Pierces Creek debacle

Thumper 29 June 2005 9

This article really smacks of Stanhopisms or Quinlanisms. On one hand the Cabbage tells us that their are legal difficulties whilst the Feds say there is not problem. Maybe they should start planning as usual.

If anyone can enlighten me I’d be quite placated.

See here CT article here

What's Your Opinion?

Please login to post your comments, or connect with
9 Responses to Pierces Creek debacle
Thumper Thumper 8:07 am 06 Jul 05

Quiet rural setting….

Doesn’t that appear every week in the CT Real Estate section. And usually with a hefty price tag.

That thar land is worth money!

footyboy footyboy 9:47 pm 05 Jul 05

I see an opening here for some extra parkland rather than an opportunity for some developers to make some fast bucks due to the disaster.

Thumper Thumper 2:52 pm 05 Jul 05

Its not fire prone any longer. It all burnt down…

Maelinar Maelinar 1:43 pm 05 Jul 05

While I personally think that the former public housing tennants don’t have a say as to what gets built on the charred remains, I would empathise with them if they were not able to get into replacement public housing – especially since the Government is able to rent out applicable, and available properties at ‘market rent’.

Regarding the construction of replacement houses in the location, is there any reason to have a village there at all ?

We certainly know that the area is fire-prone.

Perhaps a more ingenious solution would be to construct a bushfire memorial and park in the location, for the use of all the public and not the privileged few. I note that there is a distinct lack of ‘memorial’ building around the country, it would seem that we have forgotten the skill (excluding the holey straw that they are putting up near the memorial of course – which incidentally looks more like a modern art disaster than a memorial). It would be good to see Canberra leading the way in something other than negative statistics for a change.

Thumper Thumper 1:26 pm 05 Jul 05

A valid point maybe, but these people did live there, were quite happy to live there, were working and paying rent, got toasted (and who’s fault was that, guess we’ll never know hey?), and now are told they can’t live there simply because the Comrade wants to make big bucks out of the site.

Let them go back I say. One of the reasons I like Canberra is because of its rural settings. Imagine if it was to turn into another Gungahlin or Dunlop.

Now that would be a travesty.

Mr Evil Mr Evil 12:44 pm 05 Jul 05

I have a big problem paying taxes to support a rural lifestyle for ACT Housing tenants. If they want to live out there, then they should get off their arses and build their own house! Maybe the Govt. should put the prison out there instead!!!

Jacqui Burke MLA Jacqui Burke MLA 3:16 pm 01 Jul 05

Sadly, the Stanhope Government is simply stalling when it comes to making a decision regarding Pierces Creek. The continuing delay in rebuilding the 12 public housing properties destroyed in the 2003 bushfires is adversely affecting the lives of former residents.

It’s time for this Government to enlighten the community with some genuine and convincing reasons as to why it has not commenced rebuilding.

The National Capital Authority has long maintained that the ACT Government can rebuild the lost properties – in all three rural villages (Pierces Creek, Uriarra & Stromlo). There is no legal or other impediment to these houses being rebuilt.

It has been two and a half years since the Canberra bushfires and the people from Pierces Creek are living in limbo and do not understand why the Government will not rebuild. Jon Stanhope must explain.

In summary the position regarding Pierces Creek is as follows:

1. The former tenants do not want to see an expansion of the village
2. The Commonwealth Joint Standing Committee has recommended keeping the village small
3. There is no convincing evidence for the necessity to expand the village
4. The NCA sought legal advice at the very beginning of this whole affair (February 2004) and that it would not have mattered how many homes had been burned down – they can be rebuilt. The question is why is the Chief Minister now seeking the very same advice again?
5. The houses at Pierces Creek pre-date the Capital Plan – so the NCA cannot act retrospectively
6. Had the houses NEVER burned down, the question of expanding the village would possibly never have been up for debate.

People can then judge for themselves if the Stanhope Government is genuinely interested in the welfare of the former public housing tenants of the Pierces Creek settlement. To date, it is clear they would rather place a hold on any development until its desired plans are given elevation.

It is extremely disappointing that the NCA – and more importantly the people of Pierces Creek have been caught in the middle of this situation.

Thumper Thumper 8:27 am 30 Jun 05

I was kind of thinking along those lines without saying it. However, it does make sense, especially as the NCA are scratching their heads and asking what the hell are they, the current government, going on about?

I love how they keep trotting out the old line, ‘we have legal advice’, which means, we’ll do what we want….

sk8erboi sk8erboi 8:29 pm 29 Jun 05

Simple, Simon wants to flog the land off to the highest bidder for the most $, and having a dozen families in small houses out there isn’t going to achive that. There weren’t many votes out there last election and it’s still more than 3 years until the next one, so he doesn’t give a fuck.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Region Group Pty Ltd

Search across the site