Erwin, I think you and Council have both contributed to …

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

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.]

Rod Cramer Also Commented

Town council’s ‘regional’ landfill: cart before the horse?
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.]

Recent Comments by Rod Cramer

Soft song of rain will continue
As I recall it was the the Weather Bureau that divided the NT up into forecast “districts” some years ago, whose boundaries did not necessarily coincide with the topo / geographical features they were named after.
I notice in recent weeks the bureau can’t make up its mind if its using their own defined districts, or the topo / geographical areas, which could be quite misleading.
NT bureau forecasters, and subsequently the media, chop and change between the two, even in the one forecast or report. Come on, one or the other, please.

Have a look at what’s being demolished
An absolute act of bastardry. Well done Mike. It wouldn’t have cost that much to repair it, and at least that might have gone to local tradies to do with pride. Well done Mike.

Federal Police uses drone to spy on tourists
The DCOF of the day told me 15 years ago that under the Defence Undertakings Act they “have the power to question anyone anywhere anytime”. But are the current inquisitors AFP or contracted security?

Defence to close Stuart Highway for up to 12 hours
So what’s happened to Trevor Seebohm and his 11th hour posts?

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.”

Be Sociable, Share!

A new way to support our journalism

We do not have a paywall. If you support our independent journalism you can make a financial contribution by clicking the red button below. This will help us cover expenses and sustain the news service we’ve been providing since 1994, in a locally owned and operated medium.

Erwin Chlanda, Editor