they the majority and why are they silent?

Perhaps it's the elderly majority who methinks would not have the technical ability to use the internet to see the excellent information on the Council Website (www.wsc.nsw.gov.au)

Here is the scary bit, as of late last week:

There has been no formal opportunity for people to raise issues of concern about the entire project.

One Exception: The written submissions, date for accepting submissions closed on Friday 8 Feb.

Oddly, a series of "hearings" is currently underway to discuss asset selloff - but not to discuss the basic reason why the assets are to be reclassified and sold.

I say "oddly" because the series concludes on 20th Feb, and because the written submissions have already closed, now people cannot object.

The hearings have been structured that you cannot object to the whole concept, nor ask questions about it.

The only avenue to say your piece is in each and every asset topic.

It's convenient for bureaucrats to tally and graph the responses, but without being able to comment on the whole concept.

The process I have seen in action before against gun owners and four wheel drive groups.

This is a logical process:

a) Develop a concept and budget costings in a basic business plan that includes predictable and risk related cost rises.

b) Put it to the community for their comment. If the majority say yes;

c) Fine tune the concept, revise costings and advise people for their input. If the majority say yes, then

d) Develop some firm plans and revised costings - then do ditto again.

e) Involve the people in the final decision process. If yes:

f) Proceed with final design, tendering, construction and commissioning.

I can't see that happening here.

Peter Cunningham