St Andrews, Logan Village, under attack.

Recent comments in another blog by someone who knows more than they are letting on provoked me to put some of the facts together in the form of a reply, but since it is and archived article, I decided to put the reply here.

There have been other allegations and actions against this small church , its clergy and parishioners, which when out together paint a very carefully concocted scenario, designed to get sole control over the property which is home to the Logan Village Community Hall and by virtue of a 99 year lease the St Andrews Church and ancillaries.

The Lions of Logan Village have (disputed) ownership of the property which was gifted to them ,in secrecy in the period of time between the dissolution of the last council and the swearing in of this edition, although the councillor for the division remained, and now claim private ownership of a community property which was given to the people of Logan Village, run by a committee of them until being pushed to incorporate (at request of Council) to accept much needed money ($120,000) for upgrade and renovations, and council support has extended to recently granting many thousands of ratepayers dollars for its painting.

The Lions are autonomous and have seen fit to attempt since acquiring the property, to remove the church by several means, and have made various threats and also attempted to sell church possessions using an agreement which may have been obtained from an unauthorised person and under duress.

I will put my aforementioned reply here,

Unowho said...

The fact that the church was assisting its congregation with before and
after school child minding must have irked some of the local Daycare Operators
who charge a fee for that same service, and it was one of them ,correct me if
I'm wrong, who alerted the media to the fact that during afternoon minding at
the church some of the children were using computers in a retro fitted insulated
shipping container (it has full size windows).

It would be an interesting exercise to see who was interested in purchasing
a Day Care Centre who could have profited by attracting more children from say,
shutting down a church minding group, because I feel that this is the only
explanation for events as they have occurred.

If one of the Day care Centre operators was involved, and if someone
senior in the Police is involved there should be action taken to mount a proper
investigation, and the Police person should be stood down for using intimidation
and Police facilities for personal use.

To date no one has been able to to give substantial evidence that the
gifting of the Public hall occurred within the terms of the hall association
constitution, and the number of people who have been implicated as having
knowledge of it and deny that knowledge is growing.

The only certain thing is that everyone is scared of the Police person, and
for some there is not just fear of intimidation but fear of assault or even
murder.People have begun leaving the church and attendances have been down on
Sundays, and I expect that's the intent, but it is horrific to have to suffer
this kind of harassment, and no one should have to.

So the list of people who haven't offered to help the church when
approached is growing to now include anonymous blog commentors, who may be or
are keeping company with State Ministers, Government Departments, senior Police,
Council and the Local councillor who has sided with the protagonists it
seems.

It is quite obvious that the Lions claim ownership of the property, and
want the church congregation to leave, and not just that, but leave their church
building, their own fittings and fixtures and the aforementioned shipping
container for the profit of the Lions.

This defies what i think of when I think Lions, because I've never heard
of a Lions Club trying desperately to own a community property, let alone force
another community group out of their lease and demand ownership of their
property also.

Lions Australia and World wide should be ashamed.

So I ask the Question, will the community let the Police and the Lions bully and intimidate the church until they go?

Bromelton, "need to know only" for information so far.

In Councils recent submission to the Local Government Reform Commission, it touted the massive Bromelton Industrial Precinct as being a boon for the shire and used it and the investment Council would have to make to provide infrastructure and services as a valid reason to annex a portion of Logan (a portion which was previously in Beaudesert) to expand the rate base for the needed extra revenue.

The State Government has seen this the opposite way it seems, and has decided to take over the precinct as a State Development Area and consequently we are hearing a little more about it as the consultation period allows public comment , for a very short time.

There is a Draft Document available for perusal at the Department website; http://www.infrastructure.qld.gov.au/infrastructure/sda_bromelton_scheme.shtm

There are also Two meetings, which are open for the public to attend and since there are plenty of empty desks at Council due to the amalgamations and some staff being offered better deals elsewhere, morale being so low and uncertainty of future employment, they will be held at Council.

You can contact Anne Caerdinal on 3225 8322 or Council. Meetings will be held on :

Mon 29 Oct 2-4.45 ----and----Thurs 1 Nov 11-2pm

Already, the rumours of land in the south of the precinct being kept aside for potential Nuclear Power Generation, which could be at odds with the present laws our State Government has on that subject, but nevertheless there is potential for it and also for irradiation plants and chemical manufacturing.

This has to have some basis in reality because all the most nasty rumours about plans the State Government has had for this shire in the past have all come true and in fact exceeded those rumours, and throughout all this our council keeps the secret, claiming it doesn't want people to get an advantage from the release of information.

I would urge people to look at the Draft Document and the Maps which are enlargeable and make your very valuable submission to this part of the process.

Vale Traveston Crossing

With the Queensland Government releasing the 1600 page Environmental Impact Statement for the Dam on the Mary River at Traveston Crossing, and it's availability for public comment from the Coordinator Generals Office, we see those same words that control and focus opinion and objection, and negate many of the underlying relevant issues by omitting them for the 'Terms of Refference"

The Mary river and it's inhabitant native fauna have survived generations of human interferance and unsustainable uses, even providing some of the highest quality primary production land in Queensland, and it is against all odds that this has happened, yet still it has.

Sadly until now, the Mary river has never had to sustain itself against the evil of all evils, money, or the one land use from which there is no turning back, development.

People who have known the valley at traveston , and have fished that river section, or watched the turtles ripple the surface, or just relaxed and swam there, will know this is a good place and should be left untouched.


Why ?

It seems that Party politics is at the heart of this, and I know it's a long hop from a creek bed to Parliament House, but the route is far trickier and more dangerous, because it is lined with money.

One of the main things holding back development in SEQ is lack of infrastructure, because in this term the Beattie/ Bligh Government nas barely provided any to meet the needs of the growth they have pro actively sought for this region, and growth has been significant and has already strained existing infrastructure to breaking point, yet still the Bligh Government calls for more.

Water provision has been one of the main issues and development north of Brisbane would have been increased if there was water to provide but there isn't any, all SEQ dams are low so development in greenfield sites has been held up by councils wanting developers to pay their share of infrastructure provision costs, which is , of course, at odds with a high profit bottom line.

Added to that is the fact tha many developers contribute millions of dollars to the electoral funds of politicians and even though they get huge taxation advantages from it they still want a second return on that money and the enormous profit as well.

The utter arrogance and self intrest of the Qld Labor Party Leader, Anna Bligh, just defies description and if this is an example of what we can expect in the Federal Labor Leader then No thanks.

Will the candidate for Forde resign, NOW ?

These are some paragraphs from an article in the Courier Mail, about Councillors and doing the right thing for those they represent.


STAR Labor candidate Kerry Rea has finally quit her $110,000-a-year council job to devote 100 per cent to winning the ultra-marginal Brisbane seat of Bonner.But two other local government representatives running for Federal Parliament have refused to relinquish their civic posts.
After a 10-year stint as the councillor for Holland Park, Cr Rea yesterday decided it was time to make the transition to full-time federal candidate.

While Labor's Eddy Sarroff has no plans to quit his job on the Gold Coast City Council, he has agreed to forgo his salary while he battles to wrestle the seat of McPherson from the Liberal's Margaret May.

Ms May said Cr Sarroff's refusal to step down from the council was unfair to the residents he was meant to represent.

Nationals candidate Hajnal Ban is also being paid as a councillor while she campaigns to win the seat of Forde.


The actions of councillors who continue to take ratepayers money while effectively doing something else is deplorable and arrogant, and of the three in Qld who are running for federal seats there is now only one who continues to draw ratepayer money while campaigning.

Now that Kerry Rea has resigned from Council and Eddy Sarroff has decided to forgo his salary while campaigning, only Hajnal Ban continues to suck ratepayer money out of a very troubled and future financially weak council to pursue her own aspirations.

Maybe this is a matter for a CMC investigation, to determine whether it's appropriate to draw a salary from the ratepayers , whilst actually campaigning for a federal seat, although with all the changes it probably is legal even if it is morally wrong and unfair to ratepayers in division 4.