We’re not sorry to admit it but we’ve been harsh critics of the Water Park Concept here at Bringbackstrewth and we’re happy to say that’s not about to change. We’ll apologise to John Neve in advance but today we’re going to steal his thunder with our own version of Nancy Says.
Nancy Says: Water Park is important to our economy.
Opposition to the water park is puzzling Nancy says, really?
For a minimal cost she says.. is $12 Million for a series of flashy swimming pools really minimal? And please, can someone give us genuine figures that show this wonderful playground for the water lovers among us will draw in tourists? There is kilometres of safe beaches right behind the proposed site for the park so why would most bother to pay for a dip?
She goes on to tell us that sketches are currently being drawn up - hang on - we’ve approved this monstrosety but we don’t even know what its going to look like? How can we put a price on a project if the preliminary sketches haven’t even been finalised let alone engineered drawings?
Now here’s the next interesting comment - $5 million is coming from government - that we know, but here’s where it gets strangely concerning. Somehow the land that council already owns (or do they?) is worth $5 million and the remaining two mil will come 50-50 from council and Wide Bay Water. Did we read this correctly? We were of the impression Wide Bay Water was building the park at no cost to council? And, if council / WBW are only tipping in $2 million of actual funds, surely the state government will not see that as equal contribution?
So here’s what we think, the Fraser Coast Regional Council and its subsidiary Wide Bay Water need to come clean on the project. We want to know the results of the Business Case analysis (AKA Feasibility Study - we are assuming one has been done?). We want to see a complete costing for the project with exact figures and where it is all coming from. The ratepayers and residents of the Fraser Coast deserve the truth on this project.
At the end of the day, if it all stacks up financially ie. there is a sound business case and design behind the park, most of us would be happy to accept it. Ms Bate’s own editorial on Monday was bang on the mark when it said councils need to be careful when creating new feel good projects and that they need to be sustainable. Nancy, we could not have agreed more!
Maybe the public feel that they need the waterpark because they cannot see enough of the bay through the rat infested foreshore foliage. If natural water views and improved facilities were available maybe the waterpark would not be necessary.
The currently circulating design no-longer includes a tilting bucket for the kids, it’s major focus now seems to be more about educational PR for the all powerful water corporation.
I hope they don’t have the local water (unfiltered) on tap for the visitors - I can never understand how this so call ‘worlds best exporter of water technology’ produces a product that is not fit to drink.
(Can someone please tell me whether the Council runs WBWC or WBWC runs the council) The tail always seems to be wagging the dog.
I personally can’t fathom why a water park would even be considered when we live in such a fantastic area with a beautiful foreshore and swimming beach. What a waste of money especially when all we hear about are water restrictions and the building of dams.
I think money would be far better spent on a convention centre to bring culture and professional entertainment to Hervey Bay!!!
http://www.jeanettemaynes.com.au
I couldn’t agree with you more J, you’ve hit the nail right on the head. The last thing the Fraser Coast needs is a so called “Water Park”. When are these people (council and WBWC), going to be held accountable for the money they waste, while pushing their own barrow. Don’t start me on the new logo!
I totally agree with the previous posters about the wisdom of the proposed Waterpark project.
HB, just like most other forward-thinking tourism destinations, certainly DOES need to offer a more attractive, safer and ‘tide-independant’ swimming alternative to its present, shallow beachfront. However, the financial wisdom, tourism drawing power, noise, location and aesthetics of the water gadgetry and kiddy-orientated concept being lauded so far is most concerning.
Surely we can create more tasteful, cheaper and attractive facilities on/near our scenic beachfronts than clutter them up with noisy gadgetry with limited public appeal and even more acres of ugly bitumen carparks? It also worries me that our proposed Waterpark is claimed to be ’something totally unique and … not yet attempted anywhere else in the world’??
What exactly is the main purpose of this Waterpark project I wonder? If it is primarily to provide a swimming and general recreational facility, perhaps a more prudent and cost effective design approach is preferable? If so, then why not simply adopt a cheaper and less ambitious, yet more attractive, natural and conventional approach as already proven elsewhere in places like South Bank, Airlie, Cairns, Townsville and (soon) Southport? Do we really need all this expensive wave making machinery, etc or should this type of venture be left to private enterprise as it usually is?
There appears to be nothing terribly ‘nature based’ or environmentally sensitive (apart from the unnecessary ‘recycled’ fresh water itself) about the gaudy facilities being proposed. So far, the impression is that it does not seem to ‘fit’ with Hervey Bay’s nature-based, eco-tourism focus and image in my opinion. Perhaps the Gold Coast would be a more appropriate location?
Councillors should wisely direct scarce public funds and government grants according to identified and agreed areas of essential infrastructure which offer the greatest economic potential or widest community benefits. They should not allow themselves to be distracted from the ‘big picture’ by promises of extra funds with ’strings’ attached.
Dear Presswatch, if you are referring to the new Fraser Coast Regional Council Logo I totally agree. The whole rebrand is extremely visually unpleasing, lacks professionalism and does nothing to reflect the area. Maybe the council could hold a competition for the wider community to create a logo that accurately portrays and markets our region (nationally and internationally)! I hope the new logo (a font in a box!) didn’t cost us tax payers too much…
The current FCRC logo is clip-art from Microsoft Publisher, that could be why Jeanette Maynes noticed that “it is extremely visually unpleasing, lacks professionalism and does nothing to reflect the area”
I wonder if the one-off councils amalgamation funding bought us a brand new copy of ‘Publisher’ in a box.
It appealled to my sense of humour when the new logo was released just after the council election. I was hoping that having “embossed squares” as a symbol for the new Fraser Coast Council that some of the new elected members would not feel that they were being defamed. Obviously that may have only been my view of the election results.
John Neve seems to think it is a “done deal”. Does he have any vested interest to see that it does go through? Public consultation is the answer and perhaps a public meeting by the residents. Open the Council doors to the public. The “Terrorist fear bogeyman” has long gone
but it is being replaced by “the green Machine” or should i say “Red”.
Andrewbolt4eva doesn’t seem to do much research! My
views on the water park have been made on this site a number of times. Perhaps Andrewb could tell us what “Terrorists” have to do with the water park? He might also like to explain what the “Red” and “the green machine” are and what they have to do with the water park?
My apologies John as I have only been blogging on this site for a short time and I should have researched
your point of views regarding this matter. It was inappropriate to use the words and they were totally out of context regarding the water park. This blogging is all new to me and I guess I have learnt the hard way. There are regulations regarding blogging so I will sign off and go read the rules and come back when I have learnt a bit more.