Down to the Nitty Gritty at Mackay Park
In 2017, when Council was stuck on having a combined building for the Arts Aquatic centre Perfex, proposed a two-armed design with a central foyer but different entrances for either side. Suddenly that has become the proposed plan for the Centre, according to Lindsay Usher, who gave an hour long presentation to Perfex recently.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The latest (last?) plan will be released soon. But there are a few changes from the plans we saw earlier this year. And we may not like it.
The latest plan is to only have one story, with no plans for a second. Without good foundations for a second story, how will the centre expand? What of the future?
With only a 350 seat theatre planned, about the only school it could hold for end of year activities or concerts is the Mogo primary, and most schools have something of a similar size already. What touring groups will come must be small and flexible.
There is no piano to be provided, but without a piano, which music group - visiting or local - will use it?
Without a fully functional kitchen (not included) where is Meals on Wheels to go? Functions and self-catering events - the norm in this small community -will be held elsewhere. What tech-savvy youth will use the facility if there is Wifi but no equipment?
How will this place be viable?
In mid 2019 we are getting to the nitty gritty of the journey. Let's not ruin it now.
Sue Mackenzie
Address provided
Not happy with reduced rates
I know, the Federal Treasure is a politician so he can hope to get away with saying anything but how can he do his job when his grasp of basic maths is so wacky?
In the last couple of days, we have heard how the proposed reduced deeming rates will "cost" $600 million over four years - that sounds better than saying an average of $150 per annum, eh, Mr Treasurer? The spiel goes on that the number of people who will benefit is between 650,000 and 1,000,000 and they will benefit up to $1,000 each per year. Working on averages, the 650,000 would get $230 or the 1,000,000 would get $150 each per annum. If some will be receiving up to the higher $1,000 amount, the average benefits for the bottom end punters will be minimal, eh?
When explaining the government's decision, the Treasurer pointed out the different average returns from investments in cash, super and shares but when asked about applying the simple solution of setting and using deeming rates for each of these investment types, the response was that the government is happy with the present system!
You might be happy Mr Treasurer but, while appreciating at last there is some acknowledgment of the unfairness of the last few year's deeming rates, many are not happy, indeed they are more adamant in their insistence that some justice in this area is long overdue.
It is galling too for these recipients to hear their benefits being referred to as "costs", when in your lingo, they would be better described as a returns on their past investments in government. Most of these retirement recipients are the ones who have worked to make this country what it is today, rearing their families - now many of whom are in your generation, Mr Treasurer! - paying their taxes as they worked for much of their lives without any benefit of compulsory superannuation, rightly expecting that when they reached retirement, they would be fairly treated by governments who knew all too well that the baby boomers were getting to the stage when they would retire.
If the economy on your government's watch is so weak that it's not possible to be fair to these pension recipients, then please say so, take the lead and reduce your pension entitlements but don't waffle on with your dubious maths!
