Letters
Ratepayers left to pick up the tab
Here we go again? The Clarence Valley Council (CVC) is continually clouded in controversy and plagued by the consequences of apparent poor decision making and debatable priorities, with ratepayers inevitably picking up the tab for ‘out of control’ debt.
The last five years have seen the CVC attempts to resolve all problems by the never ending practise of seeking to impose extraordinary increases in council rates, to compensate for what is usually described as ‘unforeseen cost over-runs’ or ‘circumstances beyond their control’. Recent increases in debt have all been defended in these terms, with the unimaginative solution being an immediate proposal to introduce another extraordinary increase in rates. These proposals are always ‘regrettable’ and ‘unavoidable’ and accompanied by threats of loss of services or facilities to ratepayers, if the increases are not accepted and implemented.
On this occasion, it is heartening to see the CVC professional staff advocating for the lower cost option of traffic lights to be installed at the intersection of Treelands Drive and Yamba Road, after assessing the respective proposals objectively on cost and merit. Unfortunately, however, there is still the potential for the ‘traffic lights V’s roundabout’ process to go off the rails and become yet another burden for the embattled CVC ratepayers if Council ignores its professional advisors and approves the roundabout option. The approval of a roundabout would significantly increase debt, to which the CVC would have us believe it is ‘vehemently opposed’, to such an extent that another extraordinary increase in rates would be inevitable. The irony is gobsmacking.
Despite some Councillors’ mystifying preference for a roundabout, and a stated objective to mitigate traffic flows for safer road usage, it is patently obvious that only traffic lights will control traffic. A roundabout will, unarguably, slow traffic movements, but, no matter how well it is designed and constructed, its success relies totally on driver judgement and behaviour, therefore, it will not control traffic. Whereas, control is the only purpose assigned to traffic lights.
There is also the contentious point of who would be at fault in the event of an accident at an intersection ‘managed’ by either traffic infrastructure? At a roundabout the ‘at fault question’ is invariably argued to determine: ‘who entered first’, ‘who should have given way’, etc, etc. Whereas, at traffic lights, it is immediately obvious who is at fault. Whilst this may not mitigate damage or injury, it is most preferable in the context of subsequent litigation.
Then there is the important question of responsible appropriation of CVC revenue and genuine ratepayer representation. In this case it is obvious that both objectives will be achieved if the traffic lights option is approved, notwithstanding the other indisputable facts in its favour. Local government councils are installed by a democratic process to represent their constituents, not business, which may well represent itself.
Of course, to ‘preserve the character of Yamba’, the CVC could always approve the roundabout at a cost of $3.5m, with the proviso that the project be funded solely by the ratepayers of Yamba.
Terry Hadlow,
Woombah