Questions to Council

Madam

I've lived here in Hay for 58 of my 63 years. I consider myself 'local'.

I've decided to air a few of my many opinions publicly as to the past and current direction the town seems to be going in.

Over these many years I've seen huge changes in not only the streetscape and recreational amenities but also surrounding industry. Sometimes change is a good thing but sometimes it's not.

Lachlan Street once had its trees planted in the footpaths. This left much more room for parking than we now have.

What a gem of an idea that was to cut down these mature old trees only to then replant sapplings into the roadsides.

This wonderful idea not only eliminated many parking spaces but also created another problem. As the trees grew the trunks expanded and heaved up the surrounding ground.

Prior to trees being planted in the roadway, gutters were cleaned manually but as time passed this job was tasked to machines.

The position of these trees makes machine access impossible, so the gutters are not cleaned completely even though we ratepayers pay for a machine to come from Deniliquin to complete this task.

At the time when trees occupied the footpaths, the main streets were kept pristine by two middle aged gentleman with brooms and shovels. Mr Waters and Mr Wade could be seen most weekday early mornings doing just that.

At that same time Mr Myers, a gentleman with only one hand, was tasked with maintaining Hay Park. He did so to award-winning standards.

Plaques adorned our park in those days. Sadly now it looks like one of the McDonald's franchise playgrounds. These hideous constructions are now almost too numerous to count as they pop up out of the ground all round town like toadstools after a downfall.

Another of my observations is the restrictions now placed on all residents and tourists (which seem to be of more importance than locals) to access Sandy Point beach.

It has always been very accessible for everyone regardless of your ability or inability to walk.

I'd love to know whose brainwave it was to drag firewood across the beach road, cutting off the foreshore in order to increase the lawned area? Like the cultivation and maintenance of lawn in this town isn't already a massive drain fiscally.

I recently attended a council meeting to ask what could be done to reverse the decision regarding the Sandy Point beach road closure.

I was told it was forced onto them because of some departmental requirement from on high. Probably in a galaxy far far away as well?

I was told it can be reversed but it would be easier to get a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than undo what has been done.

Not owning a camel, I’ve decided to use my keyboard. I consider the shutting off of the beach road to be the kind of decision you'd expect in a sheltered workshop.

Now given I'm an escapee from a sheltered workshop, I can attest to this.

The reality is the decision to restrict access to the beach is one proposed by the council and supported in part by the fishing club.

I have no grievance with this second group as they bring visitors and considerable money into the town during their activities. However, I see no reason to permanently block access to the beach to vehicles when the fishing comp only needs a few out of the 365 to accommodate their needs.

In any event, the six months needed to review this decision has passed and I for one would greatly like to hear if anyone else thinks this road closure needs to be reversed in favour of opening up the roadway to all patrons as has been the practice for the last 50-plus years.

I then asked about the proposed 12 per cent increase in rates. I was instantly corrected by the GM.

I appreciated him doing so, because the proposal was actually 12.5 per cent over three years.

The GM then stated that it was 'just a proposal' at this stage put to government for permission to increase the rates above the normal three per cent annual increase.

Can anyone remember a time when a proposal to take money from ratepayers or tax payers put to a bureaucracy was ever denied?

This proposal would have to have the full support of council to be sought in the first instance, so remember this next time you get a rate notice.

My main reason for enquiring was I wanted to know what 12.5 per cent would look like on $1000 for example. I was told it would be just that, 12.5 per cent.

The truth is, compounded over three years, this $1000 would be considerably higher than $1000 plus 12.5 per cent. In any event it needs to happen because previous councils didn't do the right thing by keeping our rates to a minimum.

During this meeting it was announced that there were three upcoming seminars, one in Sydney, one in Adelaide and one in Canberra.

This sparked a very lively debate as to who would be attending what. In fact there were a number of councillors wanting to attend the same seminar as others.

It seems that when it comes to representing Hay at seminars there is no lack of enthusiasm although the South Australian one was the least popular.

Luckily for our representatives on council the mayor informed them that as many as five councillors could attend. It was like watching seagulls fighting over a hot chip.

Good thing the increase in rates is on the horizon. There may be a few fact finding missions to the Bahamas coming up?

I understand, as do most people who do their own shopping, that wages, production costs, fuel and other materials have all increased considerably.

Why then for example would we increase lawned areas at the expense of access to public roadways?

Why pay a street sweeper to come from Deniliquin to Hay to do a part job given the restricted access to the gutters?

Why pay for more than one councillor to attend each seminar given the huge expense these junkets cost? An expense the town clearly can’t afford given the council's current attempt to garner an increase in rates by such a considerable hike.

I would also like to note that Cr Quinn was the sole councillor in attendance at this meeting to suggest he'd happily attend any of these upcoming seminars from Hay via Skype.

I was impressed by Cr Quin's suggestion of attending in such a fashion given Cr Chapman was in attendance at this very meeting himself via skype.

I've been on a pension pretty well all my adult life. I'm grateful to the many people who work, earn and pay tax so that I'm afforded a means to live as comfortably as I do.

I know of people that will struggle with a rate hike as is being sought by council.

I also know that if I managed my income in the same fashion the council manages the rates my dogs would have to fight me for the scraps!

How did the previous council manage on a three per cent increase when the current council needs to look to the State government for permission to 'kiss' us ratepayers without taking us out to dinner first?

Maybe it's time this council stopped looking for grant money to build things we don't need but end up having to maintain?

Seriously, how many playgrounds, skate parks, ovals and museums can a town of less than 3000 people sustain?

How much would we have saved if instead of building another playground behind the pool Council opened up that land for residential development?

Did we really need to spend a million-plus dollars on the leaky pool amenities and still have the leaking pool leak?

How much would the town save if it sold off assets like Bishop’s Lodge to a private developer given its annual maintenance cost?

At least it would start paying its share of rates, unlike the Caledonian site that we no longer derive rates from and now pay to maintain as a parking area which is needed because of roadside plantings that restrict main street parking.

I look forward to being berated for my views as I watch yet another lot of playground equipment spring from the ground here in West Hay.

Yours

Don Deluca.

Hay, NSW