I have just read the Inner West Courier with a great deal of annoyance (no, anger) and especially ALP, Liberals unite, if only for top jobs – 26 Sept. So much for “equality” with Greens Councillor Tom Kiat trying to put through a policy to waive fees for same-sex marriages (SSM) to use Council halls and community centres apparently with the connivance of Darcy Byrne..
Does this Council not realise that in passing this motion it is absolutely against “equality”?
Why do they think that SSM should not pay the same fees (“equality”) as the rest of the community for the use of Council properties which are also owned by me and others not SSM.
And Mayor Byrne and T Kiat, I suggest that you cut out the rhetoric (“fundamental to civil rights”) and consider who is paying your salary – all the ratepayers of the area and if they can put you in – they can toss you and others out. Just for once try to think with your heads and forget the emotional promotion we have been subjected to over the past few weeks.
The Martin Place siege and tragic aftermath and criticism are now behind us and we have the Coroner’s Report:
Families have been understandably upset and complained that the police relied too much on various people such as a psychiatrist. Who are they relying on for their knowledge to actually deal with a mad man and a siege situation. Were they present during the siege?
Give the police a go! One person killed by a richochet and one murdered by the madman – look at massacres in other situations around the world.
The Coroner was remarkably balanced and necessarily unemotional and I applaud his judgement. The police were not to blame for the situation but he offered various suggestions in case of another such incident –
If a different scenario would his suggestions be appropriate. Surely every situation is different and needs different answers.
George Morgan – SMH 12 April, (Barista with a Master’s is a problem we need to solve). Just think back a few years and remember when kids left school at or about 15 years…they worked for a few years and matured and in the late teens/early 20s woke up and wanted a home/house. They then set out to get one, saving and working. It’s the same thing now but later – some kids are not leaving school until 19 and later and then they have to mature and wake up to the facts of life and start saving, working, cutting out overseas holidays, etc. etc. Not much difference just a few years later than the previous generation with the same problem… but the media and the politicians have created a really big problem about it. And what about the 60,000 houses vacant in NSW – what will they do about them?
The question post 1945 was what to do about affordable housing during the years following the war, and after, especially as there had been no home building during the long years of the war and possibly before with the Great Depression.
The simple solution then – not private enterprise but govt initiative. Build minimum houses – not MacMansions – in areas then on the outskirts (think Sutherland area) and others. They were rented to people (like myself) with the option of buying on a minimum deposit. These houses – and you can see them all over Sydney – were enlarged, improved, lived in, and suburbs grew up around them and roads passed them on their way to other new suburbs.
So what am I saying? Go back to the old Housing Commission (or similar) by another name – after all they didn’t need to make a profit for (and rightfully so) shareholders; the same authority had full crews to maintain these houses. Build adequate houses – not MacMansions. Incidentally this would have an impact on the numbers of apprentices and tradesmen.
A passing thought – the government talks big about having a percentage of new housing blocks allocated for affordable housing. Tell me, will any buyer or any investor really want “affordable housing”, i.e. of a standard/size less than others around them, paying thousands of dollars less than buyers of the better class units? Come on!
What governments have to get over is the idea that private is better and one day they will realise that governments are there in government to work for us and not the private sector.
(An aside: who was the fool or the capitalist who first came up with the idea that private is better)
Resistance grows to land-title changes – SMH 19 Jan…Perhaps now that Baird has gone this backward suggestion, this privatise everything in sight programme, will go too. Perhaps we, Sydney may even get to keep our Powerhouse Museum. Maybe…and hopefully.
With a new premier in the offing and the possibility that pressure from the moneyed end of town plus from the nightclub group, will enable change to the lockout laws, we hear agitation and claims that they represent the voice of Sydney wanting to have the nights alive with – what?
Who do these agitators represent? Not the hospitals who have breathed a little easier for the past weeks; not the medics and paramedics and ambulance workers so often abused by drunks in these areas; not the police who have had fewer calls to the “entertainment” area; not the parents who must worry about seeing their sons/daughters on the news, dragged from the gutters as we so often did every Friday and Saturday night.
So who do these agitators represent?
And if their voices are heard ahead of the ordinary persons of Sydney who will they represent? Surely the worst element of Sydney’s nightlife backed by…who?.