|
|
Civic propos also different Dear Sir, I am concerned the process for the Ryde City Council redevelopment of the Civic Centre is not properly engaging with the owners of the assets. Community consultation generally involves the neighbours of a development proposal, as they are the ones most affected by the proposed new buildings. But in this case, the people of Ryde are actually the owners of the assets to be sold off. This, together with the fact that this is the focal centre of our city, makes this proposal vastly different to any proposal to have come before our Ryde councillors. Perhaps the most closely related example would be when Ryde Pool was sold off in high drama. Council may well have consulted with those living in the vicinity of the Civic Centre, but as a ratepayer, part owner of this land, I have not been properly consulted and I am very uneasy with the idea of this proceeding without a clear majority in the Council Chamber. B. POULTER Dear Sir, Thank you for your recent articles about the proposed sale of the Ryde Civic Centre land for redevelopment. I have only just become aware of this, having mistakenly thought all the Top Ryde news in the paper related to the Top Ryde City shopping centre buildings. The fact that the civic centre site is public land gives this proposal a far greater importance than any ordinary development proposal. I understand the Council is split 6/6 on the proposal. When has Council tested the community’s view on the proposed sale of this land? The entire Ryde community is entitled to have a say on this sell-off and the councillors should be representing the community view when deliberating in the Chamber. A matter of such importance must have a clear majority in Council, as we only get to sell this land once. How is it that half of the Council is so determined to proceed despite not having a clear majority? Doesn’t the democratic process demand that these six councillors produce evidence of public support for the sell-off? If they do not have this, because the public has not been asked, who or what is helping them come to such a firm view? RICH THOMAS Alarmist Abbott Dear Sir, I have just read my favourite newspaper. Sounds like Tony Abbott has had a productive Saturday scaremongering at Top Ryde Shopping Centre. BETH SMITH Pollies look out for themselves Dear Sir, Relating to politicians, your front page (TWT 16/5) asked: Who can you believe? The answer is very simple, none of them. Politicians only look after their self-interest. Anyone who believes they’re actually looking after us needs to see a shrink. Australia’s troubles started way back in the seventies when John Howard asked why shouldn’t Australians pay the same petrol prices as the rest of the world. Since then Australia has gone down the drain due to ongoing price hikes it has not recovered from, and it does not matter any longer who runs the country. We have no more intelligent politicians here in Australia; they all depend on advisers. And the advisers, too, are only looking after their self-interest. When Australia has sold off all its land and minerals, the way it is going there will be nothing left to sell. And if a country has nothing more for sale, no country will show any interest in Australia. Therefore, your question should read: Who will look after the future kids’ interest? HERBERT EDER Question mark over kids’ bonus Dear Sir, I write regarding to our government’s decision to replace the Education Tax Rebate with the schoolkids’ bonus under the recently released Federal Budget. According to the government, the payouts under the bonus will assist families that are doing it tough with the costs of their child’s education. My initial response to this was positive, because by streamlining the processes for parents to access funding support for the education of their child, we would see greater opportunities for kids in disadvantaged families to attain educational outcomes. However, now that I have seen the bonus in practice I am starting to realise that there are deficiencies in the ways that we are delivering this Bill. It is all very well that we hand out money to families, but I would raise the question about whether this money is actually used on the purposes intended, to support the education of their children. I regularly teach some of our kids at our Youth Off The Streets Key College, Chapel Campus in Merrylands. Recently one of my Year-11 students, who is having a baby in two months, stated that she does not receive any financial support whatsoever from her parents. She is able to come to our schools because we do not charge anything for a young person to receive an education and we often support them in other aspects of their lives as well. So where would the money go? It is clear there is a risk that the money sent to most of the families for the secondary education of a child will not be spent on their education. Fr CHRIS RILEY |
|
Send your Letter to TWT TWT welcomes letters
from our readers. Fill in form below and send it to us. |
|
| TOP | |