Sharks fume as MP deserts project

[Miller was a legend]

Ivan Milat lived in Eaglevale. I would rather live next door to a 16 storey development.

 

[betcats]

Pissn my self laughing...seriously??

Na not seriously, i just thought that would be a funny joke.

 

[R2Coupe]

I still just dont get the whole height / desity argument to be honest. It is not like this is proposed in the main street of Cronulla. The location is across the road from a golf course and is just down the road from a significant industrial estate. Hardly a pimple on the arse the arse of the Shire as whole. So what if it is 16 story. Will the kookaburras complain at the golf couse? Will it disrupt retirees teeing off across the road?

Anyway, no point arguing about it. Some locals want to retain the ambience of the aging train wreck of a suburb and pretend to be elitist because they have a bigger block of dirt to garden in, than other areas of Sydney. Let them complain, who cares, we seem to be the only people listening to them.

We all know the real issues raised by the State Government and even the Council about housing etc. The experts wont be swayed one way or the other over alarmist claims of flooding or that some NIMBY thinks 700 residents will somehow destroy life as they know it.

Everyone should just get back to saving up to buy their kids a house each.

And you fail to appreciate the bulk and scale of the proposal is an issue also shared by local members (State and Federal) and at least one Councillor.

 

[R2Coupe]

I dont like getting all abusive and personal, but I stopped listening to you when you outed yourself as the archetypal Rich, Boring, Snobby, Insular, Small Minded, Backwards NIMBY who never leaves the shire and gives the place its partially warranted bad reputation as a fenced off backwards hole.

Shouldnt you be down the bank getting a loan for your grown up kids?

If you are incapable of presenting a balance argument without resorting to this then perhaps your case is not that strong.

 

[Miller was a legend]

And you fail to appreciate the bulk and scale of the proposal is an issue also shared by local members (State and Federal) and at least one Councillor.

I don't fail to appreciate they have a "personal" view, just as you do. Bottom line is that it will not matter if the development dots the i's and crosses the t's. If it does that and meets a recognised demand, no reason to to knock it back. Just my opinion of course.

 

[Eion]

If you are incapable of presenting a balance argument without resorting to this then perhaps your case is not that strong.

This might be a good time to add balance to your argument. Or do you have some more flood posts to come first?

 

[rednblack]

Anyway, no point arguing about it. Some locals want to retain the ambience of the aging train wreck of a suburb and pretend to be elitist because they have a bigger block of dirt to garden in, than other areas of Sydney. Let them complain, who cares, we seem to be the only people listening to them.

We all know the real issues raised by the State Government and even the Council about housing etc. The experts wont be swayed one way or the other over alarmist claims of flooding or that some NIMBY thinks 700 residents will somehow destroy life as they know it.

Correct.

Those involved in making this decision won't be swayed by either the feelings of one local resident, nor the assertions of the developer. They will make their own informed decisions and arrive at the most suitable conclusion for the community as a whole.

Yes, this may mean it goes ahead (either in it's current form, or more likely with a series of minor and/or major revisions), or it may even get knocked back. The point I guess is that if someone wants to "pretend to be elitist", or issue forth "alarmist claims of flooding", or even if they think that "700 residents will somehow destroy life as they know it", then they are entitled to present this opinion for consideration and debate. All of these may be selfish or unwarranted reasons in the minds of some, but they are no less legitimate opinions to have.

And just because the developer says or claims something, it can't be taken as gospel either. The proper authorities will have to verify and be able to substantiate any opinions of the developer as well. That's how a balanced argument should work - BOTH sides get to raise all their issues, and have their opinions heard by those with whom the final decision will rest.

 

[carcharias]

balance = wife is the well documented info gatherer...and a free house for every child born!
I think ol mate needs to leave the castle for an audience with the common folke.

 

[carcharias]

(either in it's current form, or more likely with a series of minor and/or major revisions), or it may even get knocked back.

thanks for the heads up.

 

[newman]

Correct.

Those involved in making this decision won't be swayed by either the feelings of one local resident, nor the assertions of the developer. They will make their own informed decisions and arrive at the most suitable conclusion for the community as a whole.

Yes, this may mean it goes ahead (either in it's current form, or more likely with a series of minor and/or major revisions), or it may even get knocked back. The point I guess is that if someone wants to "pretend to be elitist", or issue forth "alarmist claims of flooding", or even if they think that "700 residents will somehow destroy life as they know it", then they are entitled to present this opinion for consideration and debate. All of these may be selfish or unwarranted reasons in the minds of some, but they are no less legitimate opinions to have.

And just because the developer says or claims something, it can't be taken as gospel either. The proper authorities will have to verify and be able to substantiate any opinions of the developer as well. That's how a balanced argument should work - BOTH sides get to raise all their issues, and have their opinions heard by those with whom the final decision will rest.

 

[Ausguy]

Try to be a bit sophisticated.


My wife attended the PR night (as has been well documented before ) and she read a statement from DI mounted on a notice board. In her view, the statement reeked of despair. A tangible feeling pervaded the evening.

Pro development supporters, is that your view?

I will answer your question when you answer mine.

 

[RUBIKS]

How morally acceptable is it to impose 8 towers (13 to 16 storeys in height - 700 units), a huge retail facility, at the expense of quality of life of residents, expect the Government to pay for all the infrastructure to accommodate it and then claim an iconic link to the district? Please.

This looks like an admission of reasoning right here.

I think we can all forget about the flood argument from now.

 

[KiamaSaint]

Being a home owner, I think we can all be accused of being a NIMBY. I certainly wouldn't want that kind of development in Kiama, yes I get it is a totally different context in Cronulla from Kiama. As many reasonable people have already said in this thread, people have the right to their opinion. It may be narrow minded, but many arguing for this proposal could be accused of being just as narrow minded.

 

[rednblack]

Being a home owner, I think we can all be accused of being a NIMBY. I certainly wouldn't want that kind of development in Kiama, yes I get it is a totally different context in Cronulla from Kiama. As many reasonable people have already said in this thread, people have the right to their opinion. It may be narrow minded, but many arguing for this proposal could be accused of being just as narrow minded.

^^^

 

[stevie013]

i fail to see how quality of life will be affected by this development. its nearest residents are over 300 meters away. i dont think that their views of botany aby will be affected unless the live in 5 storey mansions (even then i fail to see how they would still have a decent view of botany bay)

surveys and reports have been done by the right poeple, i just think that people choose to believe what is in their heads without properly investigating the development and taking it on its merits and what the developers have done.

from what i can see, all the boxes have been checked and every aspect of evrything you can possibly think of has been checked and double checked and even changed by the developers to get the right mix.

if your against, fine, but come up with a rebuttal that is worthy of discussion instead of just "too many cars, we are going to get flooded...etc"

FTR i am for this development, i am a shire resident and have thoroughly investigated every aspect of this development, from attending info nights, to making my own inquiries and im happy to say that this development will only benefit shire residents including myaself and young family in years to come.

 

[KiamaSaint]

i fail to see how quality of life will be affected by this development. its nearest residents are over 300 meters away. i dont think that their views of botany aby will be affected unless the live in 5 storey mansions (even then i fail to see how they would still have a decent view of botany bay)

surveys and reports have been done by the right poeple, i just think that people choose to believe what is in their heads without properly investigating the development and taking it on its merits and what the developers have done.

from what i can see, all the boxes have been checked and every aspect of evrything you can possibly think of has been checked and double checked and even changed by the developers to get the right mix.

if your against, fine, but come up with a rebuttal that is worthy of discussion instead of just "too many cars, we are going to get flooded...etc"

FTR i am for this development, i am a shire resident and have thoroughly investigated every aspect of this development, from attending info nights, to making my own inquiries and im happy to say that this development will only benefit shire residents including myaself and young family in years to come.

That is a fair call about residents being 300 metres away and why should it bother them but it is your subjective view. Just as it is a fair call from those residents to say that they lifestyle will be impacted is a subjective view. Now if I was saying it will impact my lifestyle you could rightly say "Go jump!" or words to that effect but I think the neighbours surrounding the development have a right to be heard. For goodness sake, Kiama Council thought my neighbours had a right to be heard when I was replacing my existing deck with a new deck of the same size.

I have had a little bit of experience in planning developments of a much smaller scale and in every case "too many cars" is a big factor. As I had said before the changes suggested by the developer seem minimal. This may simply be a ploy to leave room for negotiation, not show all their cards at once. It is hard to believe or expect that the State government is going to widen the road in the near future, even if it is their job, they have no money.

The point is no use putting you head in the sand over the resident concerns or the traffic issue, they are things that need to be considered.

 

[DJShaksta]

The road doesn't need widening - its a duel carriage way as it is.

Have a look out west where they put whole suburbs up in areas the size of Sharks leagues club with single lane roads.

It takes 2+ hours to get from Narellan to mascot on a good day so an extra 5 mins to get from the development site to the kingsway is negligible.

 

[carcharias]

Hope coupes ok
Been a fair bit of rain..... Has anyone seen George loading up the ark this arvo?
Maybe the locals can get a servant to pop their head out the windows to
check and make sure alls good.

 

[R2Coupe]

I still just dont get the whole height / desity argument to be honest. It is not like this is proposed in the main street of Cronulla. The location is across the road from a golf course and is just down the road from a significant industrial estate. Hardly a pimple on the arse the arse of the Shire as whole. So what if it is 16 story. Will the kookaburras complain at the golf couse? Will it disrupt retirees teeing off across the road?

Anyway, no point arguing about it. Some locals want to retain the ambience of the aging train wreck of a suburb and pretend to be elitist because they have a bigger block of dirt to garden in, than other areas of Sydney. Let them complain, who cares, we seem to be the only people listening to them.

We all know the real issues raised by the State Government and even the Council about housing etc. The experts wont be swayed one way or the other over alarmist claims of flooding or that some NIMBY thinks 700 residents will somehow destroy life as they know it.

Everyone should just get back to saving up to buy their kids a house each.

And we know DGRs issued by the Planning Dept. include as a consideration saving the backside of an NRL club in debt to what $11 or $12m?

There is a line there about loans and the St George bank but I guess we shouldn't hurt the feelings of Sharks supporters,

 

[R2Coupe]

balance = wife is the well documented info gatherer...and a free house for every child born!
I think ol mate needs to leave the castle for an audience with the common folke.

Are you suggesting women aren't capable of making informed decisions?

Why don't you present your case for the development Sherlock?