Sort comments by new.
The Cross-River Rail team is putting in a zebra crossing in Fairfield on Cr Johnston’s request. A council road but for some reason Council can’t be bothered providing the infrastructure, and so the team building Cross-River Rail (which is nowhere near Fairfield or Cr Johnston’s ward) is doing it. Cr Johnston lambasts the Council administration for their failure to deliver this infrastructure.
She has been fighting for that crossing for years. The Fairfield station upgrade is part of the Cross River Rail project, but the fight started long before any of that construction began.
I’m gonna be honest, I don’t understand why CRR is doing anything in Fairfield. I thought it was about connecting Boggo Rd to Central via the Gabba and Albert St.
I’m also not sure why what looks like an incredibly minor residential side-street would need a zebra crossing. The whole thing could be easily averted by reducing the speed limit to the 30 km/h this street should obviously be. Maybe change the road surface to brick instead of asphalt, and turn it into a sort of woonerf design.
Not that our car-brained council would ever do something like that.
Failing that, hopefully at least this crossing that’s being put in will be a wombat crossing?
The southside stations were identified as a bottleneck for the increased throughput that CRR adds, so Fairfield to Salisbury are getting extra platforms and raised existing platforms to better support NGR. And I think they rolled in the long overdue accessibility upgrades at the same time. AFAIK that was always the plan from the start, but there was also the late addition of the 3 new stations on the GC that have somehow been tacked on to the CRR project.
That street gets pretty busy during peak with drop-offs and commuters, and there’s access to the shopping centre too (which could/should be easily closed). But yeah I wouldn’t have thought it would be super high priority.
This is a really weird general business. Cr Massey complained about a dangerous intersection not getting anything done about it. The Lord Mayor uses his general business to deliver a speech blaming Cr Massey and saying it would require the removal of all the parking in the vicinity of the intersection to make it signalised.
Now Cr Cassidy responds to that, calling it a “thought bubble” and “silly policy on the fly.” He says if there is some design work that’s been done (which there must be for the Lord Mayor to know all the parking would have to go), he should share that and work with the local councillor, instead of using the opportunity to make a petty political point.
Thank you for your updates. These are very informative! Also glad to be living in Cr Johnston’s area she really is vocal about these neighbourhood issues and needs
Chair makes a ruling stating that all uses of the word “liar” or “lies” or any other conjugation thereof will be ruled out of order.
An efficient use of their time. I can see why the governing party would want to prevent the use of the term “lies” though.
Cr Johnston is perplexed that a code-assessable development application in Northgate Ward is being brought before Council. “We’ve got so many important issues that we should be considering…This is a 5-storey area, this is a 5-storey development.”
She says bringing this to Council is a bit of “an own goal”, because it highlights how bad the development actually is. Just a 40 cm setback to the front boundary, in an area with significant road widening.
Cr Allan criticises Cr Johnston’s “negative view on this”. Says it’s “not appropriate when we’re facing a housing crisis.” He says the 40 cm setback is at its narrowest and most of it will be set back quite a bit further.
The Lord Mayor makes reference to the change in the State Government’s rules to allow for land valuation to be put on hold after an emergency. He says that he had called for that in response to last year’s floods, but it was not done. He welcomes the change having come now.
The Lord Mayor talks about the news recently that some people’s homes are at risk of being resumed unless they proactively put in a submission saying they don’t want it. He says that Council was forced into this because the State Government requires them to create an LGIP and they cannot make changes to the proposed LGIP except in response to a submission. They had to do what they did.
I find this curious, because if, as they say, they didn’t really want to resume homes, they could have just…not mentioned that they were up for resumption in the LGIP?
A public participant talking about koalas crossing on Boundary Road.
In response, Cr Griffiths moves a motion requesting the Lord Mayor table all reports, official research, and expert findings related to fauna fencing on Boundary Rd. The urgency motion is approved by the LNP but debate is moved to the end of the next meeting.
Cr Owen has repeatedly over the past few weeks made a spurious motion trying to get the Chair to call Cr Collier’s questions in Question Time out of order. Cr Owen has repeatedly been told that her point of order would not be acted on. Cr Cassidy (I think…might have been one of the other Labor councillors) points out today that this behaviour is rather rude and he asks that the Chair call her out for disorderly behaviour. The Chair refuses.
The LNP stuffs up as a result of Cr Cassidy’s point of order. When the Chair calls for “any further questions”, it’s their turn for a question, but none of them stand and the question goes to Cr Johnston instead. They have a whinge but the Chair says that Cr Johnston has already given Cr Johnston the call.
Cr Massey moves a motion on notice to say “that BCC does not support the Queensland Government’s proposal to demolish and rebuild the Gabba stadium at a cost of at least $2.7 billion”.
Cr Johnston “hear, hear! Yes, support that strongly. Seconded.”
She notes the East Brisbane State School’s planned relocation outside its own catchment. She says “there is no doubt in my mind…that the Gabba rebuild will cost more than the $2.7 billion that it’s budgeted”, at a time when housing, health, and schools are desperately in need of funding.
She says the existing Gabba could be upgraded for much, much less money, including “a new lick of paint” and unisex change rooms. “The Gabba would be able to deliver an incredible opening and closing ceremony, and still be an Olympic venue. Maybe just not for athletics. Because there are other options” including Rugby 7s and soccer.
She also points out that the athletics could go somewhere that they’d have a lasting legacy, instead of being a temporary facility for the Olympics which gets removed when the Gabba goes back to being a football and cricket ground. In Nathan, perhaps, where there’s already a track.
The Federal Government has already backed out of helping fund this, having stated that it’s not necessary for the Olympics, and the rebuild is really primarily for football and cricket, according to Cr Massey.
Cr Johnston criticises the LNP for failing to speak up on this. In her speech she emphasises how residents will have to travel many kilometres further for school. It puts pressure to drive kids to school and disconnects them from their community.
There are a lot of new councillors here and some of them may be forgiven for thinking “well this is just part of the Olympics bid”. No. It. Is. Not. It was never part of our formal bid to the IOC. It is not part of the Brisbane 2032 Olympics pitch. And the IOC themselves have said that the new model for the Olympics…this is about reusing infrastructure and this is about being smarter. It’s the new bid model. And stupid me, I’m the stupid one here, I believed them.
She says this is one of the worst mistakes the Palaszczuk Government has made.
She also says it will overstimulate the construction market and put pressure onto smaller construction projects.
Cr Johnston also reiterates that the federal government and the AOC do not believe this is necessary. But she says the cricket and AFL people are also angry because they’ll be 7 years without their venue.
The Deputy Mayor uses it as an opportunity to point out that the Greens and Labor are not in agreement and therefore a coalition Council between them after the next election would be chaotic.
Weird how both the ways in which they are supposedly in lockstep and the ways in which they have disagreements are supposedly reasons to be opposed to the Greens and Labor, according to the LNP.
Cr Massey points out that the LNP said they don’t support the notion purely because “it’s a state government initiative”. The LNP refused to make any statement about whether they support the redevelopment itself.
She also points out that there is no coalition. “There’s only one Coalition here, and it’s the Liberal National Party.”
Need more pixels again, but did Cr Cunningham subtly give Cr Johnston the bird when she said she was disappointed with her silence on the issue?
