Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 3 Hansard (7 March) . . Page.. 787 ..

MR RUGENDYKE (continuing):

Latham and variation 64 says what happens where a shopping centre is not viable. We have evidence that it is not. The butcher is still in debt, the supermarket had its rent reduced by $20,000 a year, and everybody else has disappeared. The proprietors of the Chinese restaurant did not want to continue, they wanted to retire, so they are not going to set up anywhere else. I am satisfied that this site ought to be redeveloped.

Ms Tucker: I am not talking about that site.


Ms Tucker: You did not listen to my motion.

MR RUGENDYKE: You did not listen, Ms Tucker, because when I talked about plan 10, I talked about the driveway that goes through to that block, a perfectly sensible option. There is no reason in my mind why block 3 section 31 should not be sold for residential development; it should be. It is on the Territory Plan to be sold, and I say sell it. Let people put up a hand to buy it and redevelop it in concert with the whole section. Also, let us think about selling the old service station site.

Mr Corbell: It is not yours. It is a private lease.

MR RUGENDYKE: Why doesn't he build something decent? He is working out of a derelict service station. What a shemozzle!

Mr Speaker, the proposal put by GE Shaw and Associates on behalf of the lessee of block 1 is a very good plan. I am very impressed with it and I say that we should let them get on with it. It has been run through the mill and through the committee process for long enough. The people of Latham, other than about four or five of them who are complaining about this residential development, want to see this eyesore got rid of. They want to see redevelopment to a state where it looks like a decent part of the suburb, along with a 100 square metres corner store.

MR CORBELL (4.06): Mr Speaker, I must say that I thought I was participating in a different debate. The reason I say that is that we have heard those opposing this motion today talk about issues which have nothing to do with the motion. Indeed, I am surprised, Mr Speaker, that you have allowed those speeches even to be in order. The reason I say that, Mr Speaker, is that the motion proposed by Ms Tucker says very clearly that the Assembly calls on the government to postpone the proposed auction of block 3 section 31 Latham. It goes on to make a couple of other points and then it says:

...depending on the outcome of the redevelopment the development conditions for block 3 section 31...

Mr Speaker, the question that has to be asked rhetorically is: where are the Latham shops located? Are they located on block 3 section 31? If so, the arguments that we have heard from Mr Hird and Mr Rugendyke would be entirely in order. Unfortunately for Mr Hird and Mr Rugendyke, the Latham shops are not located on block 3 section 31, which is the block of land relevant to this motion. So the arguments about what happens with the shops, the levels of rent owed by previous tenants there and the actions of the leaseholder for the shops are all irrelevant. They are irrelevant because block 3 section 31 is

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .