'Voice in the wilderness' should be applauded

I would like to respond to new Gosford Council general manager Paul Anderson who defended his council against recent allegations by local Mr Edward James (Peninsula News, September 17).

Gosford Council has a long history of behaviour which borders on corruption.

Having personally endured almost four years of an illegal party house next door to me, I came to the conclusion long ago that interests in matters other than those for the community were running this council.

In the past few months, we have witnessed another local resident who was forced into taking action in the Land and Environment Court after suffering for over 12 years of similar treatment, with council intent on letting the parties roll.

Despite the uses being illegal, Gosford Council continued to act for the benefit of its business partners in the real estate industry rather than for the good of the community.

If this is not corruption at work then I fail to understand what is.

The deaths of five innocent locals in the collapse of the Pacific Highway at Piles Creek was bad government in action and the cover-up after the collapse was corruption at work.

If the missing report and photographs and the deleted emails were not enough to establish corrupt behaviour then misleading the coroner and the so-called independent inquiry were the icing on the cake.

Both conveniently left key information which would have implicated council and required councillors and staff who caused the tragedy to be held accountable.

As no level of government wanted accountability for elected officials, the reporting process was manipulated so that the culprits would get off.

They did.

It is amusing that Anderson refers to the State Government as being the lead player in the waterfront development.

What he does not say is that the State Government is little more than a rubber stamp for council which makes the actual decisions.

If it were not so then the current Gateway Process to legalise commercial-style party houses in residential homes without effective controls would not be permitted.

It has been.

And finally, we all need to remember that many State Members of Parliament are ex-mayors who have an allegiance to their former councils.

Anderson's allegation that political advertising on the street edge is legal is wrong.

Apart from being a blight on the locality, this advertising is illegal.

The Electoral Act is quite clear but it comes as no surprise that those entrusted to prevent this are a part of the game.

Mr James is a voice in the wilderness trying to bring accountability and honesty to local government, which continues to refuse to play ball.

If it were not so then we would have seen accountability laws put forward, a restructure and thinning of the workforce so that ratepayers stop paying for the propaganda and useless reports and for those who wander the streets with no real job to do.

We would also have seen a move to a services-based council and an end to the routine calls for "more money" which, when given, would also be wasted.

We should all applaud people like James who spend their own money exposing illegal and corrupt behaviour.

I, for one, understand where James is coming from and realise that it is lack of accountability which permits those in high places to behave as they do.

If it were in private practice many would have been before the courts and-or in prison where they rightly belong.

We should all be for demanding that a Royal Commission looks into the workings of this council and that ICAC examine the behaviour of those in charge so that this organisation might be fixed.

It is broken and nobody cares.

Email, 26 Sep 2013

Michael Jakob, Copacabana