How many will fall into the land tax trap?

During the last ten years more so than ever before ordinary people have began to utilise wealth creation in the form of investment property and to be quite blunt the various marketers of investment property have rammed them down our throat for years now.

There has been various incentives to own investment property offered by the government as well, negative gearing which everyone would have heard of by now and yet still most people have very little idea of exactly how it applies, depreciation which requires very complex calculations for each item involved, tax relief for renting to low income tenants and deductions from personal income tax.

What it all means is that once you've signed on the dotted line and got a tenant insitue, you can hold an investment property for less than $100 a week in most cases even today after the huge boom and then the Global Financial Crisis.

And that means someone with quite a bit of disposable income in a household can end up holding several properties which are growing in capital value quite well and yet are not really causing hardship to hold , own and profit from.

Property has become one of the tools used by many who own small business and have their own DIY super funds because the benefits of buying the property from which you work and become your own tenant means you know exactly where your money is going and can mitigate any and all costs both ways.

However, there is one problem that most people have not been made aware of who may have bought up properties when they were relatively inexpensive, and accumulated a few of them, and that is with the increases we've all seen in unimproved values of properties, those investors may be up for a little thing called "Land Tax"

Land tax applies in Queensland to any one who owns property to the value (in unimproved terms)greater than $599,999 which means an ordinary couple with a home and a couple of quality investment properties may have to start thinking about that extra tax bill.

The tax is on a scale and the first part is $500 plus 1 cent for each $ more than $600,000.

So for example a North Beaudesert couple have a beautiful acreage property with a nice home on it with an unimproved value of around $450,000 and they have a couple of investment properties in quality locations valued at $300,000 each ; you can see that they are ok as far as land tax goes for now, but assume that they also have a commercial property that they run a business from, a small shop or shed with an unimproved value of $200,000 then they are going to cop an assessment for land tax.

A lot of people may be on the cusp of being assessable for this State Government Tax without even knowing but rest assured the government knows and will be issuing assessments at the end of the financial year.

here are the details for Land Tax in Queensland. forewarned is forearmed.

Logan Village Hig School, . . . hi-jacked by the ULDA and Delfin.

There have been a lot of dedicated locals over the years who have tried to get some progressive thinking and action going in Logan Village, they have had some basic requirements sorely lacking for many year almost as if there was no representation there from any level of government at all for at least the 20 years or so I've known the place.

A lot of locals have put this down to having a councillor who they say has been so self interested and megalomaniacal that nothing could be done in Logan Village unless he was seen to be doing it, and that has resulted in most of the community stuff, like neighbourhood watch etc disbanding and it seems the only groups left were those that he was in control of and gifting council money to.

Lets face it. under the watch of this bloke upgrades for the two shopping centers were continually knocked back, road works to get bitumen on the dirt only happened just before the last election, and it was only this year, yes 2010, that the Logan Village State School got connected to town water, and that's just scratching the surface.

Since that councillor lost his plush, almost decade and a half, shiny seat in council things has improved only slightly as the councillor for the actual township struggles with absolutely zero support from the councillor who has the rural adjacent area.

Last year another push to get a High School for Logan Village began with some very good people behind it and some progressive thinkers among them, and they have real support from community, businesses, and the local councillor and i think even the adjacent councillor is on board, but not resting on their laurels and waiting for council to get something done the organisers have gone to the State Government with some very good data and back up[ supporting a very logical push to put a High School in Logan Village, and it looks like it's going to be successful.

However, the State Government has looked at the idea and appears to have decided that once again Logan Village is not the place for a High School, and the departments that get things done have basically given a free ride once again to a particular developer by putting up a proposal to locate a future Logan Village High School at Yarrabilba, to serve future students of Yarrabilba, but paid for by you and I rather than the developer.

Of course that makes sense once you look at who is now the chairman of the Urban Land Development Authority, a State Government department set up by Beattie designed to fast track development, because he used to be at the top of Delfin and it seems worked on the yarrabilba stuff and is now in charge of making the Logan Village school a free school for Yarrabilba.

The Yarrabilba State High School, . . .has a nice ring to it.

It's yet to be finalised but I'd reckon we, the taxpayer will even have to buy the land for it, it just keeps getting better for Delfin who built nearby Woodlands and didn't supply one bit of infrastructure for it either that they didn't absolutely have to.

Logan Village will be better of in the short term, but with Yarrabilba set to be kicking off in 2011, it will only be a very short term benefit, as Logan Village becomes a thoroughfare of trucks and cars heading to Yarrabilba and anything built on Waterford/Tamborine Road will be almost impossible to get in or out of, including a High School.

Logan Council , meetings on the move.

Logan Council are saying they are bringing Council to the community, and I think that having them in the kind of facility that they are to held next, a school hall, gives students exposure to council as well as any other method.

Lets face it, the ordinary meetings are a rubber stamp over what has already been discussed and presumably agreed to (by most councillors) at the previous weeks committee meetings, and as such do not give an indication of how our departmentalised third level of government works by any shape or means but it does allow one to see a bit of what goes on when personalities and egos get around the table.

I urge people to go to these type of meeting, simply to show that we, the community, are still keeping an eye on our investment, that we still see what is going on despite the constant spin of your press releases and that we do have in our minds some requirements from our representatives that are definitely not being met.

Personally, I don't think a couple of councillors in the old Beaudesert and Gold Coast area are doing us much service other than trying to undermine other councillors and play at being bigger than Jesus, that's just me, and they have done nothing to dissuade me from that opinion including their recent attempts at geeing up animal owners around here and pushing to try to have all market gardens removed, possibly via a stooge.

So, if you want to see Council inaction, (in action) the next "community" Council Meeting is on 14th September, it will start at 10.30am and be in the New Hall at Canterbury College, Waterford.

Should be a whizzer.


.

Bligh's big plans evaporating could be her final downfall.

When Anna Bligh put on the hard hat she inherited from Beattie with the Premier's job at a press conference to announce the declaration of a "Project of significance" in Queensland, she was beaming, she looked like the Cheshire cat and she thought that bypassing normal approval processes with the declaration would see income from the Galilee basin coal projects soon flowing into the coffers of a very broke State Government.

But how the plans of mice and men go sour, A court has just ruled in favour of another mining company who's lease is in between the Basin and the Port and which would have had a significant amount of land resumed for the project and which would have severely compromised their operation.

The declaration, initially made in July, gave Ms Reinhard's Hancock Coal a ''defined corridor'' within which it could continue to examine the feasibility of its $5.5 billion Alpha and $6.5 billion Kevin's Corner projects in the Galilee Basin.

Ruling on an application by QCoal, against Minister Hinchliffe, Justice Margaret Wilson yesterday ordered that the declaration of ''the Hancock Coal-Alpha Coal rail corridor as an infrastructure facility of significance to Queensland, the Galilee Basin and Abbot Point regions . . . be quashed''.

QCoal runs the Sonoma mine in the northern Bowen Basin

The ballsy miners took on the State Government's minister, questioned the declaration and have had it quashed and after negotiations between lawyers representing QCoal and Mr Hinchliffe with counsel for Mr Hinchliffe, in the end, not opposing the court's order in a tacit admission that the declaration had been mishandled.

I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall, because the reasons for the stuff up have not been released as yet, so we do not know the actual reasons for the judgement.

One thing you can be sure of, Ministers dined aboard Gina Reinhardt's luxury ship, the premier had intimate meetings with Ms Reinhardt herself, and the result was that the declaration was made and that we the Taxpayer would shell out for the acquiring of land and building a rail corridor to the Port for the transport of coal from at least the two main projects at Alpha and Kevin's Corner in the giant Galilee Basin.

This will be a blow for Bligh, she has once again come unstuck short cutting the processes to have her power demonstrated for all to see, there is no upper house to challenge her decisions, and that means no safety net to keep us taxpayers from forking out, but unfortunately for Bligh it also means no one else to blame.

There is no doubt that even though Labor Party members are very good at obeying and that we know there has been a gag order about the Queensland leadership, that the members and the rank and file are thinking and waiting for an opportunity to do to Bligh exactly what Gillard did to Rudd.

Bligh is a Lame Duck.

While Foolia promises anything and everything, Abbott won't play ball with ridicules demands of the independents

While it has right from the start looked like the Gillard labor Government would be able to win the hearts of the majority of the independents and thus form a minority government, it is disturbing that some of the strange demands of all the minority party members are actually being agreed upon by Labor.

In my previous post I told how the Greens have signed a deal to form government with Labor, effectively a coalition, however I did not elaborate on the price Bob Brown had asked for his support.

One of the things on his list is allowing Gay marriage, which it seems would be considered by Labor if they form government and more likely it would be left until the change of the senate half when the Greens would hold the balance of power there and have a bill on the issue passed.

That's politics right?

Well not exactly, you see no other party including Labor had this item on their agenda, and in fact both Parties had said they have no intention in changing the marriage act to include legitimising same sex unions, so in other words instead of being majority rules which is the basis of democracy we will see a minority being able to push through distasteful (to the vast majority) legislation due to an agreement with the government.

So Bob Brown may say they have just over ten percent of the vote including preferences but in reality that does not give him the power to speak on behalf of the majority, and it certainly does not give him any sort of mandate to invoke policy on behalf of all Australians

Now I've used the example of "equal marriage rights" but it could be any of the radical policies from the greens including charging us a carbon tax or hovering like vultures over the corpses of the recently deceased to collect death duties, all of which are only voted for (if people even knew they were Greens policy, I doubt many did) 10% of the voters, not even close to a democratic majority.

So how did it all go wrong, how do we get someone like Bob Katter demanding the ethanol level in auto fuel be increased to 22% when we do not have enough good quality agricultural land available right now to feed our projected population and growing more and more cane would make us like Brazil where Rain Forest is destroyed to grow for fuel and meanwhile the countries poor struggle to get food.

It seems, against all odds that the only one with any common sense is Tony Abbott who has so far refused to accommodate a lot of the wish list items of the half dozen, power soaked wanna be deal makers cum king makers, or should that be Queen?

Could it be that Liberalism has taken a bullet for the greater majority of Australians? That we really are just still so afraid of work choices that we couldn't vote for Abbott, and yet quite obviously we did not want to continue with Labor either so we went for the lesser evil and went Greens or independents?

As they say, be careful what you wish for , you just might get it.

Further to that make a decision and make your vote count.

While people are calling for another poll, there is one man who will be screaming the house down if that looks like a possibility and that's Bob Brown who is just revelling in his self appointment as the most powerful man in Australia right now and would more than likely lose more than half his votes if another vote had to be cast.

The Gillard Brown coalition; not a surprise.

It has come to pass, in the halls of power that what everyone has known and what has been denied by both for so long has now been ratified for the public to show that what we have all believed is now reality.

Labor and the Greens are now a coalition.

Bob Brown has tried in vain to have people believe that he has been bipartisan and would support either of the two major parties to form Government in this latest election where no clear majority has been evident in number of seats in the parliament, pretty much without success as Labor leader Gillard has continued to announce that she counts the Green member elect as a definite for Labor.

And to be brutal about it, Gillard was 100% correct to do so because the Greens have senators elected and due to enter the upper house in the next change over mostly due to Labor preferences, and the greens in a return deal owe Labor big time.

The question I ask is, since all the deals done with the Greens and Labor before the election were already done why all the BS from Brown and why all the outright lies?

Of course you were actually expecting another question, and here it is, why is Brown still the leader when it is most common for the Leader of a political party to come from the lower house, if in fact you have one in your party, but once you do does that not make them your leader?

The greens are very loathe to answer questions, real questions about why policy exists , about why they agree with some and reject other and so i don't expect anyone from the Greens to answer the above either.

To me it is cowardly of Bob Brown to have not signed this agreement of coalition with Labor before the election, and I just wonder how many of the faithful will remain that way and will we see future elections where Labor faithful will be handing out for both themselves and the greens when support declines.

I don't think it is healthy for the greens to be they way they were, biased in favour of Labor in so many states, but i reckon it's worse for them as part of a coalition because they have always tried to maintain a position of independence.

So what do you think, it was always obvious, but was this a good move?

PPP's and your water bill.

Ten years ago pretty much no one in the community had heard of PPP's or Public Private Partnerships, and even if they had heard of them they were explained as making the cost of providing services cheaper.

That being said, how many of you have already received your new water bill?

Exactly, and how many reckon that the bill seems very high, well I do so I asked some questions by email and it took over a week to get a reply.

I have to say I was mad as a meataxe when I found that after trying to call all day I couldn't get through to talk to someone and also that after a week it came as a surprise that they had actually replied.

The thing is that the water charge is a small part of the bill, there is an infrastructure charge, a service charge and some other fees (which I had assumed would have been well and truly paid for) as well as the charge for the water used.

Pay as you use is a simple concept, and no one minds paying their fair share, but in my opinion when there is no choice, and in the case of water supply there is no choice then the charges are in effect holding us to ransom for water, there is no avoiding the charge even if you do not use any water, and they can charge whatever they like, and they now claim to be a private company and beyond question on it and state that you just need to pay up by the due date, you have no choice, and yes you can be sold up for eventual and continual non payment.

The thing is that Our State Government has discovered a money pit, and to make the whole process unquestionable they have created a PPP to protect their money grabbing and keep prying eyes out of the real details of how it works even with FOI's.

Think of how many homes are connected to water, and how much the minimum charge is and do the sums, that is a ship load of money.

One of the questions I asked was; " can I sell my rainwater back to you?" and "can I sell my rainwater to my neighbours cheaper than you charge for it" the answer to both was a predictable no because there is no choice and no choice allowed.

I also asked "how can I get in on the action?" answer: you can't, . . I mean seriously I'd love to buy in I reckon at the charges they are billing us it might be the only way I can afford to ever drink, shower, launder or cook any more, plus it will be hugely profitable, a licence to print money.

I'm really dirty on the charges, I think they are too much and I wonder about renters who live in houses owned by landlords and how they will pay, because if a landlord has half a dozen homes and the bill comes in at $200 at each residence that's a bill he probably can't absorb and will have to raise the rent to pay for, (almost $20 a week)

There are already rumblings from workers in Urban Utilities and Unity water about how they have been dumped by councils whom many have worked for over a long period of time, and expected to continue on without the usual council support behind them, e.g. the bitumen patch up crew, concrete cutters and excavation crews, not to mention planning departments to let them know exactly where services are located etc.

This is just a ripoff, and another State Government charge set to punish working families in our part of the world, and slug them with another bill they don't need or want.

Meanwhile as we pay for Bligh and Fraser's arrogant display against a citizen who subsequently brought the matter to court, they punish us with another greedy cash grab out of our wallets and purses.

Kevin'O'lemon - - - - - he's back.

While union adverts flood our radio waves and TV screens full of tales of fear and woe about events that seem to be purely a figment of the unions own worst nightmares rather than reality in the typical fear campaign we are used to seeing every election, labor is also ging down the same path with their adds also telling us of the dread we should all feel if we don't vote them in.

I hate negative advertising to be honest, I want to see what they intend to do, in detail, I want to make an informed decision about how well the party i chose to validate with my vote will represent the best intents of my wishes.

I want to see what you will do not how scared you are of the opposition.

There is one ad that caught my (and in fact almost everyones ) attention, the "kevin O lemon" add it was novel, humourous, and ironic and a mirror of the truth we all know,and it was the final straw that sealed Rudds fate: well it's back, with some changes, but just as funny.

The Greens ; Environmental warriors or extreemists in disguise.

When most people think of the Greens they would associate them with saving trees and Koalas and their habitat, and that going to probably be the majority of their supporters and candidates too, right?

I wonder how many of the candidates actually have gone through all the policies that the Greens stand for? because I'm damned sure the public almost knows none of them except for saving the environment and I think that's exactly the way the Greens want it to be too.

Population growth in Queensland and the resulting prosperity can be attributed to one thing almost above all others and that is the dumping of a draconian policy of taking from the dead by means of death taxes or death duties.

When they were abolished in Queensland retirees and older workers who wanted to leave their hard earned savings and assets to their chosen beneficiaries began moving into Queensland in their droves, they bought homes, they lived their life and they spent their money here in Queensland.

One of the policies in the Greens little known arsenal is the reintroduction of death taxes, sure they may claim to have some safeguards to the family home or farm and they may have a thresh hold at which the tax comes in that may mean those with little are not taxed, but it's still the most abhorrent, repugnant and divisive tax ever.

In the days of old it was required that an audit of a deceased persons asserts be taken, and the duty calculated and then by any and every means paid or a ghoul form the tax department would come to the home and do it and even order a sell up to retrieve the duty owed, as if those left behind after a death need that.

One wonders how they came up with some of the hair brained policies like reintroducing death duties, and not only cutting funding to private schools at Federal level but controlling the hiring and firing of staff and teachers there as well.

The only explanation is that the greens are not who they say they are (or deliberately allow you get the impression they are) which is the saviours of our environment, but rather they are the extreme left of labor, the ultimate Communist party and a sounding board for radical and extreme new policy.

I have a lot of time for those out there doing the hard yards in a one sided fight against progress which simply destroys our planet little by little, but I now believe the Greens have hoodwinked the majority of members and supporters and even some candidates by carefully and deliberately not coming out into the public with some of their policies.

Think twice before you put the greens into the balance of power in the senate because once that door is open, anything could go through it, even a return to death duties.

I also just want to add that anyone who thinks it's ok because it will only apply to the rich, think again because once that door is opened it's pretty easy to open it wider, also once you force those peoples relatives to sell up to pay the tax, what happens to the business they used to run now its' sold off, the people who worked there, and the future for the beneficiaries.

What happens to the self funded retirees, those who had no super, or none that has its' contributions doubled up the government, their families who are dependents on the income produced from a business or investments?

The greens have not thought this through, at all.

The greens have irrevocably shown their ties to Labor

The Greens leader Bob Brown has been in the media telling of his abhorrence for preference deals, and almost in the same sentence announcing a broad base deal to give preferences to Labor.

It's no secret that the greater majority of voters also believe there is no difference between Labor and the Greens as far as policy or ideology.

There is also a school of thought that the Greens are a product of the Labor brand as a tool to position radical policy elements in front of the community and a marketing bonanza to capture the widely growing environmental awareness among voters.

Personally I believe that Green candidates stand with all good intentions, they are more that likely environmentally aware, proactive and work in their various communities on real solutions to issues at a local level.

The real issue is that the Greens are a cast net designed to grab the votes of people who don't want to vote for a continuation of what the two major parties offer and would like to see real change to government that is for the betterment of Australia as a whole and in turn our planet, they want a government perhaps that can be an example of lower impact environmentally to governments across the world.

Unfortunately that's never going to happen whilst the current crop of leaders in the Greens continue to tie themselves to Labor nationally, because it does very little to give them credibility as a true independent party.

Of course the idea of the vote deal is to try to gain the balance of power in the senate, and to that end we see some now, very confident Greens candidates getting about the place telling us all sorts of radical policies.

So getting to the point, In the seat of Hinkler around Harvey Bay, the Greens candidate appears to have quit the party over the recent preference deal, and seems intent on running as an independent.

Adrian Wone, is probably not alone among candidates who may prefer to allow voters to chose their own preference choice, in fact I know there are others but the party structure and the Australian system does not reward individuals who stand up for their principles they are marginalised with "not a team player", "radical" and "loner" tags by a system that pays Parties very well for votes.

I commend Adrian Wone for his action, I'm not against a candidate giving preferences in a certain direction, but to make a national deal is certainly not in the best interests of people where they are suffering under the pressure of labor policy.

In my opinion, if the Greens want seats, get real policy. If they want the balance of power do it on their own , campaign hard on local issues and campaign all the time not just 5 weeks before the election. Consider the majority, not the minority in general policy, e.g. the Greens claim it's unfair for the federal government to fund Private schools, they have nothing to back that up and ignore some very compelling evidence to continue. Private schools take a huge number of kids out of the state funded system (yes, all schools are funded, and private schools get ZERO funding from the states,)and that means they don't have to build more and more schools, pay more and more teachers, supply more and more facilities. The fact is that this is a policy from the Greens that is illconcieved, uninformed, socialist and detrimental to peoples freedom of choice to school their children in the manner they wish.

A Greens senator, who gets the seat on the back of Labor preferences is beholding to Labor, they owe Labor, they are effectively part of Labor. Giving the Greens the balance of power in the senate is giving Labor control of the senate.

A contribution from a local.

There is only one record to break for Julia


Julia Gillard has made history as the first female Prime Minister of Australia, that will be her claim to fame, not how she got there and not as many believe for being the shortest serving PM in Australia’s history if the gamble of cutting her own leaders throat, with the backing of faction leaders and Union Power Brokers, goes awry and she is voted out.

For Julia to have been the shortest serving PM in Australia’s history, she would have to have been removed from her post any time before the early hours of July 2nd, 2010.

If she loses this election, she will become the 5th shortest serving Prime Minister.

Julia’s job has to be to convince the electorate that she is not the conniving backstabber who coldly executed PM Kevin Rudd, gave him the Judas kiss in a late night meeting which saw him not even contest the vote from the caucus in less that 24 hours and instead saw him blubber in front of media and his whole immediate family.

Julia also has been quick to use Rudd as the scapegoat (as expected) for all that ails in the vote winning process despite it being well known that she was one of the gang of four who with Rudd and swan made policy , publicized it and then handed press releases to the relevant Minister along with the media. What Rudd was, so was Gillard.

Julia will no doubt attempt to use the agreement with the miners, brokered through back downs in the new tax which served her masters in the unions who feared the loss of jobs in the mining sector to offshore operations and continue with the assertion that without her government in power we will get work choices returned by the current opposition.

Julia’s public announcement on calling the election for August 21 was very much lacking in substance, but I think we all got the campaign slogan, “Moving Forward” since she repeated it many times and spoke slowly as usual, interesting also was her appearance, a little smoother in the face (Botox maybe?) and with a fresh bright red shock and with highlights in the hair colour, her face and mouth barely moving during the delivery of the entire speech.

Julia went on the attack too, claiming knowledge about what is going to be policy from her opposite number Tony Abbott, and claiming that she knows what would have happened in an alternate reality with him as leader during the GFC where our big four made profit while the rest of the developed worlds banks lost, sometimes very heavily and that is to have our country in recession.

Julia actually looks to me to be a Star trek fan, so her claim makes perfect sense, that there could be a way of seeing into an alternate reality where the opposition didn’t support the stimulus packages in the senate, and allow Labor to claim the kudos for it and in fact be the government and not introduce it at all, in fact I can imagine Julia translating all her speeches into “Klingon” as a memory improving exercise.

Julia will probably get a big slice of the women’s vote because there is a large percentage of women who will vote for a woman just because it’s a woman, that’s in her favour, big time and she will, very much like Joh Bejelke Peterson feed the chooks and be of great interest to the various media scrums simply because she is the new kid in town.

Julia is like Joh in many ways, she talks differently almost like she is talking to first graders and her accent is broad and ockerish and almost unladylike more suited to an older country singer than a PM, she also repeats a lot sometimes more than once in case we are too slow to get it the first time.


It’s going to be a long 5 weeks.


BTW, the shortest serving PM was Francis Michael Forde, 8 days.
Earl Page 20 days, John McEwen 23 days and Arthur Fadden 40days.

Back up, . . . to Edwards Bridge.

After my previous post which indirectly pointed a finger at Logan council for not wanting to spend money on much needed infrastructure below the old ( pre amalgamation ) boundary, rather they spend it wastefully on cosmetic improvements like entrance statements and other such rubbish when pot holes that can break suspension and bridges fall into such a state of disrepair that they have to put a load limit on them.

So, Edwards Bridge, falls into this category, it is in a desperate condition and I have done a little research on it's current state and it's scary.

Edwards bridge is at Greenbank, Queensland on Old Goodna Road, near Ison Road intersection, and spans a creek which can during rain carry considerable water but is quite low during dry spells.

The Bridge, if I recall correctly from Beaudesert Shire Council discussions was constructed in about 1975 (or thereabouts ) to replace a single lane one which may have been (partially) washed away.

Its construction was typical of its day, timber, what amounts to big telegraph poles were used for the abutments, to hold the span (in the middle of the creek) and for the platform. The majority of those poles are still there.

In the late 80's the platform was upgraded, off came the pole platform and bitumen topping and after a layer of metal sheeting (it resembles shed siding) as a permanent formwork concrete was poured and again a bitumen topping applied.

As of right now the bridge supports are stuffed, simple, it needs replaced right now, YESTERDAY !!!

When trucks traverse that bridge, it is a scary sight from below, you wouldn't remain under there for long as it look like splitting posts and bearers are ready to give up at any moment.

This bridge came up for discussion after heavy rains in around 1996 when some bridges constructed in a similar fashion were washed away, and it was put into a list for further investigation due to its condition being bad for its age.

Later, during the last term of the Beaudesert Shire Council, a survey of all the wooden bridges revealed that Edwards Bridge needed urgent replacement. And then we were amalgamated with Logan by force, and Logan doesn't want to spend the money.

This bridge is on a main thoroughfare, and although it's not heavily used in comparison to nearby Teviot Road, peak hours see it full and it's the shortest way to and from either end, by far.

The question I put to Council is, does someone have to get hurt, seriously hurt before you guys accept that you have to spend money below the old Logan Boundary?

Come on Logan, before there is disaster, get off your butt and do something.