Do you have an opinion to share? Submit a Letter to the Editor to Sunshine Coast News via news@sunshinecoastnews.com.au. You must include your name and suburb for accountability, credibility and transparency. Preference will be give to letters of 100 words or less.
- Read the story: Complaints over illegal campers and homeless at river park
Something really needs to be done about those people that are complaining. They have no right to complain when there is a housing crisis. People who are homeless are homeless for a reason: they can’t afford a home.
As for the caravan parks, they are gouging people. When people stay for a short time they may get cheaper costs but if they are on the Sunshine Coast or it’s a holiday season that cost blows out to thousands of dollars.
Please consider putting a watchdog on caravan parks to make sure they understand that if they gouge they will be removed.
Michael, Maroochydore
I am writing to you as a person who has been homeless for 12 years.
I would like to highlight solutions that it seems the Sunshine Coast is not yet aware of. I would write to council but for the life of me I cannot seem to find the name of a person responsible for dealing with the homeless on the Sunshine Coast.
Anyway, as of today, rental vacancy rates in Queensland are below 1 per cent. CPI is currently rising at an annualised rate of 4 per cent. We will not see interest rates fall anytime soon. Interest rates will stay higher for longer (due to our government’s underestimation of the “sticky nature of inflation” and the effect of inflationary spirals). Ergo, there will be more homeless.
Council is currently trapped in an antiquated paradigm regarding homelessness. There is not enough housing for the homeless, so council simply moves them on from one place to another, and then back again.
For decades, Australia has been in love with the idea of a three- or four-bedroom home. It is simply not viable to use these premises for housing homeless people, nor is it viable to build new one-bedroom units at a cost of $500,000 per unit, only to have it house one person.
Instead, I would suggest two different models that have proven effective in Australia and overseas.
Tiny home villages: This model may use church or charity groups to assist in the construction of the tiny homes, with costs as low as $1000 per dwelling. This model is sweeping the USA, with villages in Seattle, Brunswick, Sacramento, Oregon, Texas and more.
A $10 rest area/park: This model was used at the Workman’s Beach Camp Grounds at Agnes Water. But it could certainly be used on any piece of land that is unwanted, abandoned or derelict. Council charges a nominal $10 per person per night fee, then sub-contracts to a manager to be responsible for collecting fees and cleaning the toilets and facilities. Two toilets (either flush or drop toilet is okay), a tap, a cold shower and one barbecue facility are provided. After fees are collected and the cost of rubbish removal and management fees, the cost to council is effectively zero. Police patrol twice, or even three times weekly, and council reserves the right to remove anyone at their discretion. This is the paradigm.
It is the way we are seeing things that is not allowing there to be solutions.
Marcus Michail, no fixed address
Council doesn’t care if you’re homeless. They only care about how much money they can milk out of every person in their region.
The reason homelessness is so bad is due to overseas companies like Airbnb. It makes houses empty for periods of time that leave people without a place to live. This is why we have a homeless problem. It’s greedy homeowners trying to cash in where motels and resorts are struggling to survive.
If the council put a limit on Airbnb houses in the area, then we wouldn’t have such a big problem.
Graeme, Roma
- Read the story: Woolies submits plans for major supermarket development
Construction of large supermarket-type developments in towns such as Cooroy have often led to a fast or gradual decline in patronage of existing businesses in the traditional main street.
This is shown by increasing numbers of for lease/sale signs in now-vacant shopfronts.
Perhaps councils need more powers to refuse such developments or, as a last choice, have them in the town centre.
G. Ryan, Caloundra
- Read the story: Council tries to address hazardous erosion
I am thinking of retiring to the Sunny Coast, however I am put off by the local council.
Sea levels are rising at a faster and faster rate. Plenty of science-based graphs visually display the problem. A wall such as the one at Moffat Beach will not stop the sea rising and claiming that land.
Is the council going to keep spending money on trying to hold the sea back? It is not feasible or sustainable.
Council rates at the Sunny Coast are higher for a $600,000 property than a $1 million property in Brisbane. As rates are based on property values, it is a good illustration of how the council is performing.
This matter alone puts me off the Sunny Coast because the continual mismanagement of this single problem is going to direct substantial funds away from what the council should be supplying to its ratepayers.
I do understand the council’s predicament as they approved the land sales and therefore have an obligation to the owners affected by rising sea levels. However, as the council can not stop the sea do they not have an obligation to those owners to provide a long-term solution?
Just to clarify for those council members, a wall will not be a long-term solution (e.g. Wamberal on the NSW Central Coast).
Beth ArnoldÂ
- Read the story: Iconic car park set to make way for parkland
Claims of 84 per cent of 3000 supporting this closure? How is this possible?
Anyone hear of a car park closing with majority support? Everyone I speak to has not.
The Moffat Beach area is a wonderful example of what can be achieved to cater for all ages.
Taking away this car park for the betterment? Someone has to be dreaming that the council car park (about 100m inland) is convenient, as well as being adequate for the future.
The beachside car park is close to the water for a quick surf or coffee, especially for the elderly. Time limits help.
More car spaces are needed, not less, as Aussies will never do away with their cars.
Come on, this is just not on. A major rethink is definitely needed. Protest in writing to the mayor or your council representative: this closure can be stopped.
Brian Pike, Currimundi
- Read the story: Jane Stephens: off-leash dogs a divisive topic
The planners seem to have overlooked the fact that with an increasing population comes more dogs.
New developments should all include off-leash areas, especially designed to stimulate dogs. However, the most important point is that dogs do not have to exercise in natural areas. It is clearly incompatible with native wildlife and shorebirds to have dogs invading their habitat on Point Cartwright, which includes remnant littoral rainforest, a critically endangered ecological community listed under the Australian Government’s EPBC Act.
Perhaps the effort should be going into finding land that council can use for dog parks in established residential areas instead.
Elaine Ricketts, Maleny
It should be required to have dogs kept on leads from Ann Street rocks, which is the end of Buderim Street, Currimundi, until the creek crossing and then off-leash to Robe Street stairs.
This would allow for a popular area for families to be free from injuries caused by racing, out-of-control dogs and their droppings left by don’t-care dog owners.
Michael Sheehan, Battery Hill
The highlight of my dog’s life is our weekend hour-long walks at Stumers Creek, Coolum.
Shock, some people go to dog parks and beaches and get annoyed by dogs. The spaces dogs can go to be dogs and run, play and swim has significantly decreased for over 30 years since I’ve lived on the Sunshine Coast.
Dogs bother you? Don’t go to a dog beach or park. A dog annoying your dog? Communicate politely and reasonably with the owner. I think it’s people that are the hardest to deal with: aggressive, annoying and not respecting boundaries. This is why I like dogs more than people.
Gemma Colvin, Nambour
- Read the story: All aboard: funding for rail gains momentum
I’m hoping the level crossings that were mentioned are the two at Landsborough?
The only good thing about the crossing is most drivers know it is a frustrating and will let traffic through from the adjoining streets.
Steve S, Landsborough
- Read the story: Councillors vote to earmark land as potential housing site
Once again a large portion of the map shows a forest with trees to be felled, accommodating most certainly wildlife, including endangered koalas.
I thought that in a declared climate emergency this would no longer apply and that we would look at other ways to fill the lack of social housing.
Bernard Jean, Tewantin
Why should we pay to watch ads?
If we are being told we’ll have to pay to watch currently free-to-air sports on TV, then it’s only reasonable that those same TV studios only earn their income from supplying the actual sport.
There is no justification for viewers to have to pay to watch advertising. Make up your mind, bill us to watch TV sport or can the advertising. Having to pay to watch sport and advertising we don’t want is a fantastic example of double dipping.
Great incentive to read books again.
Brian Bolton, Twin Waters
Do you have an opinion to share? Submit a Letter to the Editor at Sunshine Coast News via news@sunshinecoastnews.com.au. You must include your name and suburb for accountability, credibility and transparency. Preference will be give to letters of 100 words or less.
