Sharks fume as MP deserts project

[smithie]

Cronulla Sharks chairman Damian Irvine fumes as local MP Mark Speakman deserts development

THE Cronulla Sharks are furious over their local MP's decision to turn his back on the club's crucial $300 million development surrounding Toyota Stadium.

Cronulla MP Mark Speakman yesterday told Cronulla Sharks chairman Damian Irvine he will not support the retail and residential development that the in-debt club’s very existence is tied to.

Irvine said yesterday he was shocked and disappointed at Speakman's decision to publicly declare his opposition to the development before the halfway point of a 60 day period given to local residents to voice their opinions about the proposal with the independent NSW Planning Assessment Commission.

The Cronulla figurehead said despite Speakman's objection and "local government not doing their jobs", he is extremely confident the planned construction will go ahead.

"Our members are sick and tired of trying to work out why our local council and local representative are against the most identifiable part of Cronulla," Irvine said.

"I'd expect better from an elected representative.

"This is not significant in terms of it going ahead, but it's an extreme breach of the process. We all agreed to let residents have their say. For a local member to come out and make a statement like this is totally against the spirit of the agreement we made for every part of the development to be made transparent to the community.

"He believes the overall public opinion has been negative. That's completely false. Everyone we’re talking to has been supportive of the idea. At the very least it’s about 60-40 in favour of it. His statement is totally misleading."

The O'Farrell Government accepted the redevelopment proposal in February, but Speakman believes the scale of the proposal, which includes a multi-level shopping centre, complete with outdoor eateries, entertainment zones and an estimated 700 residential units to sit alongside a redesigned Toyota Stadium, will overcrowd the area.

But Irvine believes the development's expected boost to the local economy makes it an easy choice for residents.

The matter is now out of the hands of the NSW Government, with the department of planning to make a decision on the proposal by March next year at the very latest.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...erts-development/story-e6frexnr-1226181854444

 

[grouch]

 

[KiamaSaint]

A minor setback. Very unfortunate but makes no difference in the end.

 

[adamkungl]

What a dog. Hope the locals vote the prick out

 

[Slackboy72]

A liberal opposing development.
Overcrowding, pfft.
I wonder what his real objection is.

 

[Russell Crowe's Band]

he's a bit of a moltzen this bloke.

he has about as much say as i do..but FFS

he talked about being a sharks fan in his innaugural adress. or atleast watching em in the grand finals in the 70's.

guess he forgot about that.

 

[Goddo]

It is over development to stick 700 people and all those shops on the foreshore.

I think its poor planning if it goes ahead, but its not like its the first time developments like this have been built. The city is littered with examples of bad development.

One more isn't going to make a difference. I think those opposed to this development have a point, but its too late to change things in Sydney.

 

[Ronnie Dobbs]

he's a bit of a moltzen this bloke.

he has about as much say as i do..but FFS

he talked about being a sharks fan in his innaugural adress. or atleast watching em in the grand finals in the 70's.

guess he forgot about that.

Don't say that mate. You'll make Tim cry and get all anxious.

This bloke is just a typical politician. He's probably got shares in Westpac who will own the land if the proposal falls through.

 

[Eion]

To think I voted for this fuggwit. Only problem is the alternatives are fuggwits too.

Next time I'll revert to my usual of just writing obsenities on the ballot paper.

 

[Russell Crowe's Band]

i voted for Paul Gallen at the last federal election.

i stand by my vote.

 

[rednblack]

It is over development to stick 700 people and all those shops on the foreshore.

I think its poor planning if it goes ahead, but its not like its the first time developments like this have been built. The city is littered with examples of bad development.

One more isn't going to make a difference. I think those opposed to this development have a point, but its too late to change things in Sydney.

I agree with most of what you say mate. I don't know enough about the proposed development in detail, so I can't pass comment on my feelings regarding it's suitability. However, to say that just because other poor developments have gone ahead in the past, another one should now, is just silly.

IF it is unsuitable for the location, scale, and requirements of the particular site, then of course it should be knocked on the head. To have open slather, just because poor decisions have been made in the past, is bullshit. Our elected officials are there to make decisions for us, and for the future generations. Whilst I agree they often make decisions against what I believe to be the best ones, this is still their job. If this guy thinks that the current proposal is unsuitable, then his ties to/support of the club SHOULD be irrelevant.

If we all just said "oh well, one more sh*t development won't make a difference", we'd be in a very sorry state. Imagine if they decided to build an airport 3 doors up the road from your place? Or open a 5-story shopping centre, or a sewage plant, or a new tip? These may be extreme examples, but the point is that a development should be appropriate for the site, and if its not, it should not be allowed to proceed.

I don't want the sharks to go belly-up because of this, but we can hardly blame an MP (who is, by very definition, a public figure and representative of the community) for speaking his mind on the matter, whether you agree with him or otherwise!

 

[Ronnie Dobbs]

Look. It won't fit in with the rest of the Shire, this development. Its far too modern.

And I'm not saying that to be condescending. Its red brick quarter acres down there as far as you can see.

Unleaded petrol and VHS are tipped to be the big thing this coming summer.

 

[Parra]

Next time I'll revert to my usual of just writing obsenities on the ballot paper.

That'll show those poll clerks.

 

[Eion]

, but we can hardly blame an MP (who is, by very definition, a public figure and representative of the community) for speaking his mind on the matter, whether you agree with him or otherwise!

You're assuming he's speaking his mind.

 

[rednblack]

You're assuming he's speaking his mind.

True, but no-one put the words in his mouth.

There may be other factors of which you and I are not aware, granted, but even if this goes deeper than the suitability of the development (ie: if he has other interests, as Ronnie Dobbs alluded to), then he is still putting his opinion on the record (whether it be right, wrong, or downright corrupt is another matter entirely).

 

[Eion]

True, but no-one put the words in his mouth.

There may be other factors of which you and I are not aware, granted, but even if this goes deeper than the suitability of the development (ie: if he has other interests, as Ronnie Dobbs alluded to), then he is still putting his opinion on the record (whether it be right, wrong, or downright corrupt is another matter entirely).

It's not just his opinion though. Speakman claims to be speaking for the people of his electorate and not on behalf of himself. He says he has polled people, but there's no detail of that. I've only seen 1 general poll on this in the local rag and it was 70% in support of the development.

Then there's the timing of this, as mentioned by Irevine:
"This is not significant in terms of it going ahead, but it's an extreme breach of the process. We all agreed to let residents have their say. For a local member to come out and make a statement like this is totally against the spirit of the agreement we made for every part of the development to be made transparent to the community.”

 

[dogslife]

I thought Kmav would have jumped all over this

 

[rednblack]

It's not just his opinion though. Speakman claims to be speaking for the people of his electorate and not on behalf of himself. He says he has polled people, but there's no detail of that. I've only seen 1 general poll on this in the local rag and it was 70% in support of the development.

Then there's the timing of this, as mentioned by Irevine:
"This is not significant in terms of it going ahead, but it's an extreme breach of the process. We all agreed to let residents have their say. For a local member to come out and make a statement like this is totally against the spirit of the agreement we made for every part of the development to be made transparent to the community.”

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.

 

[Eion]

If he's done polls then it should be transparent - which it's not.

And who do you refer to in this forum that you think are informed and consider the development is a bomb? Because I can't think of any. If you look in the Sharks forum you'll find exactly the opposite.

 

[rednblack]

If he's done polls then it should be transparent - which it's not.

And who do you refer to in this forum that you think are informed and consider the development is a bomb? Because I can't think of any. If you look in the Sharks forum you'll find exactly the opposite.

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.