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 given to letters of 100 words or less.
Related story: Council postpones vote on proposed car park sale amid petition
Ross E Jackson, Nambour: Just what is going on with Sunshine Coast Council even considering a proposal to sell council (ratepayers) property on the corner of Howard and Sydney streets, Nambour to Coast2Bay to develop the site into low-cost housing?
This car park is at full capacity 99 per cent of the time and is a necessity for Nambour long term parking for businesses and their customers. Such a discussion should bring absolute shock to the Nambour councillor responsible, but as usual, no response. Coast councillors have the numbers and can control any development they wish.
This needs a big airing to the Nambour business community to get their opinion, and I am sure, I know what it would be! Retail shops, eateries, medical centres, professional offices desperately need these car parks in the centre of town, which is so short of car parks.
Developers are working under the guise of desperately needed low-cost accommodation to get this proposal over the line. The council land on the corner of Mill Lane and Bury Street is a past council car park and is virtually unused. It is a definite replacement and eminently more suitable for the purpose. I am sure local real estate agents could put up better proposals to Coast2Bay.
As an aside, what happened to the proposal for the 130-odd low-cost units opposite council chambers (entirely inappropriate) in Bury Street? Perhaps your paper can do investigative work here also.
Michelle Martin: I agree we need housing in the Nambour area, but we already have a problem with parking now so when that car park goes, no one will be able to shop around the township. There has to be land somewhere else which can be used, as what we will have is an overcrowded inner township with nowhere to park for existing businesses… that car park gets full and is utilised. Surely there is somewhere else they can put 65 units. What an absolute joke!
Vonnie Burton: How could these decision-makers think you do this? Car parking is essential too. Please use your reason.
Paul Tatton, Nundah: The proposal to sell the Howard Street car park to build affordable housing in Nambour is a bad move. Parking in Nambour is at a premium now and if council goes ahead and sells this vital piece of land, it will put extra pressure on surrounding streets and at the shopping centre car park. I know from being a former councillor for the area.
I am not against affordable housing, but not at the expense of parking in town. I fought hard when I was in council to retain this site for parking, I even had the area as free parking for business owners and the public to park and use services in Nambour. Selling this land will make parking harder to get, and where will the workers of Nambour park?
I say reject the proposal! (I now live in Nundah but still have Nambour in my heart).
Linda Cole: This location is due for redevelopment into housing without an auction or public tender, and is a much needed car park. There are so many vacant shops in Nambour, why don’t they change town planning so people can use the shops?
We need car parking in Nambour as the area grows. It’s no good putting buildings up if there is no infrastructure to accommodate shoppers and workers in the area. The shops need people to continue to operate, well what’s left of them. Don’t let council take a back door agreement to offload assets. It’s council policy to be transparent and get community consultation and it needs to happen.
Maplemay (alias): Regarding the proposed car park redevelopment. Where on earth will we park for Chemist Warehouse, the optometrist, QML and various businesses? Nambour lacks parking as it is. We are elderly. Nambour is not friendly for the elderly being so hilly and having uneven footpaths. Now they want to take away our parking.
Sonia Lehmann: The idea of removing the car park for accommodation for the displaced community that is growing in Nambour is just taking from one demographic of people and giving to another. This car park is always being used and is often full… There are a lot of businesses in town that rely on this car park for their customers and clientele. The local businesses have already expressed their problems regarding trade, and this will just add to it. I am confident that another location for this construction of a facility could be sourced without taking parking from local businesses. I vote against this as a solution.
Bob Burgess: It is so sad that many of the senior long-term residents who call the Sunshine Coast home have been forced to move out or their rental properties because the landlord has seen the big dollar signs that has become the madness everywhere.
Finding somewhere to move to on the Sunshine Coast, which the average couple on the age pension can afford on the budget they have to work with, is impossible.
All the over fifty aged care people who used to have long-term accommodation no longer have rentals. They just want you to sign everything over to them and you can receive 15 per cent of your pension to live on. Getting a private rental is no go. The Over 50 villages now charge three-quarters of the weekly pension to obtain a villa, which we used to pay half the asking price a week for. Although they have the security of the Queensland Government aged pension, this is no longer acceptable. Unless you have pay slips to present on your application, the computer doesn’t even read your application.
Most senior people have no dependents or debts and a very low-key lifestyle and no big car taking up their money, so are in a much more reliable position to meet the commitment of paying the rent and caring for the home they love without the threat that their employment could be at risk of ending any day.
We earnestly love the Sunshine Coast, which we call home, but most of us who cannot afford to buy into the market for one reason or another (too old to get a loan) or missed out on buying due to many circumstances, and have had to move somewhere away from the Coast to where we can find somewhere we can afford to rent.
This in turn involves much travelling in most cases to be with our friends, church or other long-time commitments when able. Not fair. Whatever happened to caring for the elderly and supporting the locals?
- Read the story: Residents’ group forms to oppose Buddhist ‘gompa’
Glynn Kelly, Maleny: I have visited Chenrezig Institute a few times over the years and have always found it to be a very quiet, peaceful place. The world desperately needs places like Chenrezig Institute where people can go to have some time out from the made world we live.
- Read the story: ‘High risk’: Bruce Highway rated state’s worst road
Name withheld, Currimundi: All roads are dangerous. Making a statement rating any particular road without normalising the result by taking into account the length of the road, the number of vehicle movements and the distance each vehicle travels, is a pointless exercise. Was this done? If so, why was this not presented in the article? Lies, damned lies and statistics.
- Read the story: New e-scooter laws to hit state parliament
Trevor Arthurson: Dear Queensland LNP MPs, I heard on the radio the proposed legislation, once I stopped laughing at the stupidity of it, I believed that some obvious, yet ignored points should be made.
Please consider the following:
- There are disabled kids under 16 who now have the ability to ride a bike with their able-bodied friends due to the availability of e-bikes. The Queensland government has now disadvantaged disabled kids by taking this freedom away from them. This is just cruel.
- Parents of Queensland kids have spent a fortune on these e-bikes and e-scooters for their children and the Queensland government has now rendered that investment completely worthless. You should at least have the decency to offer a buy-back scheme.
- Will the Queensland government take steps to ensure that e-bike and e-scooter hire services only make their devices available to licensed 16-year-olds? Will there be penalties for companies failing to restrict access to qualified riders?
- The Queensland government has deemed that licences are required by 16-year-olds to ride an e-bike limited to 25km/h while there are thousands of adults on pedal bikes breaking laws every day and every weekend at speeds well over 60km/h with no licence required. David Crisafulli, have you ever driven along Banyula Drive, Nerang on a weekend?
- Can the Queensland government explain what magic occurs in teenagers when they turn 16 that alters their riding behaviour over night from when they were 15-years, 11-months and 29 days old? Is the Queensland government saying that all 16-year-olds are safer riders than every 15-year-old Queenslander?
- Can the Queensland government explain how differences in teenage behaviours magically alter when they cross the border at Coolangatta? Please, make it make sense.
It’s ridiculous to think that politicians will make e-bikes disappear off the face of the Earth. These things are well and truly a part of the future. Try banning mobile phones.
Anyway, best of luck with the LNP denying disabled children and teenagers the freedom to own a piece of universally accepted technology. The 16-year-olds and a portion of 15-year-olds will be voting in the 2028 elections. Let that sink in!
- Fines not working
Garry Reynolds, Peregian Springs: It’s no coincidence that the same big players – tech giants, banks, supermarket chains, airlines and telcos – keep turning up as repeat offenders in consumer scandals. If they keep breaking the rules, we have to ask whether our fines are doing their job.
For corporations of this scale, a fine isn’t a deterrent. It’s a rounding error. When the penalty is smaller than the profit, the behaviour isn’t “illegal”, it’s simply legal for a price. Once the cheque is written, the wrongdoing can even look “settled”.
Some companies openly calculate that paying a fine is cheaper than fixing the underlying problem. In big tech, especially, redesigning systems or improving safety can cost millions; a fine costs far less. Even when regulators act, multinationals outside our jurisdiction can shrug off local penalties without blinking.
As long as “move fast and fix it later” and offer a token apology extracted reluctantly remain the business model, fines alone will never keep them honest. Australians deserve a marketplace where the law has teeth – not one where deep pockets buy endless second chances.
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 given to letters of 100 words or less.
The aerial imagery in this article is from Australian location intelligence company Nearmap. The company provides government organisations, architectural, construction and engineering firms, and other companies, with easy, instant access to high-resolution aerial imagery, city-scale 3D content, artificial intelligence data sets, and geospatial tools to assist with urban planning, monitoring and development projects in Australia, New Zealand and North America.
