Letter to ed
In the Newslink (October 27) the Mayor neatly sidestepped the main thrust of my letter on Cooper’s Wells costs.
The type and extent of the proposed covenant is completely irrelevant to the question:
Why, when the covenant proposal fell through, did the council choose designation instead of purchase of whatever land it needed?
It may deny the evidence given by the Trust at the Commission Hearing that it had offered to sell either the whole farm or the required acreage to the council, just as it has denied its evidence that the proposed covenant claimed no limiting cause.
Will it also deny that it was in no position itself at any time ot offer to buy the land in question?
And will it also deny that there was absolutely no other solution than the highly expensive designation? Freda Warman, Gore Gore and districts mayor Tracy Hicks replies:
The need for the designation was extensively canvassed at the hearings by the independent commissioners, who ultimately approved the proposal, with some amendments.
At the time, the Trust was reported as being happy with the outcome and chose not to appeal.
Given this issue has been debated ad nauseum in Newslink’s letters to the editor column, I will not be responding further via this forum.
If Ms Warman wants to talk to me directly she is more than welcome to call into the office.