LETTERS: Republics end in disaster
I'M NOT surprised that Prince Charles declined to address an Australian Republican Movement meeting (NM, 23/03).
Us Aussies have had a few referendums on this issue, and each time have decided to stay with what is already in place.
We could have become a republic many years ago, but have decided against it. I wonder why?
Many of the republics around the world don't have a stable government, and are ruled by leaders that we would not tolerate.
Why try to copy their disastrous systems?
Who would want any of our present political leaders as a president?
We need to improve our style of government, rather than change it for something worse.
The ARM can't and won't accept the results of a referendum, even though they have had multiple chances.
Who would like their lot in power?
They would not listen to the wishes of the people.
Their track record so far proves that.
The US was often held up as a good type of a republic, but they are not a good example any longer.
North Korea, Russia, China, Asian and African republics and many other republics are on the nose.
We do need some changes in Australia.
Why don't we get rid of the rotten eggs and dead wood that is ruining our present political system?
If our politicians could prove their worth, we might - I say might - be prepared to trust them a lot more.
Neither Prince Charles, nor his mother, are to blame for our present problems.
We are destroying our own political system.
I AM writing this as our council is not taking public comment on this nine-storey development, on the beachfront at Bargara.
The council has agreed to evaluate the proposal on Code Technicalities alone (there are loopholes) and not on its impact on the local area.
One of the major drawcards for tourists to Bargara are the turtles.
A major problem for the turtles is the glow from houses and units. This confuses them. Many go back in to the water instead of laying and the hatchlings sometimes follow the light up onto the road rather than into the water.
This is a reason for lack of housing close to Mon Repos.
Turtles also lay on adjacent beaches, not in as large numbers, but they do lay. Hence it is explained and requested of beachfront residents to draw blinds or limit lights in the laying and hatching season.
The council has gone to the expense of turtle-friendly street lighting on the beachfronts.
A recent development at Burnett Heads was objected to because of the glow from additional houses.
The State Government intervened and made the council put a whole range of expensive restrictions on to limit the glow.
Lighting from a nine-storey building will be in direct line of sight of Mon Repos and create more significant problems, not only at Mon Repos but on nearby beaches.
I was at a birthday lunch and a local owner of a motel was talking about the impact of Airbnb.
In the past she would be fully booked for the school holidays but now has just three bookings.
Airbnb is creating problems for local accommodation businesses.
The impact of Airbnb has been so significant on accommodation businesses at Airlie Beach that their council is trying to find ways to limit it.
There have been a number of news items of tower blocks in Sydney and Melbourne where investors buy them and then Airbnb them.
So what will a nine-storey tower block with extra shops and restaurants do for accommodation small businesses in Bargara, where small business are already struggling?
The planning scheme used to be three storeys.
If the building was aesthetically pleasing (and by whose judgement?), then five storeys no problem. Now apparently nine storeys can be considered.
What gives the developer any level of confidence that the council will approve nine storeys?
The last thing that residents of Bargara want is to become a mini Gold Coast.
What is the point of presenting a planning scheme to us if it can be disregarded so easily?
Worse was to come. At Bundaberg Regional Council, a developer can choose which councillors it wants present at meetings considering its application.
Our local member who is supposed to represent us has been excluded from meetings considering this development application.
So we residents are not permitted to have our say.
Our local council representative is excluded so that he cannot have a say on our behalf.
Impact on our area has been excluded from consideration of the application.
One of the people at this birthday lunch wrote a letter of protest to the council and received a reply saying that the council was not taking public comment.
I had thought that we residents were constituents that could at least have our concerns considered.
Why is our local council representative excluded from meetings directly affecting us and his area of responsibility?
Why are local planning regulations so easily disregarded?
Why is impact of this development on the local area, excluded from consideration?
I expect the council will say the usual "Oh, it has not been approved yet".
What on earth is going on?