1) The issue of developers funding has become a very important issue in this election.

Some of the candidates with what appear to be reasonable funding budgets, were asked directly if they were being funded by developers.

• David said he was he was being funded by businesses but not developers. He wouldn't provide details; we think he should.
• Irene said she certainly wasn't being funded by developers. She has fully declared her funding.
• We haven’t been able to contact Kevin yet for an answer.
• Greg answered related questions but didn't answer the direct question on whether he was being funded by developers. He hasn't disclosed his funding details.
• Peter wouldn't answer the question and he hasn't disclosed his funding. Although some people have been saying that Peter has a funding budget of $50,000, we don’t believe his campaign has  received or spent anywhere near this amount. If he declared his funding, people wouldn't be able to speculate on the amount.

Some voters may believe that being funded by developers is wrong because it may create a conflict of interest if the candidate is elected. Other voters may believe that there is nothing wrong with being funded by developers. Each voter will make up his/her own mind on the issue.

If a candidate is accepting funding from a developer, then he/she must believe that it is ok to do so. No problem but why not tell the voters? Is it because he/she is ashamed of being funded by developers or that he/she doesn't believe the voters should know about it? Is it because he/she doesn't trust the voters with the information? Is it a matter of honesty between the candidate and the voters?

Whatever the reason(s), it should be a concern to the voters. The candidate is "filtering" or with-holding information from the residents. If he/she does this before being elected, what is he/she going to do after being elected?

Cr Sarroff said on television that he believes any candidate who does not disclose his/her funding before an election is being dishonest. What do you think?

2) Greg’s replies.

Greg has taken time to answer the questions put to him (see below in red) and we thank him, on behalf of you members, for that.

It should be noted that FOBA members have not said that the site should not be redeveloped. FOBA members have not said that Australand should not develop the site. You members have said that Australand must only build 7 storeys as indicated in both the old Town Plan and the new Town Plan. You members have made it quite clear that the objection is to the 15 storeys, not development of the site per se.

Although Greg's answers indicate that he doesn’t agree with the reasons the council officers accepted from Australand, he is still saying “To my understanding, for an application to be passed by Council it must fit within the Town Plan regulations.  That is why I believe that it fits within the Town Plan.”

This doesn’t seem logical Greg. You seem to be saying you don’t agree with the reasons given for passing the development but you do agree with passing it.

On such an important as this, how can anyone simply blindly accept what the council officers do? Greg, are you implying that everything these council officers do is perfect? Some of their reasons are illogical and they have not followed the Town Plan.

They recommended high rise for the Spit, they favour the light rail, they wouldn't recommend raising the dam wall, they charge bowling clubs, community clubs etc full rates based on the value of the land. They have problems fixing the traffic, they allow reduction is car parking. They believe that penthouses should pay the same rates as small 1 bedroom apartments in the same block of units, they allow development on the flood plains, etc, etc.

Your own answers, Greg, indicate that they are not correct on this issue yet you still say they were right to pass the 15 storey development. Why?

We believe a councillor should represent his constituents and ensure that the council officers respond to the ratepayers. A councillor should not tell his constituents that they have to blindly accept decisions from the faceless council officers who are not directly responsible to the voters.

Regards,
FOBA Committee.