Your very first line! From a reader’s perspective, the differentiation …

Comment on Town council’s ‘regional’ landfill: cart before the horse? by Rod Cramer.

Your very first line! From a reader’s perspective, the differentiation between the RDA money, and what it’s not being spent on, has been far from clear. While I’m no fan of any Council Officer, I thought Greg Buxton’s (later?) statement was quite succinct for once. The RDA money, as I pointed out already in the earlier article, will do nothing to change the legacy of a sow’s ear that successive Councils are leaving the Community in perpetuity. No “upgrading” of the tip is within Council’s capability going by its track record. A flash roof on doesn’t compensate for poor, or indeed no, foundations. I’ve been saying this since 1980; one day the penny will drop, but the longer it takes, all the more damage to deal with. (You have never researched me.)
[ED – Hi Rod, apologies, there are about 25,000 other people in Alice Springs I haven’t researched on on this story.]

Rod Cramer Also Commented

Town council’s ‘regional’ landfill: cart before the horse?
Erwin, I think you and Council have both contributed to muddying the waters. The public money grant is to spend far too much money with “shop front infrastructure” for the dump. Nothing at all to do with any bizarre plan as a regional repository, or Council’s ongoing lip service to make a “silk purse from a sow’s ear”. I made a similar comment on your pages some time ago. Council are helping to confuse people with their constant use of hi-faloutin terms for what still is a dump. Landfill is a process that they have never understood. I guess its a case of “we’ll call it a ‘silk purse’ anyway”.
Properly managed dumps will seldom smell. What we still have is a “shit tip”, run by the same people who ordered the “Emperor’s new clothes”!
[Hi Rod … thanks for your comment. But in what way did the Alice News muddy the waters? We reported what we were told by council, shire and government officials, or facts we could obtain by research, bringing these matters before the public. That’s our job.]


Recent Comments by Rod Cramer

Ilparpa dongas depot: Will Tony Smith get a permit?
A correction: There clearly is a definition of “Transport Terminal” in the NT Planning Scheme, on page “Part 1-13”.
What the chair in effect said was that the definition may be somewhat insuffient. What she did quite clearly say was that there was no definition “goods”. The Applicants “Statement of Effect” was even titled “Transport Terminal for Storage of Transportable Buildings”.
Tony Smith said to a meeting of the Alice Springs Rural Area Association Inc in June: “I don’t want a Transport Termial, I want Storage!” In any event, the current activity doesn’t even pass the “pub test”.
Regardless, as a Discretionary use in Zone R – Rural (as opposed to RL and RR), it does not meet the criteria under the Planning Act to be approved, as the Officers of the Planning Department pointed out in their Assessment Document.
As with many applications, amenity (which is also defined under the Act “Part 1-6”) is at stake. When will applicants learn that it is not their prerogative to describe the effect of their proposal on the amenity of their neighbours?
I used the analogy of sexual harrassment, in that the affect on the harassed is not for the harasser to describe.
I of course was in no way drawing any other analogy with any applicant. I was much appreciative of two ladies who the first thing they said to me after the hearing was: “I got it straight away – good analogy.”


Ilparpa furore: Business as usual despite ‘cease’ notice
I don’t know what “Anonymous” means by a “transport hub”, but I would have thought Trevor Shiell used the term appropriately.
Whatever, I doubt very much there are nine of them in Whitegums, although there are probably that sort of number in the total rural area, which of course is far too many.
However, some would be classed as “home based contracting” which would not require approval depending on the size of the operation. Some would not.
At least one (if it is included in A’s count) can only be classed as ancillary to genuine rural enterprise. A few of them would be classed as “pre existing” (the application of the Planning Scheme to the area), and so exempt.
As far as the “same people coming up with the same arguments”, so far none of the folk speaking out about this have not, to the best of my knowledge, ever protested before in relation to any planning proposal.
If this is what it takes to get Ilparpa Road widened for the benefit of those who can’t drive properly, or for the benefit of recreational cyclists, it’s far from worth it.


Tom Cleary: Cattle man with a huge smile
Tom was certainly one of those folk, that if you only met him once or twice, and even if only for a few minutes, you will never ever forget him, and for all the right reasons.


Art Trail, Explorer’s Way: big words, so far no substance
A long way north of Pt Augusta, about 190 klm’s in fact.


Miners oppose call for land holders’ veto rights
Spot on “Barkley Magpie”. Trouble is, it’s not just the big issues the miners don’t do the right thing on, and consequently leave mayhem behind them for the pastoralists.
Such things as track rehab that consists of nothing more than a branch or goondie placed across the start of their soilcon disasters, or small aquifers damaged by their dodgy drillers, the list is long and depressing.


Be Sociable, Share!