Tuesday, July 6, 2010

Council Wasting Money On Conservation Land

People are starting to question this Council's spending! Budgets are tight everywhere! We hear it constantly! Mayor Melva in her ratepayer funded full page advertisement today (Bayside Bulletin 6/7/10) told us that “we've significantly tightened our belt as an organisation” in the 2010/11 Redland City Council Budget.
From where I stand, it is difficult to see the buckle mark move in the right direction for this City. Where are these savings reflected in our total rate bills and Council's fees and charges? We are about to suffer an increase in collection of rates and levies for 2010/11 by just under 14%. Time to ask some serious questions!
  • Environment Levy: Melva and her “new team of Councillors” have continued to increase the Environment Levy from $72.80 in 2007/08 to $109.80 in 2010/11 (a 51% increase). This money is spent in a number of areas – the purchase of land, the maintenance of acquired land and towards environmental policies and strategies such as the Koala Strategy. For now, I would like to focus on the capital spending, in particular, why this Council continues to buy land to “protect” it when it is already protected by the Planning Scheme?
  • Buying Conservation Land: Melva and her “new team of Councillors” continue to pay top dollar for the purchase of this land under the guise of increasing the environmental credentials of our City and to protect it from development and growth. The truth is, much of this land is already protected by the Conservation Zone, but Council continues to pay millions of $$ to potentially save only a few trees. No one argues that we need to invest in protecting our environment but when business and families are struggling to make ends meet, Council needs to consider the ratepayers ability to continue absorbing these increases. We should expect a more balanced approach to the expenditure of our rates. Delivering value for money in uncertain times is far more critical than Council increasing its land portfolio and creating a huge maintenance bill for our children to fund. This is not effective spending!
  • Private Ownership: Does Melva and her “new team of Councillors” believe that we are all environmental vandals that cannot be trusted to maintain our conservation zoned blocks? Is it not more effective to assist our conservation land owners to maintain their own land? Are they trying to appease developers by purchasing their land and offering them huge profits to avoid having 4 house blocks on 800+ hectares? Or is it to avoid further record legal costs and embarrassment in the Planning and Environment Court when trying to take away a land owners rights and entitlements to such land?
  • Back To Basics: When budgets are tight, most concentrate on maintaining what they already own rather than spending more money increasing their assets. In my opinion, this is not reflected in Council's approach to spending public funds on purchasing land.
I encourage all residents and ratepayers to read the Minutes of the Special Council Meeting of 25th June 2010 to understand which Councillors are failing to make decisions in the broader interest of the Redlands community and future generations.