Skip to content Skip to main navigation


We mean business
Contact us today to get results

Simon again fails to answer the questions, this time with Snow

By johnboy - 4 July 2006 66

The ABC has a curious story in which Terry Snow asks if Simon Corbell’s got a plan or if he’s just hiving off slabs of land in Civic to developers as the mood takes him?

RiotACT is still waiting for the answers Simon’s office promised to our reader’s questions. So it’s no surprise that, instead of answering the question, Simon goes off on rant about how Terry Snow is his enemy:

“Terry Snow is currently in a fiercely fought battle with elements of the ACT Government, our planning authority and our land development agency over the release of the epicentre site at Fyshwick.

“He sought to take the ACT Government to court over that issue and failed, he’s referred the issue to the ACT auditor-general, he’s continuously writing letters to me and his company writing legal letters to me over the issue.”

Very good Simon, and the answer is?

UPDATED: 11 minutes after I posted this story Mr. Corbell responded in the comments below:


I did reply to Mr Snows false allegations, on 666 radio this morning. The ACT Government has an agreed development plan for the City Hill Precinct, which is the result of the Canberra Central Taskforce reccomendations. This development plan, which retains City Hill as a park, is agreed with the National Capital Authority, and will be implemented through an amendment to the National Capital Plan by the NCA.

What’s Your opinion?

Please login to post your comments, or connect with
66 Responses to
Simon again fails to answer the questions, this time with Snow
Showing only Website comments
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
SLBrown 6:49 pm 06 Jul 06


caf 4:39 pm 06 Jul 06

Why, their duly elected representatives in the federal parliament put forward a change in government policy to purchase their public administration needs elsewhere 🙂

SLBrown 2:18 pm 06 Jul 06

yeah that a possibility – I own over the boarder because the planning laws of the monopoly landlord makes large home ownership (lots of kids) either too expensive or requiring too much travel.

But even then the Queanbeyan / ACT statistical district for the ABS data shows that the whole region grew by only 0.87% pa for the five year period, but that was faster than canberra city at 0.67% – the national growth over the same period was about 1.2%. So relative to the nation Canberra / Queanbeyan is going backwards. Just to give some relative growth patterns Brisbane grew by 2.26% pa for the five year period (of a much higher base). Melbourne 1.21% Hobart 0.72%

Indi 2:00 pm 06 Jul 06

What about any sort of border creep into the surrounding district – I know heaps of ppl taking the public paycheck, but living the NSW rural lifestyle or Qbyn/Jerra.

SLBrown 12:27 pm 06 Jul 06

Sorry that 3,500 net loss figure was net of international arrivals the actual net interstate migration out of Canberra was 6007 with 5717 being since 2002 (the first year of the Stanhope Government) in the period 2000 to 2001 Canberra lost only 290.

It think the Howard 1996 effect had slowed by 2001.

On the aging shift arguement, if the loss is attributable to old canberrans seeking the sun – How are you going to attract younger people to canberra when the baby boomer retirement Tsunami hits over the next five years. The NOVA ad gives you an idea of how some of the nations youth views Canberra

SLBrown 12:14 pm 06 Jul 06

yeah but he has hired them all back and then some

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. | |

Search across the site