Sharks fume as MP deserts project

[newman]

You want to talk about traffic arising from developments? I just drove past the new IKEA in Tempe. FMD, an already busy, areterial road is CHOKED. How did this get through?

R2Coupe, I asked you some questions a few pages back. Why are you ignoring me and answering everyone else?

 

[KiamaSaint]

You want to talk about traffic arising from developments? I just drove past the new IKEA in Tempe. FMD, an already busy, areterial road is CHOKED. How did this get through?

R2Coupe, I asked you some questions a few pages back. Why are you ignoring me and answering everyone else?

Yeah there are silly decisions like that every week. In fairness though, in the Leader article, the MPs objections are over the residential component not the retail.

 

[Stagger Lee]

Count me in as one more St merge fan who is actually in favour of the development. In fact they should expand the proposed development. Bulldoze shark park and build housing commission homes on there too

 

[KiamaSaint]

Gents, I admire your passion and commitment to this club, especially in the wake of so many fans walking away. The argument is not going to be won on this forum and it won't be won with a few hundred turning up to a rally. You need thousands there.

DI has to stop whinging about the fact that they are in the middle of the community consultation when the MPs have came out against it. He needs to come out and say something like "Yes we are aware of the objections and we are keen to work with the Department and community groups to alleviate their concerns."

Sharkies, you are facing an uphill battle if the MPs are turning and you lose support of the local rag. This battle could end very quickly.

 

[cb4]

Gents, I admire your passion and commitment to this club, especially in the wake of so many fans walking away. The argument is not going to be won on this forum and it won't be won with a few hundred turning up to a rally. You need thousands there.

DI has to stop whinging about the fact that they are in the middle of the community consultation when the MPs have came out against it. He needs to come out and say something like "Yes we are aware of the objections and we are keen to work with the Department and community groups to alleviate their concerns."

Sharkies, you are facing an uphill battle if the MPs are turning and you lose support of the local rag. This battle could end very quickly.

Completely false.

 

[KiamaSaint]

Completely false.

You don't think that the local rag could drum up opposition or that the local MPs could have a quiet word to the Housing minister to ensure this proposal gets knocked back?

 

[Russell Crowe's Band]

Count me in as one more St merge fan who is actually in favour of the development. In fact they should expand the proposed development. Bulldoze shark park and build housing commission homes on there too

some agree.

knock it all down..develop it all and play out of the SFS.
i wouldnt be opposed

 

[Russell Crowe's Band]

You don't think that the local rag could drum up opposition or that the local MPs could have a quiet word to the Housing minister to ensure this proposal gets knocked back?

it goes to an independent body for approval/rejection.

 

[adamkungl]

I don't think Sharks fans would respond well to the SFS. I also think Souths could massively increase their crowds by returning to the SFS. Playing out of your area is not something that I believe suits Sydney RL.

 

[cb4]

You don't think that the local rag could drum up opposition or that the local MPs could have a quiet word to the Housing minister to ensure this proposal gets knocked back?

Its out of the local governments hands now. Keep up.

 

[Russell Crowe's Band]

I don't think Sharks fans would respond well to the SFS. I also think Souths could massively increase their crowds by returning to the SFS. Playing out of your area is not something that I believe suits Sydney RL.

i agree adam, however in purely financial terms i would say it was better to play out of there for the garunteed 100k a game regardless of who shows up rather than taking on the total cost of gameday etc.

fact is we need more people to get to the games and buy memberships. our memberships have increased in numbers the last 2 years so we are going in the right direction there.

 

[KiamaSaint]

Its out of the local governments hands now. Keep up.

I get that, "3a" and all, etc. It is still a political question even if the body is "independent".

 

[Goddo]

Yeah there are silly decisions like that every week. In fairness though, in the Leader article, the MPs objections are over the residential component not the retail.

Exactly. Sydney has so many crappy developments pushed through. I don't think this Sharks development is a good idea, but its not too bad when compared to other projects going on/completed.

Its depressing how apalling our planning ministry has been. Remember that duche Sartor and his "not in my backyard" final act as minister? Corupt useless gits in that ministry for the last 10 years. Or how about the Wollongong Council? Barangaroo anyone? The very costly yet never built Parramatta metro line?

What I think is rediculous is that they are trying to change things after they are already ruined. The southern bank of Botany Bay has been wrecked for 20 years now. The Sharks development will cause congestion problems, and the towers are probably a little too big, but otherwise who cares, let em build it.

 

[rednblack]

something tells me you were never supportive of it.

Look, let's get a few things straight here...

My comments this morning were directed solely at the reaction R2C's mention that his wife attended the community meetings. The point is, he IS informed of the issues, and has even provided links to the information that outlines what the developer must still achieve. He has very clearly gone out of his way to find information from parties both for and against the proposed development.

The (sarcastic?) reactions, saying effectively that his information is useless because it came via his wife are ridiculous.

I have never spoken out for OR AGAINST this proposal. It does not effect me in any way, shape or form. I haven't bagged it, and I have asked legitimate questions that have as yet been unanswered. I believe that earlier in this thread I even wished the sharks supporters luck, in that they achieve what they need to out of it. Don't start saying that I never supported it, because this is simply not true. My comments about losing my support were directed at the club itself, and its supporters. I don't really wish death on the sharks. I've been there myself with the Bears, and its not pleasant. However, the character of all sharks supporters has now been tainted in my view by some individuals in here.

Anyone who is going to criticize another poster here is welcome to do so, but I stand by my comments that to say R2C is uninformed is just ridiculous. Agree with him or not, he has gone out of his way to MAKE himself informed. That has been my point all along.

FTR, I still do hope that sharks and the developer can get through the preliminary stages, and that the development proves to be enough to provide them a much needed lifeline. All issues such as environment, affordability, traffic, pollution and scale (plus many others) CAN be sorted out if everyone comes to the party and negotiates. If the buildings have to be smaller, make it happen! If the roads need upgrading, let the developer come up with a suitable solution (and chip in some of the cost if need be). It can happen, but to say that there are NO issues with the current proposal would be blinkered, and ultimately, devastating for the club.

For all those who can't see that there are two arguments (for and against) regarding this and every other development in the country, I truly feel sorry for you. The fact is, you HAVE to accept that people will be against the development for a litany of reasons, and the developer WILL have to make concessions. This is the whole purpose of public consultation, and needs not mean the death of the development. By all means have your say in support, and find as much of a following as necessary to help voice your opinions, but don't deathride anyone who has opposing opinions of their own.

 

[DJShaksta]

People with objections to the development should not be death riden I agree.
They should be swinging from the hangmans noose.

 

[R2Coupe]

Those requirements are general of any application you simple man. Any relevant flood info may be nothing at all. Which is the case here.

Really? Perhaps you can explain this then. Found through a search function on the website.

http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/Searchresult/tabid/526/language/en-US/Default.aspx?q=DGRs - select Sharks DGRs

jc155776 - can't wait for the start of the season to see you busking with the banjo on the Cronulla High roundabout for the entry fee to Shark Park.

 

[carcharias]

It says page not found
Just post a pic of a flood at shark park or news story

 

[R2Coupe]

I've done all the work for you already!

 

[SharkShocked]

Look, let's get a few things straight here...

My comments this morning were directed solely at the reaction R2C's mention that his wife attended the community meetings. The point is, he IS informed of the issues, and has even provided links to the information that outlines what the developer must still achieve. He has very clearly gone out of his way to find information from parties both for and against the proposed development.

The (sarcastic?) reactions, saying effectively that his information is useless because it came via his wife are ridiculous.

I have never spoken out for OR AGAINST this proposal. It does not effect me in any way, shape or form. I haven't bagged it, and I have asked legitimate questions that have as yet been unanswered. I believe that earlier in this thread I even wished the sharks supporters luck, in that they achieve what they need to out of it. Don't start saying that I never supported it, because this is simply not true. My comments about losing my support were directed at the club itself, and its supporters. I don't really wish death on the sharks. I've been there myself with the Bears, and its not pleasant. However, the character of all sharks supporters has now been tainted in my view by some individuals in here.

Anyone who is going to criticize another poster here is welcome to do so, but I stand by my comments that to say R2C is uninformed is just ridiculous. Agree with him or not, he has gone out of his way to MAKE himself informed. That has been my point all along.

FTR, I still do hope that sharks and the developer can get through the preliminary stages, and that the development proves to be enough to provide them a much needed lifeline. All issues such as environment, affordability, traffic, pollution and scale (plus many others) CAN be sorted out if everyone comes to the party and negotiates. If the buildings have to be smaller, make it happen! If the roads need upgrading, let the developer come up with a suitable solution (and chip in some of the cost if need be). It can happen, but to say that there are NO issues with the current proposal would be blinkered, and ultimately, devastating for the club.

For all those who can't see that there are two arguments (for and against) regarding this and every other development in the country, I truly feel sorry for you. The fact is, you HAVE to accept that people will be against the development for a litany of reasons, and the developer WILL have to make concessions. This is the whole purpose of public consultation, and needs not mean the death of the development. By all means have your say in support, and find as much of a following as necessary to help voice your opinions, but don't deathride anyone who has opposing opinions of their own.

Until this point you presented a very balanced and fair opinion.

Now i know you are just like every other mug on here that labels people based on the actions of few. Great way to live your life.

Congratulations.

 

[bad boy bubby]

Really? Perhaps you can explain this then. Found through a search function on the website.

http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/Searchresult/tabid/526/language/en-US/Default.aspx?q=DGRs - select Sharks DGRs

.

I'm a little confused here, this part of the debate was about the "flood plain" was it not?
I clicked on your link and selected Sharks DGRs. A download occurred but nothing at all is in it about flood plains.

Here is what came up:


Response to the St George and Sutherland Shire Leader re Sharks proposal

Response provided on 15 July in response to questions about why the Director-General’s Requirements were issued the day before the State election in March this year.
The answer to your question is simple: the Department was simply trying to meet its statutory requirements under the State’s planning laws.
On 21 February 2011, the former Minister declared the Sharks proposal to be a major project and issued a media release the next day to inform the community of the decision.
Under the State’s planning laws, the Department then has a statutory 28-day period within which it is required to issue Director-General’s requirements (DGRs) to the proponent following consultation with other agencies and the relevant local council.
As such, the requirements were due to be issued on 21 March.
Sutherland Shire Council’s input to the DGRs however was not received until 23 March. The Department didn’t want to finalise the DGRs until the council’s advice was received.
Once this advice was received, and in view of the fact that the statutory timeline had already passed, the Department then incorporated Council’s feedback as soon as possible and issued the DGRs to the proponent on the 25th.
There was no direction to the Department from the then Minister or any other party for the DGRs to be issued at this time.


Maybe there was a flood at the Councils office that day?