I write in response to Stine Haastrup’s online petition to stop the minority ruining Gosford revitalisation as published in Coast Community News.
Stine Haastrup believes that readers will accept revitalisation as encompassing, when it actually refers to fl ow on economic benefi ts for 18 supporters. In May 2012, Gosford Council and other interest groups supported the Gosford challenge, which proposed to construct two, seven storey commercial/ residential blocks, extending 100 metres into the Broadwater, complete with marine moving facilities.
The development would have meant that the area from the railway line to Dane Drive would be off limits to the community. Spectators at the football stadium would have an unobstructed clear view of fi fty metres to the new U-shaped development. Revitalisation failed to persuade the public. Common sense combined with public outrage prevailed. In June 2015, the multistorey development was history and was replaced with seven pre-fabricated $1.6 million buildings for use as restaurants and small function facilities.
Gosford Council’s CEO, Paul Anderson, said Gosford’s era of growth and opportunity had well and truly arrived over the last year. An estimated development of $300 million has been downsized, replaced with a $1.6 million waterfront restaurant precinct. This is an example of the public administration that Stine Haastrup expects the community to accept. If the Gosford challenge of 2012 ticked all the boxes, why did it not proceed? Perhaps it was because it only ticked economic benefi ts and failed the revitalisation, transparency and accountability tests. This is why Gosford Waterfront Alliance will soon be represented in the Local Employer Council.
Letter, Oct 28, 2016 Norman Harris, Umina