Hypocritical dam brigade
As a writer who has regularly been a victim of the ‘school bully ‘style sarcasm & fact free arguments from an anonymous writer hiding behind the Emu Swamp Brigade banner, I was surprised to read the last ‘ESDB’ letter. Accusing your perceived opponents as the perpetrators of the very things you do yourself is a common strategy of propagandists. It is often done for political or personal reasons when what the writer wants or says may not stand up to the light of day. The claim that POW spreads so called ‘Whoppers’ is another example of propaganda. Again accusing the opposition of the very things ESDB does itself.
As well ESDB keeps rabbiting on about what POW’s alternatives are. How about you read the expert recommendations already provided to SDRC. [at a cost of $2million to ratepayers] Google the GHD report for a start. That report advises us that the Emu swamp project would cost twice that of raising Storm King dam’s wall & that Emu swamp will have significantly greater operating costs which will have to be borne by ratepayers.
This leads to the question. Why persist with Emu Swamp dam when the Business case has shown it to be uneconomic? [A 60 cent return for every dollar invested is one estimate]. Remember also this is a private dam which will only benefit 50 of the several hundred Granite Belt growers. Ninety two [& probably rising] percent of the cost is taxpayers money.
Is the dubious town water benefit [Both dams potentially empty at the same time]simply a cover for the public funding of a private growers dam. If you think that is ridiculous I suggest you read the Guardian article on Tamworth’s Dungowan dam. See the following link.
Lastly we all know that the Emu Swamp ‘brigade ‘doesn’t exist except as cover for the writer Also how about we get facts into this debate with authoritative sources & not propaganda.
John Morison, Stanthorpe
Cr Tancred and the pest management scheme
In reply to Cr Stephen Tancred’s boast how Council had destroyed the previous courageous Council’s Pest Management Scheme.
The former scheme applied some small measure of pressure on landowners to clean up their noxious weeds. However, our current city fathers and mothers “went to water” on this issue. Cr Tancred claims Council consulted with property owners resulting in scrapping previous intentions.
Maybe Council should consult with us as to whether or not we want to pay rates. We’ll all say no and that will be the end of that.
We’ve always had wonderful staff at our Council, but sadly, leadership is lacking from our councillors.
Just as Governments are content to leave the little children happily playing in the schoolground with a massive debt, so too our Council intends to ensure those same little ones have an insurmountable weed problem.
May I suggest Cr Tancred and his mates on Council start a fund to equip the next generation with sturdy work gear to combat and tackle the mess we leave behind.
Lastly, Cr Tancred should remember what happened to the last bloke who said “not my job”.
Frank Roche, Maryvale.
