Sharks fume as MP deserts project

[Ausguy]

Sorry mate I get a bit defensive when people believe what's written in the paper.

Most of it is inaccurate BS

 

[Frenzy.]

The motel proposal was on the eastern side of the club (carpark).

The tower proposal is on the western playing fields (floodplain).

What are you really concerned about? Do you live close by? If you do, your house is already built on the same floodplain.

Are you trying to say the western side is a floodplain but the eastern isn't?

Have you ever seen a map of the floodplain? Are you even aware it covers 6 square kilometers and there are building all over it already including a school, 2 golf courses, multiple industrial buildings, a gadzillion houses, The Sharkies club, a petrol station, a fitness centre, day care centres etc etc etc

You are trying to convince people that one small area of this "floodplain" is going to be the catalyst for Armageddon when in fact the whole floodplain, the one your beloved OEH has funded a study on, is already practically entirely built out.

You may view the study area here

It's a non issue to anyone apart from someone who may have a self serving, vested interest in seeing the non approval of the development.

 

[jc155776]

Like a NIMBY?

 

[R2Coupe]

What are you really concerned about? Do you live close by? If you do, your house is already built on the same floodplain.

Are you trying to say the western side is a floodplain but the eastern isn't?

Have you ever seen a map of the floodplain? Are you even aware it covers 6 square kilometers and there are building all over it already including a school, 2 golf courses, multiple industrial buildings, a gadzillion houses, The Sharkies club, a petrol station, a fitness centre, day care centres etc etc etc

You are trying to convince people that one small area of this "floodplain" is going to be the catalyst for Armageddon when in fact the whole floodplain, the one your beloved OEH has funded a study on, is already practically entirely built out.

You may view the study area here

It's a non issue to anyone apart from someone who may have a self serving, vested interest in seeing the non approval of the development.

There has been near 40 pages of denials from Sharks' groupies and development apologists that the proposal is not on a floodplain.

When confronted with definitive advice it is, a shift in strategy occurs; the rational being now if structures already exist on the floodplain, why the objection?

This proposal happens to be the largest of its kind in the Shire and you want to put it on a floodplain in addition to the numerous other issues?

There are around 90 houses which may be impacted by a 1 in a 100 year flood and around 120 for a more severe event. My home is not one of them so I don't know from where you have pulled this information. I do suspect it is from the same repository Sharks' groupies peddled the BS about a new State bus service. Transport for NSW confirmed in its letter (on the Planning Dept website) it does not have any plans to provide a new bus service as suggested by the proponent.

 

[R2Coupe]

Sorry mate I get a bit defensive when people believe what's written in the paper.

Most of it is inaccurate BS

We have over 40 pages of inaccuracies peddled by Shark's groupies and development apologists eg floodplain issue and provision of a new bus service.

Why the double standards?

 

[Ausguy]

im gonna shit in your mailbox

 

[Frailty]

There has been near 40 pages of denials from Sharks' groupies and development apologists that the proposal is not on a floodplain.

When confronted with definitive advice it is, a shift in strategy occurs; the rational being now if structures already exist on the floodplain, why the objection?

This proposal happens to be the largest of its kind in the Shire and you want to put it on a floodplain in addition to the numerous other issues?

There are around 90 houses which may be impacted by a 1 in a 100 year flood and around 120 for a more severe event. My home is not one of them so I don't know from where you have pulled this information. I do suspect it is from the same repository Sharks' groupies peddled the BS about a new State bus service. Transport for NSW confirmed in its letter (on the Planning Dept website) it does not have any plans to provide a new bus service as suggested by the proponent.

http://144.140.79.192/dir141/webpapr.nsf/61d3339b94bf76a5ca2574a5007fa00e/34909582709dc0f0ca25791800061b06?OpenDocument

These are the Council Meeting Notes for 31st October 2011.

This is where the map comes from.

What can be derived from these minutes:
- Council has passed a resolution for funding of this study.
- Estimations that 740 individual properties are subject to flooding - That's right... 740.
- The council currently has NO Floodplain Risk Management Plan and NO flood mitigation strategies to reduce existing problems, AND NO controls on future development, so that flooding is not worsened.

 

[DJShaksta]

f**k we've had some rain over the last week haven't we.
Most rain since February I read.

Shark park must be underwater surely..........

 

[Eion]

There has been near 40 pages of denials from Sharks' groupies and development apologists that the proposal is not on a floodplain.

What about your hero's resort thingy Coupe? How could he be so negligent to suggest it. Maybe he's wrong about other things too......

 

[taipan]

We have over 40 pages of inaccuracies peddled by Shark's groupies and development apologists eg floodplain issue and provision of a new bus service.

Why the double standards?

And we get anti development people in the Leader stating the number of cars per unit will be averaging 2.5.That is pure and utter BS,not an inaccuracy.
According to a real estate mate of mine it is well under 2 based on his ecperiences,because many purchasers will be empty nesters, single unit dwellers,and even DINKS.
Having retail close handy,medical and public transport,will also assist in that regard.
The council gets up to date info and shown amendments ,yet pretends nothing is being done.They have the best fork tongues in the business.
Should the flood plain excuse apply ,when the Bank decides to foreclose and flog it off to other developers who will build factories and storage sheds.The hypocrisy is mind boggling.

 

[carcharias]

Everyone who lives there should just get boats instead.
Traffic and flood issue solved in one foul swoop.
George would have the biggest ship for all the pets of course.

Will you be allowed pets?

 

[taipan]

Everyone who lives there should just get boats instead.
Traffic and flood issue solved in one foul swoop.
George would have the biggest ship for all the pets of course.

Will you be allowed pets?

Let's do a really good job of it,bring in the Exxon Valdez bulk carrier and with it full load of bulk oil,give the old mangroves and leagues club a good grease and oil change.
The result :not be a zot of development for 100 years,George would be dancing in the streets.

 

[Ausguy]

Hey where is KMAV.... a positive story about the sharks future Kmav... why arent you posting about it?

http://www.theleader.com.au/news/local/news/general/sharks-plan-gains-favour/2385239.aspx