Comments on: Water Park

By: Sue Brooks

Sue Brooks — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 00:40:19 +0000

I probably post the longest posts and comments Ruthanne but you make a valid point! This issue seems to have escaped long comments however… Ta, Sue

By: Ruthanne Leonetti

Ruthanne Leonetti — Tue, 01 Feb 2011 16:18:24 +0000

To all of the above commentors. Blogs might be much much better to study if you can keep Your comments straightforward and also to the point. No-one likes to learn large comments when the concept might be conveyed making use of a not as long comment

By: The Protege

The Protege — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 12:20:54 +0000

I’m with you B.Frank – the waterpark is just more smoke and mirrors and now Sue tells us that the local government act actually prevents us from ensuring a ratepayer funded entity is held accountable.. very sad indeed!

By: Janet Kenny

Janet Kenny — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 04:52:06 +0000

Dear Sue Brooks,
Thank you for being the one councillor who placed the natural beauty of the esplanade above a Disneyland gimcrack gimmick.

I am deeply depressed to know that what remains of our lovely coastline is in the hands of people who fail to appreciate it. It is the unspoiled beauty of the coast which brings tourists from all around the world. They can see funparks at home. Places like Hervey Bay are becoming rarer and rarer. That is what lures tourists, including Australian city people. I know. I was one of them.

I consider the choice of a Water Park, situated beside the beauty of the sea with its fringe of mature trees, to be crass and vulgar and sixth rate.

When I consider what the money might have done for Hervey Bay I could weep.

Janet Kenny

By: Sadman

Sadman — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 05:36:01 +0000

Sue,

I know the decision has been made re: the water park.
However, no one I have spoken to supports the project.
Too little information, no consultation and worries about
ongoing costs to ratepayers. This will be another Brolga,
an Albatross around ratepayers necks.

This will benefit one group and one group only, if they are
lucky. It may not even benefit them and that’s the tourist
industry. If they wanted it? They should have payed for it.

By: J.Maynes

J.Maynes — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:57:03 +0000

I personally can’t fathom why a water park would even be considered when we live in such a fantastic area with a beautiful foreshore and swimming beach. What a waste of money especially when all we hear about are water restrictions and the building of dams.

I think money would be far better spent on a convention centre to bring culture and professional entertainment to Hervey Bay!!!

By: sue

sue — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 07:41:45 +0000

Hi B. Frank. WBWC runs itself according to the parameters set down as per the Statement of Corporate Intent which is where Council sets down its expectations and requirements of WBWC. This is soon to be decided on for the next 12 months and is a public document.
I personally am wanting more detailed reporting to Council from WBWC but yet again the LGA actually demands that Quarterly Reports (to Council from WBWC), are received in confidential so are not open to public scrutiny.
I don’t necessarily agree that foreshore views or lack of them, are why some people are behind the water park, but do agree that forshore vegetation and its management is an issuse that needs further debate.
By the way how does one obtain ‘natural water views’? I hope you mean that we can obtain these by planting ground covers rather than taller bushes and that some replacement tree planting is supported. I can’t help but defend our naturally vegetated foreshore as I think it is unique and to be treasured although I do agree that some areas of the foreshore could do with better weed control.

By: B.Frank

B.Frank — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 00:04:44 +0000

Maybe the public are behind the waterpark because they cannot see enough of the bay through the rat infested foreshore foliage.

If natural water views and improved facilities were available maybe the waterpark would not be necessary.

The current design no-longer includes a tilting bucket for the kids, it’s major focus seems to be more educational PR for the all powerful water corporation.

Can someone (Sue) please tell me whether the Council runs WBWC or WBWC runs the council.

The tail seems to be wagging the dog.

By: Samantha V

Samantha V — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 14:52:25 +0000

Waterpark? Don’t we often have water restrictions? Don’t we have a massive amount of water on our doorstep? Any thoughts on having the Main Street round-about clear felled? Or on putting water on traffic going around the round-about (through wind factors and/or flawed jets), thus increasing chances of accidents? Has anybody figured out traffic flow (or what to do about traffic jams, considering the location)?
Sorry, I think the design and the location, and even the whole idea is a waste of rate payers money. Have we already addressed all our necessities? Who is it for, and who wants it? I think it should have had community consultation.