I’ve just been shocked back into reality as to why …

Comment on CLP pre-selects Steve Brown for Araluen by Cogs.

I’ve just been shocked back into reality as to why I haven’t missed JB’s diatribe. Second sentence; as I recall it was Labour that set up all the ducks for Kilgariff. Etc.

Recent Comments by Cogs

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.

Praise for $24m overpass over the top
Remember folks, this was Federal money.
While this may be the last level crossing on the Stuart Hwy in the NT, it’s not the last on the Adelaide to Darwin line over the Stuart Highway.
Anyone genuinely concerned about safety would have attended to the one 50 km north of Pt Augusta first – it is at a seriously oblique angle, and somewhere trains would be at maximum speed, unlike our overpass, where they are just entering / leaving a 50 km/h restriction.

Latz honoured as NT’s top landcarer
Well deserved Latzy, not before time!

Town to grow to the south and west – draft plan
I haven’t read every word of this latest piece of tinsel, but one has to ask why the faceless authors insist on changing more than just nomenclature (eg Mt Johns was named after Edwin Johns, so how do we get “Mt John’s”?), by apparently changing the clearly defined terms of the NT Planning Scheme.
Look closely, the land currently zoned RL (Rural Living, min size 2ha) and R (Rural min size 40 ha) is lumped together and coloured the same light brown, and referred to as “Rural Lifestyle”, whatever that is? It’s not in the Planning Scheme.
The olive areas on the draft map labeled “Rural” is essentially pastoral land.
Any land with some substantial existing Rural Residential (RR min 0.4 ha / 1 acre) is labeled as future urban! And coloured the same (pink) as the Residential Zones north of the Heavitree Range!?
Why? The faceless authors are certainly managing to create confusion. Why depart from the existing legislated terminology?
There is an underlying tone in this draft, and the despicable background / research document that spawned it, of anti rural sentiment.
I hope this Draft Land Use Plan attracts more scrutiny than previous ones. Don’t leave it to “someone else”, they don’t live here anymore!

Be Sociable, Share!