fly_tornado Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 when I listen to the master, I realise have a long way to go. http://www.2gb.com/audioplayer/65836#.VCoLnptvYsI.twitter 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 this is interesting http://blogs.abc.net.au/queensland/2014/10/anti-csg-campaigner-says-shes-being-targeted.html?site=brisbane&program=612_morning Heather's farm 1344 Cecil Plains Road Toowoomba As you may be aware Clive got his get square investigation up this week so we might get to see the circus in Toowoomba Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 She definitely needs a tin foil hat.....sounds really "special". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Clive's road show is traveling all over QLD and its going to dig up plenty of "Fruit and Nut", plenty of those old squatter families feeling threatened by CSG industry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 this is interestinghttp://blogs.abc.net.au/queensland/2014/10/anti-csg-campaigner-says-shes-being-targeted.html?site=brisbane&program=612_morning Heather's farm 1344 Cecil Plains Road Toowoomba Old news FT, you're slowing down. She was the first of the "We don't want an airport near us" brigade. Last information I saw was quite a few months ago, and had no planning substance. Even if she had had a case, she left the run until infrastructure was in place, and tribunal Chairs, in Victoria at least, have a history of taking that into account and being very reluctant to order infrastructure to be torn down and the area be remediated to its original condition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 She will have a national platform to air her grievances, she'll get the national microphone to complain about the 4 flights a day ruining her life. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Well, you'll be there to reassure her it will never get off the ground. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 If John Wagner gets caught up in Clive's "get square" its hard to see it surviving. Just depends what the probe finds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilot Pete Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 I think if it works, great. If it doesn't then the Wagner family becomes poor and some aero club is going to end up with a nice club house. 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Old news FT, you're slowing down. She was the first of the "We don't want an airport near us" brigade.Last information I saw was quite a few months ago, and had no planning substance. Even if she had had a case, she left the run until infrastructure was in place, and tribunal Chairs, in Victoria at least, have a history of taking that into account and being very reluctant to order infrastructure to be torn down and the area be remediated to its original condition. One of the things that Wagners did that was underhanded ( but legal), was to get their plans in before a certain deadline that would have meant some public scrutiny was required. Had they been a week later (I think), they would have been under new regs, that necessitated some reports and other stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExJourno Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 I think if it works, great. If it doesn't then the Wagner family becomes poor and some aero club is going to end up with a nice club house. I suspect if it doesn't work out, a suitable interaction of entities would ensure the Wagners most certainly did not get poor... when trusts and companies are involved, a belly-up project doesn't necessarily mean full doom for the individuals involved. Also, airport was an all-or-nothing game. It isn't as though the entirely of the family's fortunes was tied to it. One of the things that Wagners did that was underhanded ( but legal), was to get their plans in before a certain deadline that would have meant some public scrutiny was required. Had they been a week later (I think), they would have been under new regs, that necessitated some reports and other stuff. Why is that underhanded? There was a date on which rules changed and they applied before it. At what point prior to the change being implemented for future applications, does making an application under the old system become underhanded as opposed to merely fortunate in timing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 I suspect if it doesn't work out, a suitable interaction of entities would ensure the Wagners most certainly did not get poor... when trusts and companies are involved, a belly-up project doesn't necessarily mean full doom for the individuals involved. Also, airport was an all-or-nothing game. It isn't as though the entirely of the family's fortunes was tied to it. Why is that underhanded? There was a date on which rules changed and they applied before it. At what point prior to the change being implemented for future applications, does making an application under the old system become underhanded as opposed to merely fortunate in timing? I completely get what you're are saying. They took advantage of the regs at the time, I would do that if I were in the business, but as a result, there was absolutely no consultation with the community. If I was living next door to it, it would probably upset me a lot. I reckon the construction work that's been going on would be worse than the aircraft, as they appear to be going 7 days a week. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 I don't reckon Alan Jones wouldn't be going on about Wellcamp for so long if he didn't have some dirt on Wagners. He knows better than most what can get you sued for defamation. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 JOHN Wagner envisages 1000 jumbo jets a year flying from the Brisbane West Wellcamp Airport by 2018, exporting agricultural commodities to the Asian market. But in order to achieve that milestone, a change in attitude and understanding of the as-yet untapped market is needed. Mr Wagner made the comments as part of yesterday's panel discussion at the Ag in the Asian Century conference, following a presentation by AACo CEO Jason Strong, whose company exports 100,000 tonnes of beef each year to Asia. "A 100,000 tonnes of beef - that's 1000 jumbos a year, so wouldn't that be fantastic if we could get that out of Toowoomba over the next three to four years, and I think we can," Mr Wagner said. He said the new airport had a runway capable of handling jumbo jets, which opened up agricultural export opportunities for the Darling Downs and wider region. http://www.thechronicle.com.au/news/john-wagner-envisages-1000-jumbo-jets-a-year-flyin/2406978/?ref=hs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 One of the things that Wagners did that was underhanded ( but legal), was to get their plans in before a certain deadline that would have meant some public scrutiny was required. Had they been a week later (I think), they would have been under new regs, that necessitated some reports and other stuff. There is a step by step procedure which a Council must follow: The zoning of the land at the time this was just a dream would have had Uses listed The Uses are usually divided into: Section 1: (or similar term) Uses permitted without a permit (no public consultation required) Section 2: Use allowed subject to a permit (Council requires a notice to be posted on the fence, may publish a notice in the local papers, may notify neighbours) - Consultation compulsory and an Appeal process if either the Applicant or the Objectors disagree with the Counil decision. Prohibited Use: Use not allowed under any circumstances. If you want to build an airport and it is a prohibited use, you can apply for a Panel Hearing to hear an application to change the zoning. This will usually be run by the State Government, and again will be advertised. The results of these are usually referred to the State Parliament for observation, and some require passage through both houses. If a Panel Hearing approves a rezoning to say Special Use - Airport, which in this case, could have been five or six years ago or more, then no permit or public consultation is required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExJourno Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 At least FT's language is better than yours Adam Utterly irrelevant... I was kinda hoping for a ban... sometimes the only way to remove annoying shit from your sight is to be forced by a third party. My will power is found lacking... I see the crap and can't help reading it... You can whinge about this language too - shit. She will have a national platform to air her grievances, she'll get the national microphone to complain about the 4 flights a day ruining her life. Just this once, I find my self agreeing with you. There is a connection between the loud person and Mr Lawes, apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrZoos Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 Yeh bloody great if you get a job out of it, terrible if your under the flight path...its not a simple issue and just cause the owners have the cash to develop it.... well i will leave the rest for debate of totally 100% impartial participant... thank god it aint over me , annoyed its not within driving distance, glad its good for our nation... as i said far from simple Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seb7701 Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 From memory I was of the understanding that the Wagners used a loophole related to the council amalgamations (which occurred in around 2008 (?))which did indeed eliminate the requirement for public consultation. Either way, they seem to consistently have one priority in mind - themselves. Seems wrong that their self-serving little venture can be allowed to stuff up nearby properties which were no doubt (and rightly so..) bought without the assumption of an airport ever being constructed, as well as chopping into the airspace of a miltary base? Someone correct me, but I heard they encroached largely on Oakey airspace? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 John Wagner was a Jondaryan Shire councillor prior to amalgamation as the TRC and on the last meeting of the council prior to the amalgamation the council voted to approve the airport bypassing a lot of laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dafydd Llewellyn Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 And this differed from the NSW Wran government's machinations over the Sydney airport at Badgery's Creek, in exactly what fundamental principle? "No man's life, liberty or property is safe whilst the Legislature is in session" (Mark Twain). Now, what was that about democracy? . . . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seb7701 Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 Yep- that was it alright. Not half dodgy..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 John Wagner was a Jondaryan Shire councillor prior to amalgamation as the TRC and on the last meeting of the council prior to the amalgamation the council voted to approve the airport bypassing a lot of laws. It always surprises me to find out that people who get and do things end up ahead. I sit here at home every day watching the TV wondering; "When is it my turn?" - life has been harsh to me I thinks, I ain't no Joe Walsh. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 John Wagner was a Jondaryan Shire councillor prior to amalgamation as the TRC and on the last meeting of the council prior to the amalgamation the council voted to approve the airport bypassing a lot of laws. Well this would have put you in the box seat to take the new Council to the Planning tribunal FT because if they "bypassed a lot of laws" the new Council takes over as Responsible Authority from the old Council, and the permits would have been very easily reversed. In a situation where Councillors have ridden over Officers to get a pet project done, the Tribunal usually gives weight to the Planning Officers because they are the full time qualified professionals. Aside from that, if John Wagner was in the Chamber while the project was being discussed, or voted on it, he would have had a conflict of interest, and that would have been grounds for the new Council to reverse the decision. So it seems this mess of an airport is all because you let us all down by simply not going to the Tribunal and objecting at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 Why are you guys posting at 2 and 3 am on a Friday night? I think its going to be a long and hard road to profitability for wellcamp, when its not hard its a long wait for those sweet sweet dollars. Bex have you considered Wellcamp for your Australian distribution centre for the bexmotor? Its close to major markets, Sydney is overnight, daily flights from China. Warehouses going cheap. One project the Wagners have suggested is a motorsport park, I can see the airport land and facilities fast tracking that project. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 I get bored at work FT. I did some checking, and there's nothing significant in this "bypassed a lot of laws" suggestion, just people not understanding the Planning process. Developers have to lay out their money over long periods - longer than most of us would be prepared to risk. So where they had committed to projects, prior to amagamation in this case, their investment is protected for a reasonable time. In this case all developers were given code - assessable status for two years after amalgamation, and that included the Wagners. The their case they made it just in time before the code - assessable status expired, so nothing to see here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now