REPORT FROM THE FAR NORTH

23 August 2008

Extraordinarily, a for sale sign has appeared next to the Hanging Swamp in Stanwell Tops, declaring it and all the land over to the rim of the Stanwell Park valley is not only for sale, but a zoning of 7b eco-tourism. It is in actual fact zoned 7a, highest protected environmental area under the current LEP. Under the proposed LEP 2009 it will be E2, even harder to do anything with. The sign is obviously fraudulent.

This is the Hanging Swamp that was notoriously vandalised by it’s owner back in 2005 and reluctantly proven by Council. It was well documented in a video which is on the internet. Instead of being fined $1 million dollars and vigourously pursued by Council, it petered out because of the previous incompetent Council management. With only a slap over the wrist of rehabilitating the vandalised areas, the ratepayers have missed out on a million dollar windfall.

Yet Council alerted to this new recent sign of flogging the place, seemed to be saying that any person who wishes to buy it, would assumingly, check it out first.

Well, that’s not good enough. Nearly 30 years ago when it was supposed to be developed then, with the residents only knowing that when the bulldozers moved in to clear trees, a massive residents campaign with State Government help against it, succeeded.

Has Council forgotten?

The land has changed hands a few times since then, and owners have found they bought a swamp that can’t be touched.

But what of real estate agents? Isn’t there a code of ethics that they must check the information of a property including zoning before advertising? Obviously not. Unless they don't believe in their new Material Fact which is a clause that operates to contractually obligate the principle to disclose material facts to the Agent.

There is another part of the protected site for sale on the internet, listed as commercial, when it is not. Council said they would speak to that agent months ago, but the advertising has not changed there.

Yet the valuer general relies on real estate property sales for our properties worth and council rating. If these two different real estate agents can’t get their advertising signs right, then how can any of this be right?

Will the Council, now alerted to this latest fiasco, finally move with State and Federal Governments to bring this unique 15,000 year old swamp into the publics hands and be controlled by the NPWS as originally hoped by the independent Councillors before they were sacked?

Only time will tell in this continual decades on going saga.

27 August 2008

After my letter about the dangers of putting your name online in being able to place a comment and being subject to all sorts of side swipes, in the relevant subject of the gun shop location battle, it would appear that despite me vs about 30 people, I should have felt sorry for the 30 people. Since because the Council rejected the gun shop proposal anyway.

They obviously didn’t do themselves any favours with their online pot shots.

Almost like Clint Eastwood taking on the gunslingers, I should have had more faith in myself. Obviously stick by your guns!

The difference between commenting online and having a letter on line is the fact that with comments there is no validation of who is putting the comment on, unlike a letter that has an address and a contact number. Why there is a difference between the two is a cyberspace mystery.

This leads me to the Council’s web site where you can go online and fill out the Discussion Paper about Community Consultations.

It doesn’t work, or didn’t at first for my Mac or PCs as others discovered. It wouldn’t submit and just came up error. Subsequently, Council did correct but apparently it is still happening. Another cyber space mystery.

Alan (Richard) Bond