 Should Nos 34 & 36 Stuart Street on Little Manly Beach be sold? Frankly, I don’t know but I'm certainly not in support of this rash and rushed decision which was passed on Monday night (11/2/13) by the Liberal majority.
As a Councillor I have not been given any alternative options; I haven’t seen the plans for the park that Council commissioned for this land less than 6 months ago; I have no idea what the land would be worth once it was carved up into even smaller parcels; I don’t know what other assets Council has that could be sold to meet any shortfall; I don’t know how much Council has raised in Section 94 Contributions specially for this Little Manly area. …… in fact as a Councillor I’ve been given absolutely no information to support this sale. Where is the due process in this matter? Why isn’t Council following proper procedures? No’s 34 and 36 Stuart Street were purchased for the express purpose of one day being incorporated into a new community park, and they have been reserved for ‘Open Space’ for approximately 50 years. The message that ‘rates will go up and Council can’t afford this plan’ is misleading. Council has many assets on its books which could be classified ‘surplus to requirements’ – why aren’t we investigating the option of selling another asset rather than foreshore land. Where is the due process in making this decision? The Mayor, Jean Hay, has decided these properties will be sold to pay off the debt of Council's purchase of No. 40 Stuart Street which is the land closest to the existing reserve. Where is the open and transparent process in this decision? Where is the community consultation? What are our other options? Why are we selling such a valuable asset to justify the purchase of another? It just doesn't make sense.
31 Comments
Chris Edwards
15/2/2013 09:39:57 am
I find it highly suspicious that the council wants to rapidly sell some of Sydney's most prime waterfront development land.
Get Real
20/2/2013 03:25:07 am
Chris. Yes I agree it is very suspicious. But suspicious how most of the people pushing to have these houses knocked down happen to live across the road. Guess who gets to benefit. They do. their property prices instantly increase at the expense of 39,000 rate payers.
across the road
22/2/2013 01:27:53 pm
Yes exactly...guess who benefits form the proposed arrangement, that is the sale of 34 & 36 to retain 40 to add to the park.
Richard Morgan
15/2/2013 10:06:43 am
I resent some Councillors apparently ditching a long term vision for the public good, and downsizing it for something far less. I don't think it would have happened this way under the former Mayor!
Bruce O'Toole
15/2/2013 10:23:26 am
I certainly agree that the council should not sell the properties they own and only recently I think No: 42 was purchased to complete the whole line of foreshore properties. None of the properties have intrinsic heritage value and I believe a foreshore reserve should be made to the
David Ingham
15/2/2013 12:45:37 pm
Based on the mayor's statement at Monday's meeting council could sell only 36, retain 34, and still almost be cash flow neutral.
Unsure
16/2/2013 01:34:04 am
I wonder who really stands to benefit from the bigger open space? Manly ratepayers in general or a select small but very vocal group of Stuart St residents?
Peter OWens
18/2/2013 01:00:37 pm
What rot! Stuart St is one of the only streets allowing easy access to a safe and non surf beach for mothers of very young toddlers. Do you ever visit this beach? There is a free hop on hop off buss stop there. There is enough parking most days. Any fine day but especially mid week you will find many groups of mothers assembling here. Of course more open space benefits Manly Rate payers the alternative benefits developers , the main donors to the Local Liberal Party. Its not rocket science to see the links at work here.
Get real
20/2/2013 03:21:20 am
Peter. Wake up. This is not the only beach that mothers can go to with toddlers. in the area. And guess what. They can still go to little manly and enjoy it contrary to what many people are saying. The beach is not for sale. The park will extended by knocking down 40 stuart st. Win win.
Jenny Ingham
16/2/2013 09:40:16 am
No sale until feasibility study done on options (to include needs kids from housing commission flats as well.the forgotten group in Manly!!!) cottage usage, boat storage, park boardwalk around 38 to link areas.
Colin Black
18/2/2013 06:05:43 am
There is no logical reason to support the speed at which the decision for sale of such a prime piece of harbourfront property has been rushed through. A once only opportunity to provide for future generations is being foolishly squandered by the current Mayor.
Skully
18/2/2013 07:38:54 am
I don't live in Manly, far from Western Syd blue mtns resident,
Taso Lambridis
18/2/2013 12:48:01 pm
It seems like a very short-sighted decision, when will those in key positions realise that one of their key roles is to preserve facilities, the environment etc for future generations as well. Sure sell of this prime real estate to ease some short term pain for the council but future residents will lament the lack of boating access/storage at one of Manly's most picturesque beach areas. We have such an excellent opportunity to preserve this as potential parkland let's not just look at the quick fix.
Matthew Black
22/2/2013 02:55:23 am
Taso. Have you ever read the roles and responsibilities of the council and its staff? Its on the manly council web site and I suggest you read it before harping on. It is not their key role to "preserve facilites for future generations". One thing they do have to do is implement the strategic plan. Guess what. There is not one word in the council strategic plan (and nor has there been ) about making any more of little manly into park land. So I suggest you start reading rather than ranting.
Get Real
20/2/2013 03:02:07 am
Can someone please show me the 50 year plan that everyone keeps talking about. I hate to inform you that there is not one. Its not on any Manly council records, not on any state government records. Its a load of hot air. So who is driving this push for council to buy all these properties and spoil what has been there for over a 100 years.
really!
22/2/2013 01:32:19 pm
So how much do you think the properties will be worth with a covenant placed on them to maintain the dinghy storage area and restrict the type of development on the blocks?
David
21/2/2013 01:53:42 am
The first item in the Resolution is "properties 34, 36 and 38 Stuart Street Manly be zoned". 34 and 36 are owned by Council but 38 is PRIVATELY OWNED. So... who benefits from the rezoning of 38 Stuart St??? Go on - have a guess. And then ask if Manly Council would pass the probity test.
Peter
21/2/2013 08:22:41 am
Peter. I am not sure if you are aware of the facts or not but as a town planner let me set you straight. If the current zoning of open space stays on 38 and the council owns 34,36 and 40 then the owner of 38 has the right to have council aquire the property at any time. The property must be acquired at "fully unencumbered residential rate" (e.g as if it was not zoned open space). Plus council has to pay additional composition of between 10 - 20% of the value of the property. Actually the owner of 38 is in a much better situation if the zoning remains as it as they have a buyer with a agreed valuation methodology at any time. I know this as I have represented both north sydney and balmain council in a similar issue. Who is at risk is in this scenario is council. If they dont do something they are obliged to put the value of 38 Stuart st on their books as a contingent liability. I am not a valuer but you would expect council to be up for more than $12m based on what they just paid for 40 Stuart st. So I suggest all involved study the facts carefully before jumping up and down. Hope this helps.
James
22/2/2013 02:42:02 am
Thank you Peter for concisely outlining the facts of the matter when it comes to the potential of Council having to compulsorily acquire No. 38 if the zoning is left as 'open space'. This fact has conveniently been left out of the 'save little manly' campaign. It would be a disaster for Manly ratepayers if the situation arises and they are burdened with a further $12m liability.
David
13/8/2013 01:45:06 am
Peter, as recently as 2012 the plan HAD been for Council to acquire #38 to complete the Open Space Recreation Area as shown on the County of Cumberland Plan, 1948, hence the Open Space zoning. Changing the zoning to Environmental Living (residential) effectively kills this plan AND is of massive benefit to the owners of #38. As you would know being a planner, new building works would not be granted a DA while the land is zoned open space, limiting the value of the property to potential private buyers. Changing the zoning to residential removes this impediment, increasing the resale value of #38.
David
13/8/2013 02:16:45 am
James,
David
13/8/2013 02:17:01 am
James,
David Howe
13/8/2013 02:19:37 am
James,
Robert Tanner
21/2/2013 08:27:32 am
I agree with Mayor, Jean Hay, these properties should be sold.
Lisa.
21/2/2013 12:50:05 pm
Candy. I am disappointed. I thought you were "Good for manly" and not just "Good for a select few" who want coincil to waste all this money for nothing in their little patch of paradise. You have lost my and many others support for losing your backbone and not being in touch with the broader community. Lisa - Balgowlah rate payer.
Candy Bingham
22/2/2013 01:02:48 am
Thanks for your comment Lisa. Just to set the record straight - I am against the Council selling these assets, or any Council assets, without due process. Where are the valuations? What other options are available and have been considered? Is this the best solution? Making rash decisions without the proper due process in my opinion is not good governance nor Good For Manly.
Lisa
22/2/2013 01:57:20 am
Thanks Candy. What about the community consultation that the council commissioned a few years back that had an overwhelming 82% of rate payers not wanting council to spend their money on little manly properties and turn them into park.
Bill Clift
26/2/2013 12:53:34 am
You may want to read this. A property directly across the road from 40 stuart st was sold at auction on Saturday. The agent had informed everyone that council had resolved to knock down 40 Stuart st and that it would obviously dramatically increase the properties water views. The property fetched more than the owner was expected based on councils decision to demolish 40 stuart st. So it is clear now who is driving this and who is benefitting. I have never seen such a militant bunch of self interested neighbours bully council so hard for such an obvious windfall.
James
7/3/2013 08:44:47 am
And there you have it Bill Clift. It is crystal clear as to who are driving this and why! Lisa, I feel the same; absolutely appalled with the lies, lies, lies from the save little manly lot.
Lisa
26/2/2013 12:04:31 pm
OMG! I just read what Bill had to say and i am simply outraged!!!!! This small noisy self interested action group are already reaping the rewards at the cost of my hard earned $$$ (RATES). I feel simply sick at what has gone on. Perhaps I should get some friends and make some banners and T shirts full of lies (like dont sell our beach , lies lies lies) and ask manly council to buy the houses across the road from me in Balgowlah so I can get a view. What ROT has set into this community. Appalled.
Anna
19/9/2013 10:49:16 am
This makes my blood boil.This council is probably the most selfish bunch, they are interested only in $$$$. THey have successfully removed any trace of history by removing all the old beach homes to be replaced with garsley apartments that have built on the cheap. Any support the Manly locals need on this one I'm jumping in to support without question. I love Little Manly! Leave a Reply. |
AuthorCandy Bingham, Manly Ward Councillor on Northern Beaches Council posts what's making news and issues relevant to Manly on this blog. Categories
All
|
RSS Feed
