Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Community

Best place to build your
property career in Canberra

Would YOU bury your dead next to the tip?

By miz 23 April 2011 28

Jon Stanhope appears to have decided [ABC] that the proposed Southern Cemetery should be progressed without further ado at the very smelly, visually unappealing and difficult to access site adjacent to Mugga Lane tip (right on the traffic-jam corner of Isabella Drive) –

(For Belco residents, this would be like putting it on one of the corners of Coulter Drive).

I note that Mr S has strategically chosen the school hols and the Easter Break to make this announcement, hoping it will get ‘buried’.

Mr S attempts to bamboozle the general public by claiming that the ACT govt has been ‘developing the case for a new cemetery for more than two years’, and that ‘The support is overwhelming that . . . we want and accept that we need a new cemetery’. No one has any argument with this. However, this fact in itself does not indicate widespread support for the terrible location he is proposing.

Mr S goes on to say ‘ “we believe” that this is an appropriate site and “we believe” that there should be a crematorium’ [at that site].

If I were needing to bury someone, THAT site would be last on my list

[Canberra Times story on disgruntled residents]

It’s not even convenient to most Tuggers residents, as it is right on the edge of suburbia; the location in Greenway was far better for most Canberrans.

Surely a location in a greenfields area such as Molonglo would be more appropriate, instead of attempting to retrofit this kind of development in an established area?

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
28 Responses to
Would YOU bury your dead next to the tip?
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
miz 6:27 pm 26 Apr 11

PS Skid, your last post, re ‘self-righteousness’ – pot, kettle, black comes to mind. And I am not troubled by the location of the tip, but (how many times? *sigh*) the nearness of the proposed cemetery to, and the inevitable drawbacks of, the tip. Consider your Scandi boat sunk.

miz 6:07 pm 26 Apr 11

Actually, I don’t think there is a conspiracy at all – more like (to quote you) – “When the process works correctly, nobody really cares . . ” – the fact that people do, indicates poor process.

and . . . “Believe in conspiracy? God no.
“Any investigable event with Government involvement which may be explained by either incompetence or conspiracy, colossal incompetence will almost always be the most correct explanation.”

However, your intolerance of others’ opinions does seem very ACT Govt-like!

Skidbladnir 4:07 pm 26 Apr 11

miz said :

OK Skid, time to declare your particular personal interest in this issue. Mine is obvious.

I’m a South-Canberran with absolutely no affiliation to the ACT Government beyond supplying its finances and benefiting from services it provides, with no financial interest in the funeral industry beyond being somebody who will, and also has family, friends, and acquaintances who will eventually die and need to be provided for?

People are arguing with you because they think you’re incorrect, misrepresenting facts, and on the whole your arguments have been something of a trainwreck (not because of some sneaky ACT Govt conspiracy).

miz 3:44 pm 26 Apr 11

OK Skid, time to declare your particular personal interest in this issue. Mine is obvious.

bigfeet 2:53 pm 26 Apr 11

Skidbladnir said :

Cemeteries don’t smell. Cemeteries don’t make noise.

Until the Zombie Apocalypse…then they become party zones.

Skidbladnir 1:41 pm 26 Apr 11

There is a lot more you could do, but I’m not about to offer you help, because your NIMBY self-righteousness keeps coming through, your current expression of interest in the cemetery development is a sideline to your hatred of the existing landfill.

miz said :

… most people are OK with most developments. However, no one would be happy with a dirty/smelly/noisy development near them, particularly when due process has been bypassed.

Cemeteries don’t smell. Cemeteries don’t make noise. Cemeteries aren’t dirty.
Source: I lived next to one for years.

Crematoria don’t smell. Crematoria don’t make noise. Crematoria aren’t dirty.
Source: ACT Public Cemeteries and ACTPLA, as well as every other crematory body in Australia.
You also haven’t provided -anything- to support your claim that processes were bypassed.
There were consultation processes that you did not contribute to, there were information sessions that you did not attend, and there were communications with bureaucrats that you didn’t followup. When you received replies, they were accurate.

Your issue seems to be about the landfill that pre-dates your home.

miz said :

I don’t see it as in insult to be labelled as such – it actually reflects that you care about your community… I believe everyone would object to some kinds of development…

In terms of suitable sites, only a few were practical. Of those sites, thoseof the citizenry who chose to participate in consultation and be informed (a group you neglected to be part of) expressed an opinion that the Mugga site satisfied enough criteria to be preferable.
They cared about their community, and were willing to consider options available, and were flexible enough to make concessions.
Evidently it was going to go near someones backyard, and despite the fact that ACTPLA have clearly wanted to make use if the area for some time (See earlier instances of Data-Centre, Gas-Fired Power Plants, recycling centres), it is purely a consequence of your own imagination failure to think that even though you might love your house full of feral children, out remains near:
A landfill,
Close to a highway,
Near an industrial suburb,
Surrounded by rural blocks.

Eventually, someone would want to do something with the area, and it probably want going to involve Tourism.

miz said :

In this case, TAMS’s own grounds that the site is ‘preferred’ flies in the face of what the common or garden member of the public would actually prefer in a cemetery location.

You could have gotten involved. You could have gotten informed. You could have thought ahead about potential for future development in your area. You could have focussed on tring to compromise, our even put your own self-interest aside and tried to win over the greater community to your cause.
You did none of those things.

miz said :

If that makes me a NIMBY, so be it.

Ma’am, it is so. While you were busy not paying attention, everybody who was part of the consultation was playing “Yes, in somebody else’s backyard”. It seems you have only realized what was going on because somebody bothered to point it out to you.

Again, come back when you’ve learned how to be heard.

miz 12:40 pm 26 Apr 11

Merc, Skid’s post is disingenuous. The map he kindly attached indicates, as you state, that the cemetery is proposed for the parcel of land between Isabella Drive and Long Gully Road (see google maps link here http://maps.google.com.au/maps?hl=en&tab=wl )

Doesn’t matter how many trees they plant etc, there is no getting around the fact that that parcel of land is directly across Isabella Drive from opposite Rose Cottage. Long Gully Road/Mugga Lane is also a hazardous road, given the numerous roadside memorials on it.

miz 12:28 pm 26 Apr 11

Skid, what else can a citizen do? I read the papers published by TAMS when they were published, attended community meetings, made a submission in response to the discussion paper, and emailed TAMS at least three times seeking more info. I remain unconvinced (see above) that TAMS’s ‘preferred site’ is *actually* preferable for cemetery users.

Jim Jones, most people are OK with most developments. However, no one would be happy with a dirty/smelly/noisy development near them, particularly when due process has been bypassed. If that makes them a NIMBY, so be it. I don’t see it as in insult to be labelled as such – it actually reflects that you care about your community, albeit a derogatory name calling term used by others when there do not appear to be any genuine arguments. I probably wasn’t clear above – what I was trying to say was, I believe everyone would object to some kinds of development, so it is specious to argue that there is anything wrong with being a NIMBY in such cases, and it is superficial (in fact, it is only namecalling) to assert that so-called ‘NIMBYism’ should be opposed simply because it is portrayed by others (obviously, by those who want the development to go ahead) as NIMBYism.

In this case, TAMS’s own grounds that the site is ‘preferred’ flies in the face of what the common or garden member of the public would actually prefer in a cemetery location.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site