Coun­cil in re­verse

Whitsunday Times - - WHITSUNDAY VIEWS -

THE coun­cil’s new pro­posal to re­move co­conut palms from public ar­eas is in line with their think­ing of the fu­ture of this tourist town.

We have a beach, which isn’t a beach. At low tide we have a pile of rocks and we have garbage all over the small sand area.

Now their new pro­posal to cut down the co­conut palms would be in line with the re­moval of stinger nets and the re­moval of the pedes­trian signs to give way to mo­tor ve­hi­cles in the main street.

It’s go­ing to be great fun trav­el­ling through the main street on schoolies vis­its.

A few less soirees to China to ne­go­ti­ate trade deals, which never even­tu­ate and are state or fed­eral mat­ters, would cover the costs for all the co­conuts to be re­moved from all the trees in public ar­eas each sea­son.

Per­haps the State Mem­ber could be found and asked to com­ment on this mat­ter, as I am sure the State Tourism Min­is­ter will.

In the fu­ture, tourists will come to Air­lie Beach to get drunk and hop on a ferry – there is noth­ing else here for them.

Co­conut Grove will be re­named some­thing ap­pro­pri­ate like Whit­ney’s Folly or Clifford’s Close.

The amount of re­search that goes into coun­cil­lors’ de­ci­sions which af­fect ev­ery ratepayer re­flects on their abil­ity to carry out the po­si­tion they were elected to per­form.

It will be in­ter­est­ing to see if the new own­ers of Day­dream Is­land fol­low in the same fash­ion.

There is a say­ing that the peo­ple get the gov­ern­ment that the peo­ple de­serve. Where did we go wrong?

Alan Bev­er­stock

Air­lie Beach

ser­vice of our lo­cal med­i­cal ser­vices within the Whit­sun­day re­gion.

I re­cently ex­pe­ri­enced and was taken by sur­prise by a ran­dom dog at­tack in the lo­cal area of Can­non­vale.

I was rushed to the Can­non­vale Med­i­cal Cen­tre where the staff in­tro­duced me im­me­di­ately to the on-site medic.

My in­juries were far too ex­ten­sive to be looked af­ter lo­cally, hence the Whit­sun­day Am­bu­lance Ser­vice was called and was at my bed­side within a mat­ter of ap­prox­i­mately five min­utes.

I was then trans­ported to the Proser­pine Hos­pi­tal and upon my ar­rival was in the hands of the Emer­gency Med­i­cal Staff within min­utes.

My wounds were an­a­lysed and were treated within the hour and I was re­leased.

The ef­fi­ciency of all in­volved was out of this world.

I highly com­mend our lo­cal med­i­cal and emer­gency ser­vices here in the Whit­sun­days.

The pro­fes­sion­al­ism from all of the three ser­vices was over and above my ex­pec­ta­tions and I was so proud to be a mem­ber of the Whit­sun­day com­mu­nity hav­ing this first­hand ex­pe­ri­ence dealt with in such a pro­fes­sional man­ner. Thank you to all in­volved. Your pro­fes­sion­al­ism, your gen­tle­ness, your sense of hu­mour and your prompt­ness to as­sess­ing, analysing, and your anal­y­sis be­ing true to your ex­pec­ta­tion were right on the mark.

Your duty is highly com­mend­able and my ap­pre­ci­a­tion will not ex­plain to you in words how much your pro­fes­sion­al­ism has meant to my re­cov­ery.

Thank you and re­gards.

Mia Gu­denswa­ger

Can­non­vale

steal­ing of any kind is wrong.

How­ever, I feel that you sen­sa­tion­alised a triv­ial mat­ter with­out any thought on how you would af­fect the life of a young petty thief.

I ac­knowl­edge that in the eyes of the law he is an adult.

I agree with nam­ing and sham­ing crim­i­nals where we should be con­cerned about their be­hav­iour.

What I do not agree with is nam­ing and sham­ing a 17-yearold who stole per­sonal lu­bri­cant be­cause he was too em­bar­rassed to pay for it.

It’s akin to send­ing con­victs on a ship to Aus­tralia for steal­ing food when they were starv­ing.

Okay that might be an ex­ag­ger­a­tion, but come on, put your­self in his shoes for a mo­ment.

Yes, he stole a low-cost prod­uct but he paid for his other items.

He did not com­mit armed rob­bery, as­sault, use or sell drugs or drink and drive.

These are the types of peo­ple that should be named and shamed be­cause they put the com­mu­nity at risk.

It seems to me that it was re­ported for its en­ter­tain­ment value rather then its rel­e­vance to the com­mu­nity.

Un­for­tu­nately I can­not deny I ini­tially had a chuckle.

Then I felt guilty as I won­dered what it would be like to be 17, liv­ing in a small town and hav­ing that re­ported in the pa­per about me when I had al­ready been dealt with by the court.

PS. I re­ally couldn’t care less who was caught uri­nat­ing in public ei­ther.

Casey Warner

Air­lie Beach

Editor’s note: At present all those who re­ceive a penalty at the Mon­day callover ses­sions of the Proser­pine Mag­is­trate’s Court are cov­ered by the Whit­sun­day Times court re­port. catraz” for its back­side as­pect and light pol­lu­tion at night fur­ther up the road.

We should not for­get that these are the same in­ter­ests that tried twice to take over our public fore­shore for pri­vate ben­e­fit, and we are very in­ter­ested to see where the cus­tomers of this new de­vel­op­ment, both re­tail and guests, will park.

The tem­po­rary car park on the fore­shore must not be ap­pro­pri­ated by de­fault to this pri­vate ho­tel, as the com­mu­nity has demon­strated re­peat­edly it does not want this area to be part of any “com­mer­cial precinct”.

It should be turned into a wa­ter park, band shell or other public use space as soon as pos­si­ble.

In view of this even­tual and long over­due clo­sure of this tem­po­rary car park on our public fore­shore, the coun­cil should be al­lo­cat­ing and mak­ing de­vel­op­ers pro­vide more park­ing in other ar­eas.

The ridicu­lously small num­ber of park­ing places at The Bea­cons, on the north side of the Port of Air­lie, should never have been ap­proved as it was clear it would be in­ad­e­quate.

These few park­ing places are con­tin­u­ously over­whelmed by boat owner needs and beach users.

The park­ing ar­eas by the Sail­ing Club and Co­conut Grove re­peat­edly get over­flowed by cars on mar­ket days and cruise ship vis­its.

Is this a fundrais­ing ploy on the part of the coun­cil, who can ticket so many cars be­cause of in­ad­e­quate park­ing places in town?

Noth­ing puts visi­tors off­side more quickly than the per­cep­tion that they are be­ing charged for ev­ery step they take in our tourist town, where all the paid park­ing ex­ists in our re­gion.

So when will res­i­dents/ratepay­ers be is­sued park­ing per­mits?

Jonathan Peter

Air­lie Beach

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Australia

© PressReader. All rights reserved.