Retain free access for rich and poor alike
As a resident of Pearl Beach, I enjoy and draw great pleasure from the public lands, beaches, national parks and public waterways which comprise my environment here and throughout the Central Coast.
In recent weeks, I have learned of the council's intention to sell dozens of public reserves and parks.
I have visited them all and have been impressed by the level of community use in many of them, the council neglect in others, and the huge potential for council-encouraged, community collaborations for the common usage of all these public lands.
In the world of politics and corruption, there are those who advocate for small government with appeals to individualism, competition and a market free from regulation.
There are others who advocate for responsible government with everyone, including the mega-rich and corporate, paying their taxes so that government can serve the common good.
On the Central Coast, we are facing Mike Baird's legislation which permits the Mike Baird-appointed council to privatise our public lands.
The Central Coast Council has declared intentions to re-classify existing public lands away from public to sell them off before an elected council can govern these decisions.
The losers will be the people and the common good.
The winners will be private owners who will develop these ex-public lands for their private profit.
Should this concern me, my friends, my family, my acquaintances, and my community?
If one wants to continue fishing in the extensive public waters, swimming on our public beaches, riding through our National Parks and strolling in the beauty of our reserves, then we should know that this is because it is all public.
Rich and poor alike currently have this access; elaborate corporate yachts have access as do our sweet-as-a-nut tinnies and run-abouts.
We all own these public assets and we have free entry to them.
However, if the council was to sell them off, the Central Coast will look like many harbours where the developers have sold the waterfronts, sold the best of the heights and vistas, and where beaches and access to the water are owned by the privateers.
I attended a meeting with council representatives on Wednesday, July 6, at Erina.
I heard two arguments at the meeting to support the council's sale of public lands to private profiteers, both from council representatives:
One stated that the council, over the last three years, has purchased 87 hectares of new public lands that should be put against the lots that are to be sold.
The second argument in favour of reserve sales was that public lands should be sold so that council has the money to make roads safer and thus save lives.
It is evident that a council area which has become a population over-flow area for poorly-managed Sydney will require additional public amenity and protection as the population rapidly increases.
In addition, the 87 hectares will, no doubt, include large tracts of land required for fighting fires, protecting creeks and lagoons, shoring up the impact of climate warming, and so on.
The second argument invited a scornful, mocking response.
Shall we sell the National Parks to build a freeway to safety?
Is the argument that to save lives on the roads, the NSW Government, through its appointed and developer-controlled councils, will cash in every children's' playground, public reserve, waterfront facility?
In my view, developers should be precluded from council and its planning processes, and invited to the table only after planning for a preferred future is incorporated into a council-supported, but community-generated plan for the Central Coast.
In this respect the council could convene a broad combination of political, sports, church, public transport, road users, homeless, war veterans, disabled, women, child care and other groups together.
With the assistance of specialist collaboration facilitators, it could draw from the community-at-large, it's essential requirements and preferences leading to the development of a comprehensive and integrated plan for the future of the Central Coast.
Such a community-generated plan would represent a preferred future as expressed by the people and would have strong political legitimacy straddling the chasms between political parties and exposing and marginalising those motivated by personal gain, greed or vested interest rather than a concern for the common good.
Letter, 19 Jul 2016
Dr Vanlyn Davy, Pearl Beach