Equal footpath treatment

I don't want people believing that I have not taken all reasonable steps to ensure that everybody is treated equally with respect of our footpaths.

The fact is that only "restaurants, as defined in Definitions part 4 of the Roads Act 1993" have entitlement to encroach onto our public property.

This was re-enforced by a Supreme Court decision on the February 6, Malouf v Manly Council.

That encroachment is to be licenced with a minimum of $10 million insurance in place.

Five years of putting up with friends of Gosford Council enjoying the free and easy use of our public property without insurance is enough.

Rangers are advising me that Council management don't support them in proper law enforcement.

I don't need to be told that.

I'm not stupid, and neither are the general voting public.

Having select high profile businesses enjoying the benefits of special treatment in the same street as others complying with the law is offensive.

If the answer is not Gosford Council's continued accommodation of corrupt practice, then what is it? Years of paying rates toward indemnity insurance that Statewide brokers tell me won't cover a catastrophic claim arising out of illegal activity is not good government.

Get rid of the businesses operating illegally on our footpaths.

Edward James, Umina