How the community values Timbertown

I would suggest that no-one under estimates the economic impact to not just Wauchope, but all the surrounding areas including Port would be, as there are significant Tourist spinoffs from Timbertown. Especially considering that the only other attraction for the Hastings is (wait for it) Sea Acres! (Not there is anything wrong with Sea Acres just its not something you are going to keep coming back to the Hastings for and there are Rainforest areas in the Hinterland.)

Timbertown has been a drain on community resources for almost it's entire existence.

There have been numerous attempts to resurrect it over the years - both by Council and private sector interests - all to no avail.

It would be interesting to quantify the direct financial cost to Council and individuals of doing this over the years - perhaps Council could quantify this for us - it is certainly relevant.

It is also noteworthy to consider that similar theme parks in Sydney and the central coast - while initially successful - have by and large faltered and turned out to be non-viable.

It's not clear what the reason is - whether public interest and patronage has simply waned due to overexposure, changing patterns of leisure pursuit, high cost v's low returns, lack of diversity, etc.

Whatever the reason, the fact remains that largely these types of attractions has proved to be viable over the longer term - despite significant capital infusions by private sector interests.

We should also consider what is the role of Council.

It is there to service the needs of the local community - not to engage in commercial enterprises - which is correctly the domain of the private sector.

The simple glaring fact is that the ongoing requirement for funds over the years - together with the projected significant additional infusion of investment - in a community that is already financially stretched and has rather onerous financial commitments in relation the Glass House - means that, realistically, Council is not really in a position to responsibly contemplate going down the same track again.

Looking around the council area - it is apparent that there are many pressing community needs - not least of which is maintaining a reasonable road network to sustain the steady stream of residents and tourists traversing the area.

The infrastructure of the area - the roads, parks, lawns and gardens and public facilities are our window to the world - the first thing people to the area see and the most impressionable - and it is these, together with the routine needs of the community, that require priority rather than the pursuit of an emotional and historical attachment to a concept that has proven to be non-viable.

This leads me to the matter of claimed external benefits to the general community of rejuvenating Timbertown. There have been numerous claims made but no attempt to quantify them.

I really must question whether there would be any significant spinoff to the community of further developing Timbertown. As indicated above, similar experiences have proved by and large to be unsuccessful, and it is hard to imagine that Timbertown, in itself, would be the catalyst that would generate any significant additional tourism to the area.

As for tourists already committed to the area - one cannot say with any degree of certainty that Timbertown would generate additional tourism income to the region - an expenditure may simply be at the expense to other tourist activities in the area - after all, people have limited funds and have to make choices about their expenditure.

I know that the question of Timbertown is an emotional issue - but rational decision-making is not based on emotion - it is based on fact and reality - and the demise of Timbertown to date - despite the significant resources that have been poured into it - is the stark reality of the situation now facing us.

Should interests in the community wish to mobilize to implement some sort of rescue of Timbertown (again) - then let them make an offer to Council and run it as a privately-controlled commercial venture.

If they are not prepared to do so - it is unreasonable to expect the general community to subsidize their own vested interests.

We live in Port. We have never visited Timbertown. We have numerous visitors every year & none of our visitors have ever been there.

I can't see how the majority of Hastings ratepayers would get any benefit from the expenditure required to either prop it up or from the capital outlay required to improve it. Whilst some visitors may visit the park while they are here...the park does not entice them here, so the economic benefit is questionable.

We would prefer to see it closed, and any proceeds from land sales put back into Wauchope for the benefit of Wauchope ratepayers...perhaps a heated pool or other improved facilities??

Personally, I don't see why ratepayers in the Hastings should subsidise an operation that gives visitors that are here anyway something to do - especially when they'll just spend their "tourist dollar" elsewhere in the Hastings anyway.

We have virtually just got off the bus, so to speak, in living in Port Macquarie and are blown away by all the money spent on the Glasshouse when family attractions have been left and most have now gone forever. Instead of concentrating on "corporate" dollars with the Journey of Flavour and the Glasshouse maybe money could be better spent on getting back to family orientated attractions. Timbertown is a must for this area surely the powers that be realise this. Supposedly the Glasshouse has generated some income so hopefully with a rejuvenated Timbertown this could also attract extra income. Timbertown is virtually one of a kind so please dont let another family attraction close in Port Macquarie.

Surely a 20-30 minute drive is not an issue if the Park is viable? Jamberoo Park which is a 20 min drive from Wollongong, gets plenty of visitation (and so does Dreamworld for that matter), but Timbertown simply does not compare as a destination & the cost to develop it to that extent would be prohibitive.

I don't think this is a Port vs Wauchope argument at all, but is all about the park - regardless of where it is located.

TOTALLY AGREE WHY CAN THESE PENCIL NECKS SPEND MILLIONS ON A GLASS HOUSE WHERE THERE IS NO BENIFIT ONLY TO THOSE WHO THINK THAT THEY NEED IT BUT WHEN IT COMES TO OUR HERITAGE OUR HISTORY WHERE OUR KIDS KIDS CAN SEE AND LEARN HOW OUR TOWN WAS BUILD (BLOOD SWEAT AND TEARS) THEY CANT EVEN SAVE THIS VITAL ASSEAT TO A TOWN WHERE WE NEED THIS ATTRACTION FOR BOTH MONEY AND TOURISM JUST TRY AND THINK WHERE IS THIS TYPE OF PARK IN AUSTRALIA.