Dubbo Photo News - - Dubbo Weekender -

Dear Ed­i­tor,

I would like to ex­press my con­cerns about the in­tro­duc­tion of the new garbage col­lec­tion ser­vice.

“I don’t want it, I don’t need it and I will not store it on my prop­erty.”

Strong words in­deed, how­ever I be­lieve they re­flect the opin­ions of a ma­jor­ity of Dubbo Re­gional res­i­dents. The fol­low­ing are my thoughts on these prob­lems

(1) I ob­ject strongly to the con­sid­er­a­tion of coun­cil to re­duce our reg­u­lar house­hold garbage ser­vice to fort­nightly.

Has any thought been given to Dubbo re­gion’s ex­treme sum­mer­time heat? The con­tents of the bins will be ex­tremely smelly af­ter sit­ting in a plas­tic bin in 40-de­gree-plus heat for two weeks. Peo­ple car­ing for ba­bies and the in­firm will de­scribe this to you if you don’t al­ready know the prob­lem.

It is in­sult­ing to think that if you ei­ther oc­ca­sion­ally, or per­ma­nently, have this par­tic­u­lar prob­lem that you would need to ar­range ‘spe­cial’ ser­vices of garbage col­lec­tion. Fam­i­lies right across our re­gion will tell you of the hor­rors of the bin dur­ing the high use and high tem­per­a­ture pe­ri­ods of Christ­mas and New Year.

(2) The great un­known here is the part of this new sys­tem which is widely re­ferred to as the ‘third bin’. There are many in­ex­pen­sive com­post­ing sys­tems avail­able for res­i­dents, and I can tell you that a lot of res­i­dents al­ready com­post their own. So has any con­sid­er­a­tion been given to:

z The amount of res­i­dents who do not un­der­stand how the pro­posed Coun­cil com­post­ing will work.

z The dis­con­tent of the res­i­dents in find­ing out this sys­tem was signed off by an un­elected ad­min­is­tra­tor dur­ing the pe­riod when we had no Coun­cil­lors rep­re­sent­ing our rights.

z Res­i­dents who are home-com­post­ing al­ready for use on their own gar­dens and those that would do so if en­cour­aged.

z What about the peo­ple who just will not com­post? Are we look­ing at penal­ties?

z Those peo­ple who can’t af­ford the ex­tra cost, in­clud­ing ten­ants whose rent will re­flect the added cost to the ratepayer.

z The on­go­ing cost of the sys­tem to the ratepay­ers.

z Who will own the end prod­uct of the sys­tem?

z Who will use the end prod­uct of the sys­tem?

z What ex­actly will the end prod­uct be, and will we have an as­sured mar­ket for this end prod­uct? Thoughts come to mind of read­ing of trucks from NSW haul­ing waste to dump in Queens­land.

z Will this be a vi­able sys­tem that will suit our re­gion in the fu­ture?

z Are there any busi­nesses, or in­di­vid­u­als, that will be gain­ing an ad­van­tage by the in­tro­duc­tion of this sys­tem?

It is my be­lief that the peo­ple of this re­gion are be­ing forced into co­op­er­at­ing with this sys­tem with­out hav­ing ac­cess to ad­e­quate and cor­rect in­for­ma­tion on how it ac­tu­ally works, from start to fin­ish.

The ac­tions of an ‘ad­min­is­tra­tor’ dur­ing a ‘care-taker’ phase of Coun­cil is not what is ex­pected from Dubbo Re­gional Coun­cil. We are a com­mu­nity of peo­ple who were ac­cus­tomed to demo­cratic de­ci­sions made on our be­half. The shock of some­thing just brought in when no one was watch­ing is nat­u­rally wor­ry­ing.

Please read this care­fully as these are le­git­i­mate con­cerns of our res­i­dents. Ron Bat­ten,

Dubbo Dear Ed­i­tor

The River Street bridge op­tion must be stopped. The NSW Govern­ment can’t be al­lowed to waste $140 mil­lion on this in­sane farce. If there were prizes for the most in­ef­fec­tive and coun­ter­pro­duc­tive piece of in­fra­struc­ture foisted on a com­mu­nity, this vin­dic­tive con­cept must take the cake.

This de­ci­sion by the NSW Govern­ment and Roads and Mar­itime Ser­vices (RMS) shows the con­tempt they have for re­gional Aus­tralia.

This isn’t just a bad de­ci­sion, it’s peo­ple in power in Syd­ney mock­ing us. They want to spend $140 mil­lion of tax­payer money to crip­ple our city’s func­tional ca­pac­ity and re­tard its fu­ture growth.

The River Street plan does noth­ing to get the trucks off Why­lan­dra Street. It will still have trucks zigzag­ging all over town dur­ing floods and will do lit­tle to im­prove lo­cal traf­fic flows.

River Street has to be stopped and the money put into a ringroad to the west with a high-level bridge at Troy.

A low-level bridge at Tam­worth Street with a ve­hi­cle weight and size limit will mit­i­gate lo­cal east-west traf­fic con­ges­tion. The Tam­worth Street bridge must be con­tin­gent on South Dubbo never be­ing re­zoned R1.

Or­ange City has shown the civic and com­mer­cial suc­cess of hav­ing a ring-road around the town. The area im­me­di­ately around Or­ange’s by­pass is a com­mer­cial and res­i­den­tial go­liath while the city’s main street has re­gained its traf­fic-free vi­brancy and coun­try town charm.

We need Dubbo Re­gional Coun­cil to take the lead on this in the short term with a del­e­ga­tion of coun­cil­lors meet­ing with the Pre­mier to present the case for the ring-road in­stead of River Street. Fol­lowed by Coun­cil fa­cil­i­tat­ing the col­lec­tion of a 10,000-sig­na­ture pe­ti­tion to present to the NSW Par­lia­ment demon­strat­ing the com­mu­nity’s op­po­si­tion to River Street and sup­port of a ring-road. Steve Hod­der,


Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Australia

© PressReader. All rights reserved.