Clarification on the Hornsby quarry
Last year you dismissed the $26 million acquisition of the former CSR Quarry site in Hornsby as a series of costly blunders made by the Hornsby Council which has resulted in an additional levy being unavoidably imposed on ratepayers.
You then went on to admonish complainants as being angry over cash costs, even if they cannot make a difference to matters past.
The issue is not that simple. The real concern is not the rate levy.
The real concern is the precedent that a multi million dollar liability (over and above the $26 million paid for it) belonging to a large corporation was handed over, in SECRET, to the rate payers of Hornsby. These deals were aided and abetted by our elected representatives and approved by the Minister - contrary to the Local Government Act.
Those questioning the perversion of the democratic process should not be painted as wingers. We need more people asking questions and raising the debate, after all isn't that what Your Voice is about? There is a lot more to this Quarry Matter.
Accountability
The Hornsby quarry issue is one of accountability and Hornsby Council are accountable to their rate payers, however the Valuer General who determined the $26 million valuation is not accountable and this is the problem for Hornsby Council and rate payers. The Valuer General should have a duty to disclose their actions in this case. For whatever reason the Valuer General has some sort of immunity against being held negligent,and this is undemocratic and unaccountable and needs to be changed. We do not live in Zimbabwe
Not admonishing residents
I just went back to review the prior story about the first by-election. My comment regarding anger over cash costs was not directed at admonishing people who are angry about it - rather it was directed at candidates who were attempting to exploit this anger without offering any real solutions to the problem.
Specifics?
I see you have made this corruption allegation a number of times. Can you be more specific about the corruption alleged? It the liability you refer to the remediation obligation? If so, this is a liability that would ordinarily run with the estate in the land, so its transfer to the council is simply part of the acquisition.
The guideline that you should not assume malice where incompetence provides sufficient explanation would seem to apply here.
Quarry reply
I do not use the word 'corruption'- I am very wary of making such allegations . We need an Independent Inquiry to find out if there were mistakes made or worse. But corruption does thrive in secrecy and this acquisition took place in secrecy. So far Council claims absolutely nothing is wrong and everything was above board.
We had no need to acquire this 28 Hectares of land with a 150M deep quarry. Council never attempted to contest this acquisition in court, neither did they make any attempts over the years to change the LEP which they claim bound them to the acquisition.
Why would a Council want to acquire a massive hole in the ground for public recreation? The site is, I think, irremediable and dangerous. It has a security fence (and security budget) to keep the public out.
The feasibility study Council undertook on the profits they would make on multi unit development was not on the $26 million 'acquired' site (as is commonly believed) but on the adjoining community owned parkland. The $26 million site is useless.
Unfortunately the council's
Unfortunately the council's rights in relation to the acquisition were somewhat limited. A challenge by the council entails certain risks and it would be well within the range of reasonable advice for their solicitors to have told them a challenge was not going to be worth it.
As you say the land the quarry is on is useless for conventional purposes and will be unable to be built on for some time even after remediation. The council may have been able to give it a different zoning that would not have required the acquisition clause, but the V-G's valuation bore no relationship at all to the valuation done by council and so there was no perceived need. If council had rezoned then CSR may have been able to challenge the zoning on several administrative law grounds. Of course that would have been a good thing, especially if they had taken it to Court since that would have given rise to an issue estoppel preventing them from claiming the other uses were viable.
There may still be viable uses for the land, just not conventional ones. Secure underground storage comes to mind as one possibility and this is not an uncommon use for former deep quarries. Obviously this would not be something the council should do, but it may be able to find a buyer for the land if it looks at development of a kind that places a positive value on that kind of terrain.
Legal advice - Council did not have to acquire the Quarry
You may find it interesting that initially council sought three lots of legal advice (two Senior Councils – one now a judge). This initial legal advice was that council was NOT legally bound to acquire the quarry.
Greater minds than yours or mine have tried to come up with a ‘use’ for the quarry. This dangerous badly mined quarry is below the water table, is now filling up with water, and any ‘storage’ would leach and pollute the groundwater and the Berowra Creek catchment. The increasing water level exacerbates what is already a very unstable and dangerous site.
With these problems it was no wonder CSR wanted to be rid of it.
The legal advice you refer
The legal advice you refer to was withdrawn and corrected (see paragraphs 20and 25 of Tim Robertson SC's first memorandum). Even if there were doubt, provisions of this kind are normally interpreted in favour of private (including corporate) interests over public interests.