NEWS
Anger over a perceived lack of consultation with residents and business owners over the looming CityCycle bike-hire scheme appears to be mounting.
Teneriffe resident Amy Frank contacted The Independent to express her frustration at the lack of response from the council adminstration to her concerns about the effects the scheme could have on her Vernon Terrace property. She has been informed a bike station will be directly in front of her ground-floor residence in the Mactaggarts Woolstore.
She says she only found out about the station recently from her body corporate.
She fears such a bike station would:
• Ruin the landscape in front of a beautiful heritage-listed building
• Be directly in front of her ground-floor lounge room window, and as her sash windows are heritage listed she will not be able to put in modern sound-proof windows
• Be excessively noisy
• Mean strangers will be a few metres away from her loungeroom window 24 hours a day • Mean illuminated advertising signs, out of character with the building, will be a terrible nuisance shining into her home
• Possibly lower the value of her unit, and
• waste ratepayers money, seeing the footpath was only recently done up and parking meters installed. These will now have to be ripped out for something the residents were not consulted about.
“I am upset that I have not been consulted, advised or communicated to about the proposed plan by the Brisbane City Council. I had to find out from my body corporate,” Ms Frank wrote in her email sent to this paper.
“I am absolutely astounded about my treatment by the local member David McLachlan, Jane Prentice and the Mayor.
“I was told by the receptionist on Friday that the reason David McLachlan had not returned my calls and emails was that Jane Prentice had not replied to him. I have made a record of every unreturned email and phone call. I feel like no-one cares and no one will listen.”
She had tuned to the media “to get my voice heard as it seems with this council it is the only option”.
“Why won’t the council listen to the residents? Why weren’t the residents not even consulted? They are supposed to be a representation of the people.
“I believe it is not about the ‘green’ cycle scheme; it is about revenue raising from advertising dollars on the proposed illuminated signs. It is a farce. Why [have] the advertising signs been included in this scheme? Commercial advertising outside residents’ windows is a disgrace. How does advertising signs help the carbon footprint and environment?
“Why can’t they look at putting this station where it will not affect rate-paying residents? Like in parkland like the locations in the city. We deserve to have quiet enjoyment of units in a residential area.
“I am desperate from inaction of Campbell Newman, David McLachlan and Jane Prentice.”
• Editor’s note: Ms Frank’s email came into The Independent right on deadline. We will give the local councillor and the Newman administration equal space next issue to respond. However, this paper did send a series of questions about the overall scheme to the Lord Mayor late last week, and no responses were forthcoming as this paper went to press.
QUESTIONS TO THE LORD MAYOR
This is what we sent to the Lord Mayor’s office:
Preface: The Indie has heard a lot of public feedback on the scheme, much of it expressing a belief that the scheme will not be viable, largely because of the problem with the supply of helmets. So our questions are:
1. Did council consider a much more modest trial runout of the scheme to test its viability? And if so, why was that rejected in favour of what appears to be quite an extensive scheme by world standards from the outset?
2. Who is paying for the rollout of bike stations, advertising signs, all necessary additional street signage, etc etc, that is now under way?
3. Ratepayers have clearly outlayed a lot of money in the leadup to this scheme, through leaflets, council interfacing with affected residents and businesses, media advertising, public information sessions run by council staff, and the like. What will be the council’s own total expenditure on the scheme up to its projected start point late this year? And does the agreement with the company that won the tender to run the scheme allow for those costs to be reclaimed from that company’s profits?
4. Can you give the ratepayers of Brisbane an assurance that whatever assistance has been, or is to be given to the operator by council under the agreement as it stands is the final contribution by the people of Brisbane? Or put another way, can you give an assurance that there is nothing in the agreement that commits ratepayers to outlay any further funds, in any shape or form whatsoever, to come to this operator's rescue if it struggles to run a profitable scheme?
5. At a recent protest meeting in New Farm, a local couple who says there will be a bike station directly outside their residence claimed that while council had stated there had been three “face-to-face” meetings with them, none had occurred. Given their statement, do you stand by your claim that all residents who would be directly affected. i.e. stations or advertising signs in front of their homes, had been consulted fully.
6. Why were residents in neighbouring houses or nearby businesses not consulted with directly? Don't they stand to lose just as much from the loss of parking spaces for either visitors or customers?
7. The New Farm protest meeting suggested the siting of some stations on busy streets could lead to riders entering and leaving the stations being struck by motorists. Are you confident that the siting of all stations as outlined in council leaflets are in the best possible locations and are totally safe?
