Maybe the council assumes that the silent majority (those that did not make a submission) were in favour of the SRV?  

Did the council look at other ways of raising revenue, such as local community fund raising for specific projects, with perhaps a dollar for dollar contribution from the council?  Also, maybe there could be some adjustment to property values in the more affluent suburbs, who are probably more capable of absorbing a rate increase.  Maybe, the council also expects to get a rate windfall, from their attempt to attract apartment development through their high rise building agenda?

 The rates will roll in whether units are occupied or not and of course there will be a bonus to the council through Section 94.  Were these income streams considered when considering a SRV application?

From the meeting it was obvious that the SRV proposal acceptance was a foregone conclusion, irrespective of what the community sentiment was.  This begs the question, why was it put out for public comment in the first place?  I suspect that it was a legal requirement to do so.  Another waste of time and public money.

There is only one councillor (or two at the most) who have any semblance of a social conscience.

It was also of interest that there was an acknowledgement that there may be an issue with the eight-storey height proposal on the eastern side of Church Street, while the western side remains as substantially single-storey residential dwellings.  I suppose they are victims of collateral damage.

What is the future for Port Stephens, in particular the Tomaree  Peninsula?  Where is the vision?  As far as I am concerned both literally and figuratively it is on the road to nowhere.  

Where is the vision to link the southern shore of Port Stephens to the northern shore, either by bridge or vehicular ferry? 

Either of these options would be great (state funded?) infrastructure projects, which would move Nelson Bay on from being just a satellite of Newcastle and the playground of Sydney.  

If you don't think it should exist in its current form, please adopt some real vision for the place, open it up to the rest of the country.

Also read: Letters to the Editor: October 11

I attended a consultation meeting at the Port Stephens Council building several weeks ago to learn more about the SRV proposal.

During the course of the meeting council members repeatedly assured those present that their intent was to consult the community to determine whether rate payers supported the proposal in its various gradations of expenditure and assured us that if the majority did not favour the scheme they would not proceed with it.

I left the meeting thinking that it was refreshing to have a council that was so straightforward with the community and that “we are all in this together”.

Imagine my dismay when I read in the Examiner  [October 11] that the council intends to proceed with a 7.5 per cent increase in rates when a vast majority of both telephone survey respondents (61 per cent) and survey replies (74 per cent) supported Option 1 (retaining the existing rate peg as set by IPART).

Apparently, apart from Crs Arnott and Doohan, as well as possibly those who did not attend to vote, our council consists of people [lacking] integrity. 

I suspect that many other rate payers feel as betrayed as I do.

Also read: Letters to the Editor: October 4