Make way for the new wave
DURING the 1950s, when holidaying on the East Coast from Orford to St Helens, many enjoyable times were had. Our camping sites were varied and could be on the side of the road in the sand hills or in someone’s paddock. As long as you cleaned your campsite and left no rubbish, you could always go back.
The locals referred to us as drop-ins or dewdrops because we would only stay for a short time but they accepted us and many good friends were made.
One of our favourite spots was on the banks of the Meredith River, 100m from the old walnut orchard on Cambria Estate. In the past 50 years the East Coast has been invaded by an influx of people.
People enjoying the coast began moving into small towns and holiday spots to build weekend shacks and later houses. Some locals referred to them as those “bloody fureners who will ruin the place”. But this did not happen and over the years it helped enhance the character of the town and created local opportunities.
It is amazing how the pendulum of time swings, and with all the positives being envisaged for the East Coast, the “fureners” of the past must now make way for the “fureners” of the future and forget their pettiness by supporting these projects instead of demonising them.
When opportunity knocks there will be detractors who will oppose development at the cost of many people. What right have they to say that this is my exclusive domain. The East Coast is to be enjoyed by everyone not a select few.
Pay for mountain
AM I right in assuming the Mount Wellington Cableway Company will pay rent for use of the public land that will support development of the cable car, including land at the top of the mountain, land over which the cable car will travel, and land for the base and access road? Has this arrangement been negotiated and will it be made public? If so, it must be a commercial rent, not just a peppercorn one.
Roundup concerns
JAN Davis urges readers to take a calm look at the science behind glyphosate, the active agent in widely used herbicide Roundup (Talking Point, August 22). Davis quotes studies relating to the benefits of this chemical. She exhorts consideration of “the whole picture”. The studies she cites provide predictions and numbers suggesting the outcomes from taking a more precautionary approach and discontinuing use of Roundup are known and disastrous. Among studies mentioned is the US Agricultural Health Study of agricultural workers. Davis quotes that this study has found “no association between glyphosate exposure and all cancer incidence or most of the specific cancer subtypes evaluated”. That is hardly grounds for reassurance. Considerations about safety and usefulness of lucrative products are fraught with commercial influences. Buyer/user beware. Davis makes no mention of regenerative agricultural practices that reduce reliance on herbicides and insecticides and improve soil health and the nutritional value of food. Readers wanting to more carefully assess the safety, or otherwise, of Roundup can read Whitewash by Carey Gillam which gives an indication of the risks.
Swimming together
THE morning after I arrived in Jakarta recently, I went to the local swimming pool. I swam with women in one-piece bathing costumes, bikinis, women wearing the hijab and black total body stockings and one woman wearing the burqua. All in the pool with me and other men. Next time there is a push in Australia for Muslim women only sessions at a pool, people might like to remember that if mixed bathing is acceptable in Muslim-majority Indonesia, segregated bathing is unacceptable in Muslim-minority Australia.
Developers should pay
IN response to John Cleary (Talking Point, August 23), development in other parts of the country means the developers find places to develop in and put up the funding themselves and hopefully profit from the development. My brother-in-law had a property in Box Hill about 60km from Sydney. A developer offered him $1 million an acre. He had six and there were quite a lot of properties in the area. It seems that in Tasmania developers go to the state government or a council to see if they have public land that they can get for a song, outlay nothing and run away with a pot of gold. Why can’t it go from the Glenorchy side instead of up the front face. I think it’s because to go up the side the developers will have to put their hands in pocket to finance the development. We take all the risk, the developers none and if it’s a success, away with the loot.
by John Glover.
Close the road
AS someone who’s just returned to Hobart after a long absence, I’ve been delighted to find a more enlightened attitude than I remember. A new confidence and pride seems to have replaced the cultural cringe and suspicion of change I left in the 1980s. Noisy detractors of the cable car seem to fly in the face of this. In my view the proposal will greatly enhance the experience of Hobart for visitors, while having far less impact than Pinnacle Rd.
I haven’t heard any discussion about closing Pinnacle Rd once the cable car is operational. This would seem a significant benefit. Once people have an alternative, the road beyond The Springs would only be needed by vehicles servicing the towers or emergency vehicles. The closure would remove the accident risk and eliminate roadkill. The criticism could be made that it is replacing a public amenity with a private monopoly. I suggest that, like Mona, the cable car should be free to Tasmanians. The locals are only likely to go once or twice and thereafter only when they had visitors. I should add I have no connection with the proponents whatsoever.