by Nuts » Fri 22 Jan, 2021 11:48 am
It is good to see at least some attempt to get community views. And yes there may be capacity to point out negatives, and they may be read or gleaned for more than speed bumps in a project.
Even so, whatever the project, it's generated by funding from this government and they never asked whether anyone wanted to commercialise parks, or make them pay. I'm sure i'm not the only one looking for that as a lead in question.
Q1: Do you think walking track projects should be generated by public consultation and implemented by independent park managers, geared to minimal impact and conservative or do you think that they should be demanded by politicians, geared to extracting the most return in votes? (possibly revenue but even that is speculative)
The commercial push was on the back of vague policy that was very likely missed by voters (or those that bothered to find out what policies they voted in). It doesn't really matter whether a project is proposed by Daniel Hackett or Bob Brown, there is already a lot of assumption in even proposing such public projects, or responding to them. Or playing any role in shaping them. That this is all we are doing. The examples of what is considered appropriate make it starkly obvious that the end game isn't a few random day walks or even an overnight 'icon'. Using that word is geared in hope for being seen to make more money.. which can only appear most successful with private huts and exclusivity or associated ways of drilling out the most money ($500 cabin stays with no dirty camping, this probably wont even be enough now?).
The bush doesn't benefit, so if the most money isn't extracted, not only do we just damage more wild places, the government's policy is diminished! Projects can be made seem smaller or lesser (at least to start with), or ministers may not even grasp future implications, but the immediate desired result is really quite simple to understand?
Borrowed from another recent topic, along these lines:
"I work in, and personally care about, urban planning and infrastructure construction, and there is this same meta problem I have no idea where to solve, whereby the government will never actually ask the community "should this be built or not, or maybe something else completely?", only "we're building it, what colour do you want the noise walls to be"
P.S Goodness, I do get carried away! 20mill for tourism?, yeah, smart investment!