Ethics and the Constitution

Information

nigeltMonday, 27 January 2020 - 5:11pm

I have received an email, as may have many other members, dated 20th January purporting to be an ‘Update from North Arm Cove Community Association’, although nowhere does it specify which members of the association have authored the pronouncements or whether it is the product of a lone individual. (It is also necessary to note its time, 12.54 pm, as such apparent ‘thought-bubbles’ have recently been issued at seemingly daily – or at one stage hourly - intervals. This fiasco is fast approaching the level of a Marx Brothers production, but sadly lacking the comedy.) I have waded through the 4 attached PDFs which, in parts, strike me as incoherent at best and am therefore more than pleased to leave their dissection, analysis and commentary to those who have displayed by their posts to have the more than adequate relevant abilities, namely Bob Reid, Doug Kohlhoff and Tony Hann. Instead I would like to address other matters raised therein.

RU2 landholders have voiced their main reasons for joining the Association - - ‘. It seems to be generally accepted that there are approx. 3000 privately owned paper-subdivision lots near the village. Despite diligent searches I can find no evidence of either the NACRA/NACCAi committees or the general association membership over the years ever having established the ownership details of each individual non-urban lot. Similarly I can find no record of committees and/or members systematically approaching the owners of the 3000 to conduct a vote or even a simple survey to ascertain their wishes in this matter. The reference to ‘20 non-urban members’ doesn`t specify if these are village residents/owners with additional non-urban holdings and therefore already automatically qualifying for membership or are purely non-urban owners who do not. On present information these 20 would seem to account for less than 1% of the 3000 lots. I know of no accepted form of democracy where the stated interests/preferences of such a miniscule sub-set take priority over the unrepresented and unsought interests of the glaring 99% plus majority.

In the absence of any such authority to act on their behalf the sudden claim by the committee – or a clique or individual therein – displays gross arrogance bordering on megalomania. To make a unilateral all-encompassing decision to act on behalf of the non-urbanites for their own good without written, verbal or even implied consent is gob-smacking. Just when was the committee considering exhibiting even a glimmer of decency by advising that 99% plus of the intended imminent abrogation of their right to deal with MCC ? History is replete with examples of such actions being instigated ‘for their own good’ with highly negative consequences. Consider for just a moment if a committee of owners north of the highway, a numerically smaller group with entirely different interests to ours, suddenly took it into their heads, with no instigation, promotion or consent by us, to declare that they would take over as our representatives, involve themselves in our matters and handle relations with MCC. Outrage wouldn`t start to describe our response !

‘There is a perception and fear that there could be differences in priorities however no evidence has been presented.’ The evidence has been out there for years for anyone prepared to get off their backside and do the most basic of research. I would refer you to Online Petitions at ‘A Call for North Arm Cove’s Development and Potential’ and ‘change.org Great Lakes non urban land owners’. The former dates from 2016 and has 29 A4 pages of posts while the latter runs from 3 years ago and claims at last count 687 posts. (I have not counted them.) There may well be others and I`m told there is a similar Facebook site. (I`m not an aficionado of Facebook – particularly in view of recent revelations – so cannot/have not checked.) Perusing these posts it soon becomes evident that a large number (the majority ?) are simply rants ruing their decision to buy into the non-urban lots or accept transfer of such lots by inheritance – and the resulting accruing rates. Rather than accept any responsibility for their past actions they are intent on allocating the blame for their predicament upon others, in particular the Council. Considering the lengths Council has gone to to explain its position one can only conclude that this is a display by many of determined wilful ignorance. Simply referring online to ‘MidCoast Council – Non-Urban Land’ reveals in enlarged text ‘Non-urban land is NOT exempt from rates. - - rates are still payable even on empty blocks. Councils are required to charge rates on private land under the Local Government Act 1993. Council charges - - the lowest rates possible.’ (There are none so blind - - - ?) So their bitch, in the absence of accepting any self-responsibility for their predicament, should in fact be with the State Gov`t.

 

Usually in an ‘amalgamation’ of two well/equally informed,similar bodies with overlapping interests there is a ‘quid pro quo’ to not only encourage but also assist in the union. Here we have a total disparity in being informed with no declared or discernible interests in common and absolutely no ‘benefit in return’, either for NACCAi or the village as a whole. (Unless one counts partially satisfying the apparent megalomania of a clique or individual ?)

Zoning. On the same site Council also states in enlarged text ‘There is no plan to rezone Non-urban land in the area of North Arm Cove - - for urban purposes.’ In 1968 my work caused me to become involved in paper-subdivisions across NSW and in particular those at North Arm Cove, Bundabah and others nearby (then under the authority of Stroud Council), coming into contact with Council, lot owners, inheritors, etc. As far as I am aware – and I may well stand corrected -  not Stroud, Great Lakes or MidCoast Council has ever put in writing anything to the contrary regarding non-urban zoning. Reception-counter enquiries in the 1960`s and early/mid `70’s could be somewhat vague – eg. ‘We don`t think there`s likely to be any building permission soon’ – but written replies set the precedent for the present-day ‘There is no plan - - ‘ mantra. By the late ‘70`s, when Great Lakes took over, Council was getting heartily sick of the complaints of gullible individuals who had preferred to accept the unsupported word of weekend salesmen working on commission out of bunting-clad caravans parked prominently on the corner of the then Pacific Highway (now Gooreengi Rd.) and the village access road, promising nirvana and whatever else it might take to clinch a sale, while ignoring legally advised ‘due diligence’ enquiries with Council for a factual statement. Council took the initiative and put up the first of its successive signs over the years up to today, 100 metres or so from that corner, advising anyone contemplating purchasing non-urban land what they should do to protect their own interests. Unfortunately we do not hear from the literally thousands who had the common sense to heed Council`s advice, to ignore the blandishments and empty promises and not be taken in, to invest more securely elsewhere and to get on with their lives. These petition sites even today display enquiries from credulous individuals still wishing to follow this well worn track. Real estate sites, eg. Domain, and local agents are currently offering non-urban lots for up to $85,000 in the hope that such persons will ignore Council`s admonishments, put their brains in ‘Park’ and satisfy their impulses. One can only go so far in trying to protect individuals from themselves.

Seriously, do we wish to become mired in the interminable, for the most part self-inflicted, woes – and expense ! – of the non-urbanites ?

Perpetuating Ignorance. I have been puzzled that village residents, including at least one committee member, with non-urban blocks have been prepared to post on these petition sites but have apparently made no attempt to allay the ire, fears, misapprehensions etc. of the vast majority of their fellow but non-resident non-urbanites by simply posting on the same sites a referral to the MCC site and/or explaining in basic terms the contents of MCC`s Non-Urban Land advice. It speaks volumes for the lack of unity within this group that the committee/clique/individual are determined to ‘represent’; apparently it`s also fine to withhold information, ensure and perpetuate ignorance in your takeover target. Yes, I could do it, but first let`s see if any of the resident non-urbanites or more importantly any of the committee member non-urbanites are prepared to share their knowledge for the benefit of those less well informed individuals among their targetted non-urbanite ‘cousins’.

Before writing this post I tried to get answers to some of these matters by approaching a non-urban owning, village resident, committee member, outlining my reasons for wishing to speak and arranging a call time. At that agreed time the phone rang out and a voice asked me to leave my name and phone no. for them to call me back, which I did. To date, silence. Having made the effort to take on board a variety of thoughts/opinions and be open with mine in a discussion/exchange I trust that there will be no complaints about such being mentioned here.

Interestingly there are posts on the Online Petitions decrying the present-day decline in the state of the area, seemingly aimed at the actions of us local inhabitants. Much ire is expressed and directed at the Council for the state of the ‘roads’ through the non-urban lots; I am not aware – but could again stand to be corrected – that the residue of the subdivision (which would generally include the roads) has ever been wholly transferred to the Council, but it is reported (Cove website, 11/1/2012, ‘Some Early History of the Cove’) that in 1963 they did rule that the majority of them be closed, my understanding being that it was reportedly to avoid the potential mounting costs of having to service them. (I believe there are still questions of ownership regarding residual ‘bush’ islands within the village itself.)

Re-zoning. The question of re-zoning, provision of infrastructure, etc. on such a scale is not one for Council but the State Government, who in turn will refer to their case study example at Riverstone, north-west of Sydney, which involves approx. 3600 lots and approx. 550 owners. (See online NSW Planning & Infrastructure – Planning for Paper Subdivisions, page 4. Also, following a previous attempt to rezone the NAC non-urban lots, the post of Tony Hann on the Cove website of 12/4/2012 titled ‘Paper Subdivision – Notes’ following a meeting with the NSW Dept of Planning at Tea Gardens which included personnel administering the Riverstone re-zoning.)

I first became involved in the Riverstone paper-subdivision in 1968 and after 6 years of assessment/deliberation purchased non-urban lots there in 1974. Riverstone township could not/would not assist us with re-zoning requests. Blacktown Council agreed to listen to us but advised that eventually it would be (and proved to be) a State Government matter and that we should form a body of all landholders and become incorporated before we would be granted any meaningful input at Council and State level (which, despite dispersed owners, language barriers, very different preferences, etc. we did, resulting in VRMPD Inc, viewable online and Facebook). In contrast the current crop of NAC non-urbanites have shown no inclination to form a single body and, equally important, an expressed united voice and aim.  Since around the turn of the century Riverstone has had the backing of both Council and State, whereas NAC re-zoning has the resolute opposition of both Council and State. Riverstone has all the relevant infrastructure at hand, merely needing for it to be extended for connection, nestling in a proclaimed development corridor with its own rail-line (being duplicated) and station, plus a highway connecting growth centres (already expanded from 2 to 4-6 lanes) while non-urban NAC has - - what ? - - besides an adamant, oft declared position by Council to stop any such development outside of their already planned and State Gov`t approved Tea Gardens/Hawks Nest hub.

The above is not mentioned to promote Riverstone lots but to indicate that following all the groundwork meetings and graft of the ‘70`s and ‘80`s, the gradual engagement of the Council and State (for their own benefit) in the ‘90`s, it was not until 2010 that the zoning was finally changed – in my case to ‘Ordinary Residential Scheduled Lands-Vacant’ - which did not and still doesn`t allow owners to build or do anything else with their land - not even camping ! (Time for an online petition ?) However, the end is in sight with the first parcel of lots being prepared by the State Govt`s body, Landcom. So it has been 52 years from first viewing, 46 years from purchasing, for the first glimmers of hope to appear on the horizon – it brings a whole new perspective to ‘patience’. Prepare yourselves - and generations to come - NACCAi !

If we could have learned anything from events of the last few months it should have been that fragmented development in densely wooded areas can so easily prove lethal, not only to those sufficiently divorced from reality to contemplate it in the first place, but more importantly for those dedicated individuals who take on the onerous task of having to then strive to protect such structures, even having on occasion to extract the owners, at great risk to themselves.  Hopefully in the future greater attention will be paid to the opinions of the fire authorities regarding planning and zoning of such areas, for the problem is only going to get considerably and inevitably worse.

Aside from apparent reveries of empire building, does NACCAi – other than a handful of residential non-urban owners seemingly intent on promoting their own self-interest - seriously want to become embroiled for not years but decades, with absolutely no hint of a resolution, in the single interest of the non-urbanites, with them showing no inclination to commence the most basic steps in helping themselves. Continual complaining plus inaction are not the first steps to resolving their woes.

Miscellany. Glib use of the term ‘neighbourhood’ pertaining to thousands of cleared hectares north of the highway and hundreds of densely tree-covered hectares to the south does not constitute a neighbourhood by any stretch of the imagination other than in an overall administrative sense, no matter how often the proponents may repeat it or wish it to be so for territorial aggrandisement purposes. It includes the word neighbour for a specific reason, that being to signify a number of persons living near one another, especially when forming a community. It is difficult to construct a more apt and encompassing description of our village within its present boundaries.

The fact that some public servant short on imagination chose to append our name to a vast expanse of scarcely inhabited grazing-land or a lesser but still significant area of dense bushland with barely any occupants, legal or otherwise, is absolutely no reason for our in-house clique or individual to unleash their proprietorial instincts. Biting off more than one can chew comes to mind. We manage, barely at times, to service the needs – and occasionally wants – of our communal neighbourhood. Could we please limit ourselves to doing a known job well, rather than an overstretched mediocre performance to satisfy inflated egos.

The use of the term non-urban land holders had absolutely no connection with 1992, developers, etc. In 1963 Council`s re-zoning actions used the term non-urban. My paper-subdivision work from 1968 and access to Realty Realisations records from 1972 showed the term had been in use far earlier and was widespread across NSW. The relevance of the term ‘developers’ eludes me; although overt contributions may have been banned, it would be naive to conclude that influence cannot and is not brought to bear on the Council and its members via corporate bodies, associates, family members, etc.

Membership – Last but Most Definitely not Least ! For the reasons expressed above it should be freely open only to anyone owning property within the village area zoned Residential - not people renting and not non-urbanites. Anyone, say from Sydney, who has made a commitment of considerable energy, time and inevitably hundreds of thousands of dollars for their future in the village should automatically receive NACCAi membership on payment of the requisite fee if they so wish. I cannot recall it being needed in the past, but if it should ever prove necessary the presentation of a current rates notice should more than suffice. They may well be totally unknown to other members but should not have to be subjected to the petty prejudices of current individuals who seemingly are in desperate need of exercising authority. From my purchase in 1975 none of these authoritarian vetting measures were deemed necessary or employed. As in any social setting differences of opinion, personalities, etc. arose from time to time, but displays of maturity and common sense prevailed and if anything enhanced the association. In the rare cases that matters could not be resolved the individual would inevitably ‘take the hint’ and withdraw of their own volition. There is no reason to think that such a time-tested approach could not or should not continue. I have absolutely no interest in allocating further and quite unnecessary powers to committee members while their actions and output are in such a chaotic and questionable state as presently displayed.

Comments

Thanks Nigel.
Not sure if you remember me from past NACRA meetings and presentation about future vision for NAC by my wife and myself at December meeting.
Your article is, indeed, very informative piece on the state of mind of some of NAC residents.
I am mostly impressed with the parts related to history of planning in NAC but also "paper subdivisions" in general. Do I understand it correctly that you were involved with Riverstone subdivision? Or were you quoting from somewhere? I would really like to hear more, if possible, about Riverstone. I have heard that, before the rezoning, it has become virtual "no-go" area even for police, riddled with drug labs in containers (buildings were not allowed). Perhaps we can work towards preventing that happening in our neighbourhood.

While I can't attend the meeting on 8th of Feb I would like to provide you with few comments and corrections on your article:

- most obvious one, limiting membership to those owning property in village area "zoned Residential" would, practically render association memberless - there is no land in NAC "zoned Residential" and I am not aware of plans for Council to do much of rezoning

- I completely agree with you about risks related to developing residences in densely wooded areas like NAC. However, in past 5 years there was an increase of about 15% in similar areas in NSW while number of firefighters has fallen by equal percentage. It is mind-boggling how local NIMBYs in the Cove have prevented construction of wharf/jetty in the area, potentially endangering residents that could get trapped in the peninsula unable to reach safe zones (like it happened in Victoria this season). At the same time, lack of maintenance of local roads by authorities receiving large amounts of money to provide services, prevents land owners to attend to their sites and reduce the fire load that has now accumulated for decades. This is very high risk for residents and property owners in the village. I dread a situation that we could face to establish the responsibility for tragedy-waiting-to-happen despite calls for action by many of us.

- I also agree with you that perpetuating the ignorance about ways to achieve better future for NAC should stop. I hope that Tatjana's and my efforts in presenting our vision of hope will be followed by other residents and land owners.

- Regarding "developers", I would not be particularly happy to see NAC's non-urban land being acquired by someone like Tea Garden Farms Pty Ltd, that is "developing" Fame Cove these days. In our talks with Walker Corp their own ideas were surprisingly similar to Phillip Dong Fang Lee's. And they have, apparently, employed in some manner the same project manager as Mr Lee. Go figure!

- I am not clear about the intent of parts of your article related to numbers and percentages of non-utban land owner NACRA members. To my best knowledge, they have been encouraged to join in hope that in that way their communication with Council and State representatives could be facilitated (through NACRA being a body liaising with Council in some way?). There was no suggestion that they represent anyone else but themselves (and potentially few proxy votes they my carry), equally as village residents represent themselves rather than village "community". Personally, as a land owner in the village, I didn't see harm in non-urban land owners participation so far. As expressed above, I see quite few potential benefits of engaging with them in shaping better future for the area.

In any case, I hope that meeting on 8th would be fruitful. Looking forward to hearing the outcomes. And certainly hope that you, personally, could employ your experience for the advancement of our mutual community. And generations to come.

Hi Dejan,
Have only just come across your post, but will try to get off this response before tomorrow`s meeting. For ease of cross referencing I have lettered your paragraphs A - J and those in my article 1 - 19.

A - I was not at the December meeting, so unfortunately not.

B - It was not intended as a report on my 'state of mind', but as an expression of my personal opinion on certain specific matters confronting the village. I had emailed a draft of preliminary comments to past NACRA office holders and received responses including ' I hope you are putting it on the NAC web site !!' and 'You should write an opinion for the website and publish it . Your argument is a good one and it should be publicised.' They are individuals whose judgement I trust and whose views I respect, therefore, after they had assessed the final version, I did as suggested. Others have since expressed agreement on certain matters, but I would in no way assume that this reflects their 'state of mind'.

C - 11, 12 and 13. Having used I, my, we, us and stated 'I first became involved - -' I don`t know how I could have been any more explicit. Regarding 'riddled with drug labs' and 'no-go area', both of which I am unaware despite visiting on a fairly regular basis, I can only refer you to your 'I have heard' source, for as we are all too aware in this era of 'fake news', deliberately passing on rumours as well-established fact can have seriously negative consequences. I leave you to address the other non-urban owners on such matters, not considering it the responsibility of the village residents.
More to the point I fail to see how such unsubstantiated allegations have any relevance to the matter under discussion, namely the exceptional length of time taken by a Council and State Gov`t to amend the zoning of land in a paper-subdivision of which both are in favour and vigorously promoting. In fact the total converse of the NAC non-urban lots, MCC and State Gov`t.

E - 2. My understanding is that membership is currently a little more than 100. The email of 20th January that I referred to mentions '20 non-urban members' without clarifying if they are also village owners. Even if we delete all 20 there is still a balance of a little more than 80; how this equates to ' render association memberless' I fail to see.
Regarding zoning I referred to a VG`s 'Notice of Valuation' for my lot which states 'Zone: Residential'. However, I note that the more recent one now states 'Zone: Village' while the MCC rates notice still persists with 'Residential North Arm Cove'. I am totally unaware of how this in any way changes the status of my land, but thank you for the update.

F - 'increase of about 15% in similar areas - -'. Increase of what ? My apologies but I fail to follow your reasoning.
Furthermore you change the subject to one that was not in my article and is not under discussion regarding NACCAi. However, I would be more than pleased to enlighten you regarding the arguments put to Council over the decades which have convinced them to continually reject the proposal - without any need to resort to the use of the divisive and oft-viewed as pejorative term 'NIMBY'.
F - 10. See also Manning River Times, 8/1/2018. MCC`s manager of finance, Phil Brennan :- 'Many of the roads were not dedicated as public roads at the time the subdivision was registered and they remain in private ownership, outside of council`s care and control.' The rest of the article is highly relevant regarding non-urban re-zoning. I would suggest, as my article states regarding so many non-urban owners, that some serious background research, particularly referral to council`s readily available online basic information, would help to dispel these misapprehensions and perhaps bring some relevance to posts. Seeming absence of intent and effort to educate themselves - or each other - regarding the fundamentals of their re-zoning predicament resonates strongly as willful ignorance. Quite seriously, why should NACCAi be expected to shoulder the onerous and seemingly pointless task of acting well into the indefinite future as nurse-maid for a far, far greater number of disparate unmotivated individuals than its current membership ?

G - I leave the long-overdue education of the non-urban masses to yourself. The village members have more than enough to keep them occupied.

H - 2,3. Developers are free to hire whoever they wish; similarly non-urban owners are free to sell to whoever they wish - it`s called freedom of choice, the least objectionable of all the alternatives. I am not prepared to intrude in other people`s affairs; I would simply prefer to observe and then take action only if it appears an outcome may be detrimental to the village`s interests. The very limited dissension experienced in the village`s past was too often the result of interference or attempting to exert control.

I - As the major theme of my article precisely concerns not only non-urban membership but also NACCAi`s tentative deviant involvement with the non-urban sole interest or aim of re-zoning, I see little point in repeating it here. You state quite incorrectly that 'their communication with Council and State representatives could be facilitated'. Neither Council nor State Gov`t is going to address their concerns, complaints, whatever, through a disinterested, unaffiliated third party. Despite an overwhelming impression that they are determined to present as incapable children requiring NACCAi`s - or anyone else gullible enough to become involved - 'guardianship', they are in fact adults and need to start displaying the fundamentals of self-responsibility. Not offering any form of quid pro quo, I believe the accepted term is 'bludging'. I`ve explained at length what we were prepared to do to help ourselves over decades in the State Gov`t`s much publicised case study at Riverstone (in turn invoked by our Council at its 2012 enquiry into the rezoning of the NAC non-urban lots) and the eventual outcome. The question seems to be at what stage do the non-urban owners stop mindlessly complaining about their own past actions and inaction, get off their backsides and start doing something constructive to help themselves ? It is way past time to face reality and knuckle down.

J - For the reasons stated in the article and above I am more than prepared to support the village and its residents. If - and it`s a big if ! - the non-urban owners ever confront the reality of their situation, form an autonomous body and start to take care of their own affairs, then I will gladly begin to acknowledge any resulting achievements they may have.
nt.

Hi Nigel,
Hope that meeting on Saturday went well.
My question of your involvement in Riverstone was because your article was in various text sizes and colours, so it looked like cut-and-paste from various sources - therefore the question. Thanks for clarifying it.
Most of my comment was attempt to present my view on how changing non-urban landscape can affect village residents.

- option one - My concern is that the area can indeed become similar to what Riverstone was. Simple google search on "Riverstone drug lab" would tell you what the area is know for. If you didn't know about that part of Riverstone history after being involved there for over 50 years, that tells a lot.
- option two - developer does what one has done in Fame Cove. I think that lot of village residents are upset about that, even that is much further away from village than NAC non-urban lands.
- option three - life continues for next 100 years in the same ways it has been in past 100. Not likely nor particularly good for the village.
- option four - planned development of non-urban area along the lines presented to association in December and integration of the village in larger eco-village community with improved hygiene, services and community relations.

As village land owner, I know which option I prefer and which way I will be working towards. Hopefully, there would be others interested in joining.

Options vs Possibilites
Hi Dejan,
Your options aren't "options" at all, they are possibilities.
How does a person select these Options? Become a drug manufacturer or developer? Seriously?

Option 1:
That Google search exposed ONE drug lab that the police DID bust successfully. That's a long way from " it has become virtual "no-go" area even for police, riddled with drug labs in containers".
Scaremongering needs to be exposed for what it is.
Your comment "after being involved there for over 50 years, that tells a lot" is an unnecessary attempt to belittle someone who has a LOT of experience you could benefit from.
The depth of your decency is duly noted.

Option 2: This is nothing but more scaremongering.

Option 3:
YOUR opinion that "nor particularly good for the village" is YOUR opinion only.
On what basis do you feel you can make such an unsubstantiated statement? On whose behalf do you think you are speaking?
Have you considered that the existing village is attractive to people EXACTLY as it is? That the undeveloped environment is what people, who pay the money, want?
Have you considered that may be a major reason why residents are attracted to the area? To NOT have 3,000 neighbours living within a couple of kilometres?
It is coming across that you may have a potential financial interest, not necessarily a community minded interest.

Option 4:
This is the "plan" based on Walter Burley Griffin's design?
You are aware that the subsesquent subdivision by Realty Realizations had almost no reflection of WBG's design?

There are further possibilities and a couple of Options as well.
Possibility - the non-urban blocks may be reclaimed / purchased by government for environmental protection (as per the 150 hectares on Gooreengi Rd for about $2.5M recently).
Possibility - the non-urban blocks will remain as currently zoned in perpetuity.
Possibility - non-urban blocks re-zoned, railway interchange installed, a port established, library, factories, markets, civic hall, churches, schools, water, sewerage, sealed roads just like Walter Burley Griffin proposed (and Realty Realizations demolished).
OPTION - Non-urban land owners establish an association dedicated to extracting some value from their "investments". Raise funds, gain support from the majority of land owners. Research the outcome and procedures other paper subdivisions adopted to gain rezoning.
OPTION - Do nothing. Expect "others" to do everything for you.
OPTION - Sell non-urban land to either somebody who WILL attempt to do something or who are happy just to own a "non-urban block at North Arm Cove" at a cheap price.

NACRA was set up as a RESIDENT'S association. The new name is meaningless. It is still operating under the 1992 constitution at this stage.
I cannot understand for the life of me WHY non-urban land owners would be remotely interested in joining NACRA / NACCAI.
Membership is NOT a silver bullet to achieve any goal of non-urban land owners.
Quite the opposite, non-urban land will NOT get the representation they need to achieve without a dedicated association representing their goal.

You can hide behind acting your community interest is foremost, but your scaremongering with three of four "options" being negative reeks of an agenda.
And I'm guessing a personally financial one.

Hi Grant,

Indeed, everything I posted is only my view and opinion. As such, it is provided on take-it-or-leave it basis. No obligation from you to agree. And time will have its say on adequacy of everyone's views and actions.
As for "options", there are consequences of our actions - that's how we select them. In my view and opinion.
Options you are talking about are more or less tactical/operational ways of achieving some of the options I have identified as strategies. In my opinion.

As for NACRA, my understanding is that original name had word "progress" somewhere. Any thought why has that been dropped?
Because, that PROGRESS, is my hidden agenda (don't tell anyone, please). As any investment of money and time, expected is return in kind.
Or let me put it simple - yes, I will do what I can to protect the value (and increase if I can) of property I own in NAC. In my view, progress is closely linked to value of property. And I am reasonably sure that most of other land owners there would have similar interest. Options I presented were/are my view on impact developments in non-urban land could have on village - quality of life as well as property values, and progress of both.

As for "silver bullet" - agree 100%. If I was only non-urban land owner I would have saved on membership fees.

Nigel,

Well, if it makes you feeling good that drug labs were in immediate neighborhood but not in Riverstone paper subdivision itself that's cool with me.
As for planning rules, if anything I learned from past 20 years in Australian construction and planning (and I studied history of it too) it is that only "golden rule" applies - he who has the gold, makes the rules. Make what you wish out of it.

I have full understanding of why some NAC residents have chosen to live where they did and spend considerable effort to prevent the progress of the place. I have my own opinion on people who think only about themselves, their own comfort and well-being, and disregard others around them. All I can say to those who chose to buy property in subdivision of 4000 lots and expected peace and quiet life in nature, in perpetuity: "You are dreamin' "

As for web site, it is my understanding that its comment section is provided for residents, land owners and other interested parties to provide their comments, views, opinions. I am sorry if you expected that your opinion posted here is absolute and not subject for other than positive comment and agreement.

Hi Dejan,
A phone call has referred me to your response. (As mentioned earlier my pre-meeting reply was done at short notice; I`m assuming that you now have the later edited version of 10.18pm, Sunday 9th.)
The writing and agreeing to it being published were down to me; the posting was done by one of the individuals mentioned under 'B'. (I don`t have the authority to put up such items.) I tend to concentrate on the substance of what is written rather than read erroneous meanings into variations in font style or size.
Option One. I am assuming that by now you are fully aware (?) that the State Gov`t Paper Subdivision case study is known by the State Gov`t, Blacktown Council, Riverstone town residents, local real-estate agents and owners of the said land as Riverstone Scheduled Lands. (eg. in my article, their 'Planning for Paper Subdivisions' - page 4.) These have very precise and fully accepted boundaries of which you should by now be fully knowledgeable (?).
The Google search that you mention reveals an arrest in 2006 for a lab in a factory in Wellington Street in the industrial area ! - yes, a factory in the industrial area. A later entry covers the 2013 bust of a lab in a residence to the west of the township among the paddocks of Carnarvon Road. Neither is in any way relevant to the Scheduled Lands. As previously your point, if there is one, totally escapes me, but your apparent total inability to conduct and report very basic factual research does not.
I note that 'no-go area' has disappeared from your besmirching of Riverstone and its residents, but your fixation with 'drug labs' (worrying in itself) persists, despite its total inaccuracy regarding the Scheduled Lands. And it would have been so easy to check - as you said, that tells a lot !
If you wish to remain consistent in your opinion and avoid possible accusations of selective hypocrisy, you will now,of course, begin berating State Gov`t, Blacktown Council, et al. for their involvement, promotion, whatever, of a 'police no-go, drug-lab infested paper-subdivision', unhindered as usual by facts or coherent reasoning. Should ensure you all of 10 secs on the local radio station or a cm or two in the local free press.
Option 2. I have been associated with the Fame Cove Committee for over a decade. When you have made yourself totally conversant with the subject, as opposed to your apparent present position, I would be quite prepared to discuss it.
Option 3. Just for a moment, try and discard the 'me, me, me' blinkers and ask yourself 'With all the alternatives available around Port Stephens, along the NSW coast, around Australia, why did the residents choose to live here and in this manner ?' Could it possibly be - just possibly - that this current lifestyle and venue are things that they like, sought - even prefer ? I refer you to my previous 'H' regarding 'interference' and 'attempting to exert control' being causal factors in past village dissension.
Option 4. When you have made the effort to contact all the owners of the non-urban lots and gained the confirmed, legal acceptance of the majority to act as their spokesperson, then I will be prepared to take note. At the moment this is unfortunately sounding too much like self promotion and self interest.
On the other hand this website is the the creation of a self-less individual who has devoted inordinate amounts of time - of his life - in establishing it, maintaining it and currently updating it. It was never intended as a means of attempting to score petty points on ill-researched, time wasting irrelevances. I have therefore advised him - and now yourself - that I will not be replying to any future such posts from you.
nt

Well constructed article, very much reinforcing my own position. Thank you.

There is only one comment I can see that may be in error:
“In contrast the NAC non-urbanites have shown no inclination to form a single body with an expressed united voice and aim.”

There appears to have been three incarnations of an attempted representative body:
NORTH ARM COVE REZONING ASSOCIATION LIMITED
PORT STEPHENS CITY PROGRESS ASSOCIATION LTD
And
NORTH ARM COVE LAND OWNERS LIMITED.
Registered in 1984, deregistered in 2003.
The above information is available on the ASIC web site.
The question is why they were disbanded?

I’d therefor put it:
“The CURRENT NAC non-urbanites have shown no inclination to form a single body with an expressed united voice and aim.”

I believe NACCAI should represent the Village and its unique needs only, as it was founded to do.

If non-urban land owners want representation, they must create their own Association to represent their (let’s face it) SINGLE goal of re-zoning. This issue is THEIR issue, not the Village’s.

NACCAI representing the Village alone has enough issues to maintain and hopefully improve the standard of living at North Arm Cove without the massive and extremely improbable task of convincing government bodies to re-zone.

No good will come of it.

Grateful for your positive comment - have felt somewhat in 'no mans land' over the last week or two while pondering whether to get involved.
As you surmised I was speaking very much in the present tense. Many thanks also for your ASIC data.
I do recall the past non-urban entities, but had no direct contact or involvement and felt no need to encourage them. My residual impression is that they had difficulty in contacting, signing up and retaining sufficient numbers to present a credible representative body for Council/State Gov`t to engage with and that neither ever gave any firm positive indication of diverging from their 'no re-zoning' position.
As opposed to Riverstone where meetings could be held practically 'on site', in (eventually !) established venues in the demographic heartland of the majority of owners, with the 'outlier' minority including myself being quite prepared to commute, NAC non-urbanites faced - and continue to face ! - the converse.
Re-assuring to know that there is a like-minded individual out there somewhere. Until the meeting.
nt

Comprehensive and Informative. Thank you Nigel for your informative and enlightening article. I had assembled copies of all articles from the website in relation to proposed Constitutional changes in an attempt to understand what seemed to me a confusing situation. One on which I needed to make a decision by Feb.8. As achieved in a past conversation with you, I have gained a much clearer understanding of the issues. Thank you again and well done.

Appreciated Gary,
Just to confirm our phone conversation and the expressed thanks for taking the time to respond.
Hope to see you on the 8th.
nt

Related Articles

 

Thank you to all our sponsors including

Port Stephens Moorings, PO Box Nelson Bay 2315