There is no doubt about it, Palerang is the better of the three councils and any fair judgement of Queanbeyan, Goulburn and Palerang councils would recognise that.

You only need to look at Palerang's records, in IT particularly, but also the bridges, the policy for rural local roads maintenance, modern recycling facilities, modern water treatment plants and modern sewarage treatment plants.

At the expense of all those in the shire, these modern facilities would be well over $20 million.

And, they're not paid for yet. They are long-term borrowings.

Here in Braidwood, we've been paying into the fund for a new waste transfer station for the last 10 years and we've put our share into the other three in the shire.

If we go to Queanbeyan, or worse if we go to Goulburn, we would have to pay for it again ourselves because that money will be lost in the ether.

The investments we have made and particularly the rural local roads maintenance, there were rate rises to pay for those particular facets and those will disappear into the ether now as well.

There is so much that just can not be married overnight.

How history repeats itself!

Tallaganda was wiped out because of Yarrowlumla's financial problems, and so now Palerang is to be sacrificed on the altar of mammon to save both Goulburn/Mulwarree and Queanbeyan.

Many people have given their all to bring Palerang to its present excellent position.

How you can so blithely consider recklessly destroying it is extraordinary.

P.S. My father always said, "Don't look at what someone might do. Look at what they have done".

I beg you take a careful look.

- Walter Raynolds, Braidwood

Dangerous precedent setting

A neat little paragraph, under "Message from the Mayor", innocuously notes the "unathorised fence", which significantly limited citizen movement mid- city, surreptitiously constructed by Riverside Plaza shopping complex, has been granted a "retrospective building certificate" (Riverside North Carpark fence, QA, 29 January, p.12).

Why Riverside has been given this enormously privileged, precedent setting, concession over public land, and unimpeded citizen access thereto, is not spelled out.

It appears the only condition imposed, by Council, is a requirement that "a pedestrian opening suitable for people with a disability be installed" - but no time-frame is indicated by which this "penalty" condition is to be implemented.

This outcome proves might is right. Citizen ratepayers inconvenience, confusion, discomfort and constrained access to central Queanbeyan shops, count for nothing in the face of corporate demands, despite latter not having a vote.

This rather formidable "fence" was erected without a by-your-leave, minus knowledge of the Council, which incidentally, and incredibly, claimed it did not know of its existence for weeks, and then only when informed by the public!

Council, by granting retrospective authorisation to an illegal structure, would appear to have left itself uniquely vulnerable should regulations pertaining to enclosure of the public commons be challenged at some future time.

Retrospectively legitimating illegality establishes a dangerous precedent. The only satisfactory outcome for Council, acting in ratepayers interests, would have been to demand removal of all vestiges of said fence, impose a penalty for malfeasance and a public apology published. Not good enough!

- Albert M. White, Queanbeyan

Dirty secret

Last Friday's Queanbeyan Age (22/1/16) carried the headline 'Best-kept secret revealed', showing residents of Googong enjoying time by the lake.

However, there is an even better-kept secret about Queanbeyan that isn't being revealed to most residents and that is the proposed development of a Queanbeyan Resource Recovery and Waste Transfer Facility (Queanbeyan Age 22/1/16, page 12: For Your Information - Queanbeyan City Council). The name of this facility, although sounding very grand, is just another name for a garbarge tip!

The proposal, albeit in a designated industrial zone, would be adjacent to, and in some cases less than 300 metres from residential homes in West Queanbeyan.

According to the letter received by some residents, this facility would handle up to 70,000 tonnes/year of general solid waste (commercial and household garbage), 12,000 tonnes/year of paper, cardboard and plastic recyclables, as well as waste oil and grease. These are only initial estimates.

Where will this waste come from? It will come from the ACT and NSW regional areas!

If it is approved, this development will have a huge environmental impact on the life style, health, safety, noise and traffic, as well as land and house values in the area.

As residents, we are angry that we were only notified of this development by a letter from the Council on 11 January, 2016, with objections to be lodged, initially by 12 February but now amended to 22 February, 2016. The Environmental Impact Studies indicate that the Council and some nearby businesses were contacted in August 2015, but residents were not.

We are angry that Council-approved earthworks have already been carried out on the site. Does this imply that the development is already a 'done deal'?

According to the Environmental Impact Study that has been undertaken, all the figures are 'within limits' but does that mean that residents won't be significantly impacted? No! We call on residents to stand up, speak out and oppose this development.

We call on Queanbeyan City Council to back residents, oppose the development of this Waste Facility (garbage tip) in 'our backyard' and live up to your motto 'Country living-City Benefits' for all residents of this city.

Yours sincerely,

- Wendy and Peter Ellis, Queanbeyan