Kingston Island - why is this private footbridge being passed off as "public infrastructure"?

Perhaps west Belconnen could donate a troll to live underneath.

peterepete said :

I hope its a drawbridge – to keep riff raff out

Even better, a toll bridge – they could charge the riff raff a few dollars a time to cross the bridge to admire how their betters live. They could run weekend bus tours from Gunghalin. They’d soon recoup the cost.

“See, lad? That’s where Squire lives.”

“Eee, Dad! Might we live there one day?”

No, boy. That’s not for the likes of us.”

Bit like all those public roads and paths people use to access their private homes all over the ACT. Outrageous

watto23 said :

I’m pretty certain the footbridge is not private. There are plans for restaurants etc on the island for the public to use. The bridge isn’t overly extravagent either…

Exactly, it’s just people having a bloody whinge, haha.

I thought there was a different island, didn’t realise it was the one that’s going have upwards of four individual developments on it with probably around 300+ dwellings. Not to mention the planned commercial premises available for anyone to enjoy either.

As for the people of Gungahlin having a sook, aren’t all the man-made lakes/ponds with community facilities and surrounding parkland enough. They look pretty nice to me.

When there was only Palmerston, those residents must have been paying a fortune in rates to set up Gungahlin Pond, as one example. How did they ever manage to fund the roads? Well, okay, there weren’t many, but you get my point. Perhaps the burden was shared by the soon to follow residents of Nicholls and Ngunnawal?

Well, as I was one of those Nicholls punters back in the day I can tell you that I didn’t pay any over the odds rates or land prices ($71K for 680sqm, haha) to go towards the infrastructure Gungahlin residents enjoy today.

Can the op pls confirm that the retail shops are as stated ” for the exclusive residence folk to enjoy “

Sure the residences are private as is mine but there is to shops for the public so this is all rubbish.

I’m pretty certain the footbridge is not private. There are plans for restaurants etc on the island for the public to use. The bridge isn’t overly extravagent either. I can’t see the issue here. Money is spent all over the town, as long as its not overly indulgent i don’t see the problem. Infrastructure needs to be built, some is used by more people than others.

I for one will make sure I use the bridge to go have a look around and will also paddle my kayak into the harbour for a look around 🙂

nobody said :

dtc said :

So, a path was built to a house? And the government paid for that path? I can see why people are upset. In my old house, on a cul-de-sac, there was a outside my house and, you know what, pretty much only the people in my street used it and the path didnt go anywhere, except to our houses. I thought it outrageous at the time.

Was this an $18M path in your cul-de-sac, or was it about the same cost as everyone else’s path?

The bridge didn’t cost $18M, the total infrastructure works did. According to the report the bridge was $1.2M.

Looking at the plan, there is plenty of open public space on the island and the land is all zoned mixed-use which means there will be retail shops, cafes and restaurants out there.
It’s clearly not only for the benefit of the residents of the area.

dtc said :

So, a path was built to a house? And the government paid for that path? I can see why people are upset. In my old house, on a cul-de-sac, there was a outside my house and, you know what, pretty much only the people in my street used it and the path didnt go anywhere, except to our houses. I thought it outrageous at the time.

Was this an $18M path in your cul-de-sac, or was it about the same cost as everyone else’s path?

Psst, wanna buy a bridge?

drfelonious said :

The point is not the taxpayer spend per se, but that the relative spend is far in excess of the relative taxpayer dollar spend on public amenities in the boonies. As you style yourself 2604, I suppose you don’t often lower yourself to visit the boonies. However in the event you suffer some calamity that causes you to get out to Gungahlin for example you might notice that the area is not exactly flush with $18 million footbridges and “public” areas.

The end result is of course that the residents of Gungahlin etc are subsidising the residents of the Kingston Foreshore – as I said – par for the course with the LDA and the ACT government.

What an expert you are.

Do you have any proof, or anything at all, that suggests that “the residents of Gungahlin etc are subsidising the residents of the Kingston Foreshore”? What about figures regarding “the relative taxpayer dollar spend on public amenities in the boonies”? I’d be very interested to hear how you arrived at this conclusion about taxpayers in the “boonies” cross-subsidising those in Kingston – particularly given the fact that residents in the Kingston Foreshore will derive almost no benefit from the GDE, new schools in Gungahlin (Amaroo, Bonner, Harrison, Gungahlin College, etc), the roadworks for new suburbs like Bonner and Casey in Gungahlin and the future Majura Parkway – while sending their own kids to existing schools around Kingston and driving mainly on existing roads. The fact is that the development of Gungahlin is being bankrolled by all ACT residents. And that’s the way it has to be for any new urban area, including Kingston Foreshore – the community as a whole pays for amenities that will usually only be used by the residents of that new area. Do you have a better suggestion?

As for me “lowering myself to visit the boonies”, why don’t you stop being so clever and knowledgeable, already? I live in a spec-built 1970s house, in a suburb that class warriors like yourself who hate “rich people” would say is full of “bogans”.