Letter to the Editor: A few inconvenient truths on jetty question

DEAR News Of The Area,

WHILE I respect the views of people who oppose development of the harbour foreshores, I’m getting a bit tired of hearing their claim that the great majority of people who voted at the last Council election, opposed the development.

Let’s consider a few inconvenient truths:

1. For two-three years, the anti-development movement has complained that the earlier surveys showing support for some development on the foreshores were biased and therefore should be ignored.

2. The question drafted by the previous anti-development Council, and used in the survey held as part of the last Council election, was clearly biased and designed to get an anti-development answer. Apparently, a biased question is OK if it’s biased in their favour.

3. I volunteered to hand out “how to vote” leaflets for one of the council candidates at the last election. I was surprised when many of the people supporting anti-development candidates were approaching voters and telling them lies about what was being proposed. As many voters were not very aware of the development proposal, it was easy to mislead them with stories of many high-rise residential buildings along the foreshores.

So it’s hardly surprising that a biased question, supported by misleading information told to uninformed people, just before they voted, resulted in majority support for the anti-development cause.

Clearly the foreshore is a divisive issue.

Various state governments clearly want to see some development on this land.

Does it not make sense to try and find a compromise solution, limiting the amount of residential development rather than trying to prevent anything happening on this land and continuing to see a fenced off paddock keeping everyone out of the railway owned land.

Regards,
Patrick WALTERS,
Coffs Harbour.