Sign In
or Create a new account
Rating criteria for agreeing options
This online discussion forum has concluded. You can still browse the site but the discussion area will no longer accept new comments or votes.
Council’s Coast and Estuary Committee have ranked the options using a triple bottom line approach (environmental, social and economic). All categories including impacts on local residents and the general public received an equal weighting in the assessment. Should there be a higher or lower weighting for the impact on local residents?
Higher - A relatively higher consideration of the impact on local residents compared to the broader community
Lower - A relatively lower consideration of the impact on local residents compared to the broader community
Equal consideration - Local residents and the broader community given equal consideration
This online discussion forum has concluded. You can still browse the site but the discussion area will no longer accept new comments or votes.
Comment 1 17 Aug 2009, 7:36 PM
This whole rating system is completely floored. One persons interpretation of an impact on local residents can be completely different to another. In fact when SMEC completed their initial draft report (May 2009) the protective options came out on top and the retreative measures came out on the bottom. Then the Coastal & Estuary Committee met and for some unknown reason the options were then completely reversed. ie the retreative measures were placed on the top and the protective measures went to the bottom. WORK THAT ONE OUT.
Comment 2 17 Aug 2009, 11:24 PM
Having read the Ratings I found massive holes in it after 20 minutes reading. Groynes, Revetments, Reefs even Buyback solutions all had costings estimated over a 50 years period, whilst the Tactical Retreat had no such timeline imposed. The Groyne, Revetment and Nourishment option somehow got blown from $4.6 million (to be half funded remember so really $2.3 million) to $13.8 million over 50 years.
The reatreat Option costs $1.7 million for removing infrastructure!!!!! So people remember to add in lost Rates, Lost tourism dollars, lost business over the next 50 years on top of that if we really want to compare apples with apples. So from my mind building the Groyne for $2.3 million seems to be the cheapest option and will have the greatest returns. How did it score lower that the Tactical retreat option again??
I agree with the above gentlman/woman totally flawed!
Comment 3 18 Aug 2009, 8:04 PM
I think a greater weighting should go to the people who could become displaced if we don't do anything.
Comment 3.1 19 Aug 2009, 4:08 PM
i think it should be weighted as to who is paying. If the entire community is paying we should all get equal say in what happens.
Comment 3.1.1 19 Aug 2009, 11:10 PM
Just like we all got an equal say in 50 million dollars worth of glass. Just like we all got an equal say in the NO SALE of West Port Park. Mate to be perfectly honest...peoples livelihoods are at stake hmmmm I'm not so sure you should get a say
Comment 3.1.1.1 6 Oct 2009, 11:29 PM
Didnt the Council get the sack for not doing the right things there gaz?
If you want everyone to pay they should all get a say.
Its obvoius that the emotion needs to be taken out of the debate(albeit quite reasonable emotion). And decisions need to be made weighing up all the options na dopinions by all stakeholders.
Comment 3.1.2 23 Aug 2009, 8:45 AM
I was just curious as to how "save the beach" person would feel if this was his parents, grandparents or great grandparents, because that is exactly what the affected people are, they are someones relatives, just take a moment to think of that. These people have worked all their lives, saved hard, bought a home. Some of these elderly may need to go into a nursing home before too long, who is going to pay for this? any suggestions there or maybe just join the many homeless on the streets. Maybe "save the beach" could let some of them move in with him/her. As people are getting older they don't want to burden their families & have to move in with them (not all of them may have family),they still would like some independence & choices in their lives. JUST THINK ON IT
Comment 3.1.2.1 6 Oct 2009, 11:34 PM
I dont think anyone has suggested throwing pensioners out on the street. Its not fair to accuse people of suggesting these things unless they actually have.
Comment 3.1.3 23 Aug 2009, 10:15 PM
Mate, when was the last time you got a say on how your rates and taxes were spent. This is why we are part of a community and employ leaders to act in the best interests of their communities. Having the whole area allowed to wash into the ocean is not in the best interests of the Lake Cathie community.
Comment 3.2 23 Aug 2009, 6:50 PM
Absolutely. The impact on the local residents affected is very high. Hence they should have a much higher consideration. When it comes to fixing a bridge in the hinterland that services only a few properties, the opinion of those people affected, holds more weight than that of townies who have no stake in the bridge surely. And quite frankly as we live in a pretty apathetic society only the people affected directly or indirectly have any interest. Not every ratepayer will be interested in this (Unless of course it was their home that could be affected)
Comment 4 22 Aug 2009, 3:16 PM
I think the mental and physical well-being of our residents needs to be addressed. If nothing is done, can you imagine what impact that will have on the residents and their lives and futures. All the worry and anguish that will occur because Council think that NOTHING is the best option. I think it is in everyone's best interests that local residents and the broader community be given equal consideration. After all, we are a COMMUNITY, aren't we?
Comment 5 27 Aug 2009, 10:26 PM
Personally I love the beach however, even I must admit that people lives are the most important thing in any community. I don't think anyone is in this position through any fault of their own. I agree that the affected people should be given first priority in any decision making. this is only fair and i don't see that any reasonably member of the community would disagree.
Comment 6 1 Sep 2009, 9:30 PM
I don't live in Cathie, but I believe a greater weighting should go to the people who would lose their homes through no fault of their own. Nothing is more important than peoples lives
Comment 6.1 2 Sep 2009, 10:40 AM
This is true. I don't live in Cathie or Surf but even if I did I'm pretty sure I would still want peoples lives and homes put first. It is correct to say that these people have done nothing wrong and deserve our help and not be abandoned.
Comment 7 2 Sep 2009, 10:11 PM
higher weighting to the social implications for the residents of Lake Cathie whose homes will be lost. The enviromental aspects of the councils scoring system seem highly dubious and very debatable.
Comment 8 8 Sep 2009, 8:53 PM
Higher - A relatively higher consideration of the impact on local residents compared to the broader community
The way in which the council has worded this question, as well as referring to the council as 'Rate Payers' is very leading and biased. In actual fact we are probably asking that the Cathie residents be given no more consideration than the broader community, because if any other local community was in the same boat we'd expect the same thing for them.
Comment 9 30 Sep 2009, 9:58 PM
Higher - A relatively higher consideration of the impact on local residents compared to the broader community
