Sharks fume as MP deserts project

[adamkungl]

Who's to say its not transparent? You said that you've only heard of one poll yourself, but I'd be fairly confident in saying that there will have been more than just that one conducted. All interested parties will have conducted polls of some sort in order to establish whether their investment would be good or bad. The banks, investors, club, local council, state government, state planning authority, local community action lobbies, and any number of others are bound to have conducted polls of their own. Have you seen results from any of those? Why should we assume that the local MP would not have conducted one also. I'm sure if you were to contact his office you could obtain more details. A single poll, showing around two thirds support, is hardly a unanimous verdict of support from the local community for this project.

And regarding those who are informed, I said simply that there are others here who CLAIM to know more about this development than I do. Goddo and Ronnie Dobbs both sounded as though they were familiar with the development proposal in their replies earlier in this very thread. Whether they do or not is something to ask them, but I was merely pointing out that I myself am not as familiar with the details as some others seem or claim to be. Looking in the Sharks forum is hardly the place for balanced opinion, is it? I mean, who out of a group of club supporters is going to bag their potential lifeline? Any supporter is the same - I won't hear a bad word about the Bears, and I'm proud to say so. Likewise, no one on the sharks forum is likely to say that the development is a bad idea. I said right from the beginning that I wasn't familiar enough to comment on the development itself, that was never (and is still not) part of my argument.

Dragons fans - a reputable source for knowledge on all things Sharks. fmd...:crazy:

 

[Eion]

Who's to say its not transparent? You said that you've only heard of one poll yourself, but I'd be fairly confident in saying that there will have been more than just that one conducted.

I say it's not transparent, because details of polling referred to by Speakman haven't been made public and yet he's raising it. There may well have been lots of polls, but like I said, I'm only aware of 1.

All interested parties will have conducted polls of some sort in order to establish whether their investment would be good or bad. The banks, investors, club, local council, state government, state planning authority, local community action lobbies, and any number of others are bound to have conducted polls of their own. Have you seen results from any of those?

What's your point? It's Speakman touting the results of his so-called polling - do you have a problem with him substantiating his claims with transparency?

Why should we assume that the local MP would not have conducted one also. I'm sure if you were to contact his office you could obtain more details.

He's said he has, so I'm assuming he has. He's polled at least his buddies on council. I'm also sure I won't get more details, but what the hell I'll give it a go.

A single poll, showing around two thirds support, is hardly a unanimous verdict of support from the local community for this project.

No, but at least it is a verdict and a transparent one at that.

And regarding those who are informed, I said simply that there are others here who CLAIM to know more about this development than I do. Goddo and Ronnie Dobbs both sounded as though they were familiar with the development proposal in their replies earlier in this very thread. Whether they do or not is something to ask them, but I was merely pointing out that I myself am not as familiar with the details as some others seem or claim to be. Looking in the Sharks forum is hardly the place for balanced opinion, is it? I mean, who out of a group of club supporters is going to bag their potential lifeline? Any supporter is the same - I won't hear a bad word about the Bears, and I'm proud to say so. Likewise, no one on the sharks forum is likely to say that the development is a bad idea. I said right from the beginning that I wasn't familiar enough to comment on the development itself, that was never (and is still not) part of my argument.

haha. You raised the forum as the place informed people are saying the development is a bomb. Do you think there might be non-sharks supporters bloody minded enough to bag the development because they don't like the sharks? In any event you want informed and they are in the sharks forum - and I'll stack them against the 2 you raise. Most in the sharks forum are residents (like me) and want the development for reasons in addition to helping the club, we've still got to live there after all.

 

[kmav23]

An NRL club should not be depending on this for its survival.

 

[rednblack]

I say it's not transparent, because details of polling referred to by Speakman haven't been made public and yet he's raising it. There may well have been lots of polls, but like I said, I'm only aware of 1.


What's your point? It's Speakman touting the results of his so-called polling - do you have a problem with him substantiating his claims with transparency?


He's said he has, so I'm assuming he has. He's polled at least his buddies on council. I'm also sure I won't get more details, but what the hell I'll give it a go.


No, but at least it is a verdict and a transparent one at that.


haha. You raised the forum as the place informed people are saying the development is a bomb. Do you think there might be non-sharks supporters bloody minded enough to bag the development because they don't like the sharks? In any event you want informed and they are in the sharks forum - and I'll stack them against the 2 you raise. Most in the sharks forum are residents (like me) and want the development for reasons in addition to helping the club, we've still got to live there after all.

Of course some anti-sharks forumites will be "bloody minded enough to bag the development". I know this feeling as well as anyone, being a Bears supporter! I just made an educated guess that this wasn't the case in the examples I cited. I'll happily accept it if I'm wrong. However the development would not be such a contentious issue if it were not, at least in small part, considered inappropriate by some. I'm happy just to leave it there, because as I said, the suitability of the proposal was never my argument.

My issue was simply that any MP is entitled to speak his mind (and that includes any issues raised by his constituents). You and I are not in a position to say that this announcement is not of his own volition, so it must be assumed that he has come to this conclusion himself. I'd argue, again, that as the local MP in question, it should be EXPECTED that he would raise any concerns that were presented to him by his constituents - this, after all, is his job. They role of a politician is to present the concerns of those he represent to the appropriate individual or authority (in this case, the state planning authority).

Transparency is one thing, but a single poll of unknown value - for instance, do we know demos, residence of respondents, sample size, what the questions actually were/how they were worded, vested interests of respondents, etc - is not the be all and end all. I can quote you several polls from the local rag in Gosford supporting a team on the central coast, but as we all know, there is more to it than one newspaper poll.

I'm not out to argue with you dude, and I hope the sharks get whatever they need out of all this - provided that there is tangible benefit for the community at large.

And good luck getting more info out of Speakman's office. I know that this is often difficult to do, but I hope he can come to the party. In fact, contacting the local paper and requesting their assistance may be beneficial also, since they might be able to lean harder on him. Good luck again, and make sure you keep us informed whenever you hear more.

 

[Tonearm Terrorwrist]

Fold, fold Cronulla

 

[PaddyBoy]

I don't think any politician should do what his electorate thinks is right. They should do what they (after talking to experts, rather than the local yokels) think is right.

Too many pollies do what the electorate wants them too, rather than what would actually be a good idea, despite how unpopular that is.

 

[adamkungl]

I don't think any politician should do what his electorate thinks is right. They should do what they (after talking to experts, rather than the local yokels) think is right.

Too many pollies do what the electorate wants them too, rather than what would actually be a good idea, despite how unpopular that is.

It's a democracy champ.

 

[adamkungl]

Fold, fold Cronulla

Wonder if you're saying the similar things when people are advocating Easts get booted for allegedly not supporting juniors.

A few bad years does not deserve exclusion from the comp - Sharks can and will turn it around...top 8 this year.

 

[Goddo]

I am not against the Sharks (as far as the development goes), I just think its yet another crap development that shouldn't go ahead. Maybe if they scrapped the appartments and made it just a retail development it would be more apropriate.

I wonder what limitations there are on future upgrades of the Leagues club or ground imposed by the development. It fixes the imediate problems for the Sharks but there are some long term ones it creates.

I don't think any politician should do what his electorate thinks is right. They should do what they (after talking to experts, rather than the local yokels) think is right.

Too many pollies do what the electorate wants them too, rather than what would actually be a good idea, despite how unpopular that is.

Blame for that lies with the 24 hour media cycle. Once Howard mastered that and centralised government around a tightly controlled Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, it set a standard for all political behavior.

Politics is now just a popularity contest.

 

[rednblack]

I don't think any politician should do what his electorate thinks is right. They should do what they (after talking to experts, rather than the local yokels) think is right.

Too many pollies do what the electorate wants them too, rather than what would actually be a good idea, despite how unpopular that is.

If I vote for someone to represent me and my interests in the parliament, that's exactly what I expect them to do!

I don't want them to make uninformed or rash decisions, and they have to make tough ones now and then, but an elected MP - a sitting Member of the House of REPRESENTATIVES - should be just that - a REPRESENTATIVE of those people who elected him. Not a mouthpiece for some power hungry nuffie sitting in a plush office somewhere miles away.

They can take advice, by all means, but when all is said and done, they should be acting in the interests of their community - the electorate who gave them the power to vote on bills before parliament on their behalf.

This is how the system of government works in this country.

 

[Eion]

My issue was simply that any MP is entitled to speak his mind (and that includes any issues raised by his constituents). You and I are not in a position to say that this announcement is not of his own volition, so it must be assumed that he has come to this conclusion himself. I'd argue, again, that as the local MP in question, it should be EXPECTED that he would raise any concerns that were presented to him by his constituents - this, after all, is his job. They role of a politician is to present the concerns of those he represent to the appropriate individual or authority (in this case, the state planning authority).

If he just said he opposed it, and gave his own reasons, no major drama. But:
"Mr Speakman said a survey he conducted of residents in North Cronulla, North Woolooware and North Caringbah, along with correspondence from elsewhere in the electorate, showed overwhelming opposition to the proposal as it stood."

Nothing would ever get built anywhere if you went down the nearest street to the development and asked: "Would you like more traffic?".

And I wrote to Speakman in support of it, as I know others did, but again he states "overwhelming opposition". If you're going to say that, it's on you to back it up.

I don't believe he has a gauge on the overall electorate and call bullshit to the whole charade.

 

[rednblack]

If he just said he opposed it, and gave his own reasons, no major drama. But:
"Mr Speakman said a survey he conducted of residents in North Cronulla, North Woolooware and North Caringbah, along with correspondence from elsewhere in the electorate, showed overwhelming opposition to the proposal as it stood."

Nothing would ever get built anywhere if you went down the nearest street to the development and asked: "Would you like more traffic?".

And I wrote to Speakman in support of it, as I know others did, but again he states "overwhelming opposition". If you're going to say that, it's on you to back it up.

I don't believe he has a gauge on the overall electorate and call bullshit to the whole charade.

That's a fair position for you to take, and its obviously something you care enough about - as evidenced by your own input in support.

I think my previous response was fairly clear, in that I'm not necessarily against the development, as long as it is the best one for the community on the whole. I agree that more could be done in the area of transparency, but as long as this individual represents the community, he should be free to do just that. Bottom line is, if he is seen by a majority of the electorate to not be representative of their own personal wishes, he will lose his job at the next election. Who knows how many people have loaned their voiced to his office either for or against this particular proposal. This is where I wish you luck getting more information!

Don't underestimate the power of the masses either. You and others may have written in support of the proposal, but many more may have been even more vocal against it. Try collecting a petition if you can, or getting as many people as possible to write to him in support. It may well be that he has had an influx of negative feedback, and by turning that tide, you may help to change his position.

Again, good luck mate.

 

[BunniesMan]

I'd lol if Cronulla's MP is a Dragons fan...

 

[whall15]

If they rephrased the question to people living in Cronulla they'd get a different response, surely.

Do you want the Cronulla Sharks to die?
Yes
No

 

[snoozer]

I'd lol if Cronulla's MP is a Dragons fan...

i'd lol if you had a average I.Q.

something's got explain your geniused drivel.

 

[Dread]

In one way, this is a minor annoyance for the development.

But there are positives. The 'Support the Sharks Development' movement is growing everyday, and Mark Speakman's announcement is perfectly timed to give us a an evil, villain politican to rally against.

We have a rally planned for later this month, and anticipate a few hundred attendees. We've invited Mr Speakman to say a few words.... somehow I doubt he'll show up.

 

[Feej]

An NRL club should not be depending on this for its survival.

Yeah, pokies are the go..... :roll:

Who do you support again???

 

[taipan]

Fair point. However it could be argued, as I have assumed, that his opinion would be reflective of that of his electorate. All politicians take their stand (at least they SHOULD) based on what their electorate say they want. If listening to those who voted him in has somehow "assisted" him in forming his opinion, it is in no way less valid. That's just how I see it anyway. And according to those on this forum that appear or claim to know more of the details than I do, the development is a bomb anyway, not suitable for the site, so it is not exactly out of the blue or inappropriate for him to say so.

As for the timing, I can't see a problem. He will not be making the decision anyway (which has already been made clear). The community consultation period is for just this purpose - for the community to have their say. He is part of, and a Representative FOR the people of that community, so he should be able to put his two cents worth forward, along with every other Tom, Dick and Harry. He CLAIMS to have conducted polls himself (which we have no reason to doubt at this time), and as such, he is entitled to voice both his own, and the community's opinions as he sees appropriate. This is how the consultation process SHOULD be conducted IMO.

Lived in his electorate for yonks,and judging by my obsevations both reading and listening, are not those of what he perceives his electorate to think.He claims to have checked on 3 areas,yet some within those areas claim they have never encountered him or seen a survey.
I would really like ot know whether he attended all info evenings,or is a another hearsay legend and shoulder to the whiners.

 

[carcharias]

rednblack

http://www.theleader.com.au/news/local/news/general/sharks-plan-too-big-say-liberals/2342152.aspx

please read all 5 pages of comments from the locals.

 

[R2Coupe]

Mark Speakman is correct and I am pleased he has spoken out against this proposal.

It is a massive overdevelopment of the site which is completely out of character with neighbouring suburbs.

It has the potential to impact terribly on local businesses in Cronulla, North Woolooware, Caringbah and Miranda.

The developer's view that the Government can pay for the upgrades to roads and other infrastructure once it is built reeks of arrogance.

Don't fall for the emotional blackmail being peddled by the Club. It is not the end of civilisation if the Sharks fold. Many other fine clubs have gone already and a second Brisbane team is long overdue.