Port Botany cruise terminal

[The_Big_M]

3 hours ago, in rod we trust said:

 

can you please explain what rational discussion or logic  is in destroying a whole bay and eco system 

 

Can you please explain what rational discussion or logic there is to claim a whole bay and eco system will be destroyed?

 

Rhetorical question since of course there is no basis, as no design has been done, no EIS has been completed, and there is basically no basis - except NIMBYism.

 

3 hours ago, in rod we trust said:

 

there are plenty other deep water ports up and running to house these 330 mtr ships  don't have to be all in Sydney .. not sure where you live but Sydney is at grid lock ..

 

We're talking about a port where people and ships want to go, not another city like Wollongong or Newcastle. Also this is to replace White Bay, not massively increase numbers, so it won't significantly worsen gridlock in a large city like Sydney, and will actually improve in some ways being much closer to the airport where many transfer to. This is instead of White Bay which is not well connected to public transport so requires mostly road traffic and is also further away so more km/roads and congestion caused.

 

3 hours ago, in rod we trust said:

 

some people care about there country, they don't want to see it sold off for a few bucks.  if people don't stand up for what is right what future is there for your kids and grandkids ..  look back in history and see the few who stood up to give everybody a better life  are they nimbyists ..  I was like many people  if it don't bother me or not in my back yard who cares .

 

You're conflating two different things, nimbyism isn't about the whole country, just your local patch, which is what many of your supporters advocate e.g. the comment yesterday suggesting going to a National Park is a better option than Botany Bay! So they don't care about the country, nor about the environment, just that it's not in your back yard.

 

And nobody's selling this off (at this point) - it's to go under the port authority, so nothing is being sold "for a few bucks". Certainly Gladys has that short sighted, revenue raising approach to support her wasteful spending habit, but that's nothing to do with this discussion now.

 

As long as this is done correctly, which it appears to be so far, then it will improve tourism, the passenger experience, and scheduling capacity without degrading the environment.

Edited December 6, 2019 by The_Big_M

[in rod we trust]

sorry but foreshore rd, m5 and all other rds from botany are gridlocked ,  its bumper to bumper on them rds , so its not solving any traffic jams just increasing it...   there is a basic and unconfirmed design , I went to the info session,  ..

 

that is the last remaining beach on the north side of botany , the aboriginal people have been using it way before any settlers arrived here and still do use it, people sail there they swim there , seals lives there, dolphins come and play there, we have corla reefs 400 yrs old there , seahorses that are found no where else living there , .. I fish botany bay , when the port extension happen it was a ghost town , then the desal plant , its just slowly come back to life after 10 yrs  and that is in yarra bay , where no dredging or development has happen ..the rest of the bay has strict limits on fish that you catch and eat  and further upstream you cant even eat the fish anymore .. the  proposed terminal is right on the edge of the break wall less than 100 mtrs from gas caverns and storage tanks,  driving piles in that close has a major risk in collapsing those caverns..  there are dangerous sediments on the seabed millions of contaminated  seabed spoil  will go thorught the entire botany bay like it did with the port extension killing thousand of fish and sea grass, people swim in kurnell side and brighton side , exposing them toxins is dangerous and stupid …  the EPA states than botany bay should not be dredged due to pfas and other terrible cancer causing toxins .. you know and I know the goverment  will find there own people to do surveys and give them a grant just so they can tow the government line..  

now if you rather stuff the whole eco system of a bay just so people can have better access for a cruise line company like royal carribean , to use it 3 months of the yr  then what can I say … its not to replace white bay that will still be used as a cruise terminal  ..

 

you say as long as its done correctly now when has any government done anything right .. or under budget  .. if you go on cruise ships and your not willing to travel a bit more or less depending where you live to Newcastle or port kembla or Wollongong ,and rather see a whole bay destroyed just for convenience , again what can I say  by the time people wake up its all gone..  and you keep going on about nimby   I don't live anywhere near botany bay I live closer to the city ..  .. all the council's in the area don't want it 90% of residents in botany bay area don't want it,  anglers don't want it , many amny people and different ethnic background people use the bay .. where I live in bankstown people are outraged by this destruction to the bay and we are 40 min away .. so sorry nobody wants it there...  no need on destroying the whole bay just for 330 mtr ships ..  save your country not destroy it . stop selling it off as no doubt it will be  sold of like everything else if it goes ahead ...it very selfish to say we need it there just for a cruise line that spends little to stuff all in the country , .. they fly international flags to avoid paying taxes , gee royal carribean and other ships use to fly liberian flags , and now malta flags to avoid paying taxes..   but anyway  that's another great story and ill fight to the bitter end with the rest of the 100, 000 anglers of Sydney  we have a major protest coming up against it and well done to all who see the value in saving the country for future generations..   sorry for the long reply but I cant stand by and see a whole bay destroyed for a cruise ship terminal … 

Edited December 7, 2019 by in rod we trust

[Chiliburn]

Rod you’re a gluten for punishment 

[gbenjo]

11 hours ago, Chiliburn said:

Rod you’re a gluten for punishment 

So if Rod goes away we will be "gluten free" 🤔

[Chiliburn]

1 hour ago, gbenjo said:

So if Rod goes away we will be "gluten free" 🤔

I could try and blame autocorrect but I failed spelling miserably.

 
I think in rod maybe better at ranting than Brisbane 41

[lyndarra]

14 hours ago, in rod we trust said:

sorry but foreshore rd, m5 and all other rds from botany are gridlocked ,  its bumper to bumper on them rds , so its not solving any traffic jams just increasing it...   there is a basic and unconfirmed design , I went to the info session,  ..

 

that is the last remaining beach on the north side of botany , the aboriginal people have been using it way before any settlers arrived here and still do use it, people sail there they swim there , seals lives there, dolphins come and play there, we have corla reefs 400 yrs old there , seahorses that are found no where else living there , .. I fish botany bay , when the port extension happen it was a ghost town , then the desal plant , its just slowly come back to life after 10 yrs  and that is in yarra bay , where no dredging or development has happen ..the rest of the bay has strict limits on fish that you catch and eat  and further upstream you cant even eat the fish anymore .. the  proposed terminal is right on the edge of the break wall less than 100 mtrs from gas caverns and storage tanks,  driving piles in that close has a major risk in collapsing those caverns..  there are dangerous sediments on the seabed millions of contaminated  seabed spoil  will go thorught the entire botany bay like it did with the port extension killing thousand of fish and sea grass, people swim in kurnell side and brighton side , exposing them toxins is dangerous and stupid …  the EPA states than botany bay should not be dredged due to pfas and other terrible cancer causing toxins .. you know and I know the goverment  will find there own people to do surveys and give them a grant just so they can tow the government line..  

now if you rather stuff the whole eco system of a bay just so people can have better access for a cruise line company like royal carribean , to use it 3 months of the yr  then what can I say … its not to replace white bay that will still be used as a cruise terminal  ..

 

you say as long as its done correctly now when has any government done anything right .. or under budget  .. if you go on cruise ships and your not willing to travel a bit more or less depending where you live to Newcastle or port kembla or Wollongong ,and rather see a whole bay destroyed just for convenience , again what can I say  by the time people wake up its all gone..  and you keep going on about nimby   I don't live anywhere near botany bay I live closer to the city ..  .. all the council's in the area don't want it 90% of residents in botany bay area don't want it,  anglers don't want it , many amny people and different ethnic background people use the bay .. where I live in bankstown people are outraged by this destruction to the bay and we are 40 min away .. so sorry nobody wants it there...  no need on destroying the whole bay just for 330 mtr ships ..  save your country not destroy it . stop selling it off as no doubt it will be  sold of like everything else if it goes ahead ...it very selfish to say we need it there just for a cruise line that spends little to stuff all in the country , .. they fly international flags to avoid paying taxes , gee royal carribean and other ships use to fly liberian flags , and now malta flags to avoid paying taxes..   but anyway  that's another great story and ill fight to the bitter end with the rest of the 100, 000 anglers of Sydney  we have a major protest coming up against it and well done to all who see the value in saving the country for future generations..   sorry for the long reply but I cant stand by and see a whole bay destroyed for a cruise ship terminal … 

I may not agree with all Rod says but I respect his right to voice is concerns, however wrongly or rightly perceived. Name calling has no place in this discussion.

[Chiliburn]

53 minutes ago, lyndarra said:

I may not agree with all Rod says but I respect his right to voice is concerns, however wrongly or rightly perceived. Name calling has no place in this discussion.

The dictionary definition of ranting is a lengthy,angry and impassioned speech.

Not name calling.

[in rod we trust]

this is the goverments confidence in cabinet report on Sydney harbour , and what the harm of the toxins can do , botany is worse than Sydney harbor as its still a working bay ..  and yeah I know I rave on but there is a time in some peoples lives wher one can no longer sit and see there country go down the drain to foreign investors coming in rapping our lands taking all the profits overseas for a couple of donations to labor or liberal party coffers ..  

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-12/western-harbour-toll-construction-to-produce-toxicity-study/9537082

[MicCanberra]

On 12/7/2019 at 5:31 PM, Chiliburn said:

Rod you’re a gluten for punishment 

Perhaps I am developing a glutton intolerance.

[Chiliburn]

13 hours ago, in rod we trust said:

this is the goverments confidence in cabinet report on Sydney harbour , and what the harm of the toxins can do , botany is worse than Sydney harbor as its still a working bay ..  and yeah I know I rave on but there is a time in some peoples lives wher one can no longer sit and see there country go down the drain to foreign investors coming in rapping our lands taking all the profits overseas for a couple of donations to labor or liberal party coffers ..  

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-12/western-harbour-toll-construction-to-produce-toxicity-study/9537082

Rod that report refers to disturbing the industrial sediment in the inner harbour and parramatta river.

 I can’t think how that’s relevant to port botany.

ACI was a big polluter in the botany area but don’t think anything like the inner harbour.

The inner harbour and parramatta river had the big boys ICI ,Union carbide,James hardy just to name a few.

[The_Big_M]

Hard to tell whether he's generating the fear, uncertainty and doubt, or just receiving it and passing it on, but it's standard NIMBY tactics. "Here's something bad somewhere else, and it'll be even worse for it to happen here."

 

With that attitude, nothing would get done anywhere.

 

As said, the investigation hasn't been done yet, so there's nothing specific identified at issue and the criticism is just a lot of noise without any basis at this point. Happy to look at the facts when the investigation has been done.

[mr walker]

I have read now the information coming out of the recent information sessions as published by the Port Authority. All comments/complaints/queries/concerns have been listed and responses given. Further consultation to come.

 

https://www.yoursaycruisecapacity.com.au/have-your-say/news_feed/information-session-display-boards-2019

 

[Chiliburn]

1 hour ago, mr walker said:

I have read now the information coming out of the recent information sessions as published by the Port Authority. All comments/complaints/queries/concerns have been listed and responses given. Further consultation to come.

 

https://www.yoursaycruisecapacity.com.au/have-your-say/news_feed/information-session-display-boards-2019

 

Mr walker

thanks for that imput to our discussion,very interesting.

 

[in rod we trust]

12 hours ago, Chiliburn said:

Rod that report refers to disturbing the industrial sediment in the inner harbour and parramatta river.

 I can’t think how that’s relevant to port botany.

ACI was a big polluter in the botany area but don’t think anything like the inner harbour.

The inner harbour and parramatta river had the big boys ICI ,Union carbide,James hardy just to name a few.

 

botany bay is just as polluted as Sydney harbor botany has a working port on both sides the amount of factories that lined georges river that threw there waste crap into the bay .. fpas from yrs and yrs of fire training and the engine pond at the airport has made that bay toxic....

 

by the way I went to the info sham session they could not even tell us anything about where it was going to be , where a break wall would be built , the exclusion zone from entering ships.. they say 50mtrs from a docked ship that's a sham the container ship have almost 350 mtr exclusion zone in place right now  even when there are no ships  , no info on what impacts it would have on marine life , or  if any of those beaches would remain, .. there projected area in there info sham map the water there is very shallow , the waves at times in summer reach right up that break wall , the average swell there in summer with the incoming high 2 mtr tides smash against that break wall  ... so another  break wall would have to be built from bare island to stop them swells smashing the ship or there supposed floating dock..  there are artificial reefs we anglers paid for to be put in they will have to be ripped out, pipe lines run under that section as well,  .. and that info sham session was just for them to say they consulted the stakeholders cross there T and dot there I's … half those so called people at the info session were not even from port authority and were day pr hire people who could not even answer any question's .. about 95% of the people boycotted that info sham only a few when in to see what it was all about.. it was directed at the cruise passenger and not stakeholders.. it was the biggest sham session I have ever seen .. but ithink with the action planned royal carribean will soon take note and attn when it starts affecting there back pockets 

[mr walker]

1 hour ago, Chiliburn said:

Mr walker

thanks for that imput to our discussion,very interesting.

 

Yes, I am interested in following this process, sort of playing along at home - that's why I registered with them for the updates.

[The_Big_M]

They can only tell you what they can tell you. As said multiple times earlier the study and investigation has not been done.

 

Of course if they hadn't run the "sham info session" then they would be accused of not discussing anything with the public at all, and just being secretive.

 

Very predictable - as said, it's opposition for the sake of NIMBYism, not because there's any rational basis.

[in rod we trust]

28 minutes ago, The_Big_M said:

They can only tell you what they can tell you. As said multiple times earlier the study and investigation has not been done.

 

Of course if they hadn't run the "sham info session" then they would be accused of not discussing anything with the public at all, and just being secretive.

 

Very predictable - as said, it's opposition for the sake of NIMBYism, not because there's any rational basis.

the studies have been done as far as port authority side of things,  and that's right they will only tell us lies. they have the business case ready to go but wont release it .. what are they hiding why not release it , its not national security its a cruise port ..they are hiding behind cabinet in confidence they know it will cost upwards of the 1.5 billion not 500 as they say they know it will destroy that whole area and pollute the whole of botany bay rending it un usable to swim or fish or any such water activities ..  

sorry but I pointed out many many things wrong with this proposal ,  I wont go into them again , or id be here all night … your main response is nimbyists all the time id like to see them put a 20 storey high rise next to your house and see how you would react see if you become a nimbyist as you point out...  what gets me is we go on cruises to see other countries and islands and say what a very nice beautiful place but when we get home we trash those who want to protect and save such places in our own backyard ..  that to me is very disappointing ..   

Edited December 9, 2019 by in rod we trust

[MicCanberra]

I have always admired the container docks near cruise terminals in many countries, always so colourful. I don't know why we cannot have that as well.

[The_Big_M]

2 hours ago, in rod we trust said:

the studies have been done as far as port authority side of things,  and that's right they will only tell us lies. they have the business case ready to go but wont release it .. 

 

Don't make things up.

 

The detailed business case is still under way - which is still only a business case, not a full environmental impact assessment or other studies that need to be done.

 

All that's been done so far is a strategic business case. This just looks at base merits, practicality, affordability. That's just basic analysis confirming there are merits to spending more money to investigate it further.

 

2 hours ago, in rod we trust said:

your main response is nimbyists all the time id like to see them put a 20 storey high rise next to your house and see how you would react see if you become a nimbyist as you point out...  what gets me is we go on cruises to see other countries and islands and say what a very nice beautiful place but when we get home we trash those who want to protect and save such places in our own backyard ..  that to me is very disappointing 

 

 

More exaggeration, par for the course to try to justify your arguments. No cruise terminal is 20 storeys high, more in the order of 3-4 storeys high. This is common medium density development all over Sydney suburbs which is not a significant issue. Not everyone lives in a single dwelling house. So good luck with that argument and campaigning for the end of 3-4 storey dwellings across Sydney. It would probably be as high as the stacks of containers already dotting across Botany.

 

As for going on cruises, a number of destinations have already been despoiled by cruises visiting so yes, indulging in that causes environmental harm elsewhere equally but that has been glossed over by yourself. Sydney is not unique in the impact of any cruise activity at all on the harbour and marine life.

 

 

[MicCanberra]

If I had a 20 story building next door to me, I would sell. A developer would pay big bucks for my block if zoned for high density dwellings.

[Russell21]

19 minutes ago, MicCanberra said:

If I had a 20 story building next door to me, I would sell. A developer would pay big bucks for my block if zoned for high density dwellings.

This was going to be my response also, but you beat me to it, with you all the way on this.

[in rod we trust]

sorry but if there was a 20 storey building next to you they would not pay big bucks they will give ya stuff all , and tell you who are you going to sell it to and who wants to live in a house next to a 20 storey building ..  so they will offer you stuff all probably even lower than market value to get your house for peanuts..   seen it done many times , people hold out thinking there house is worth more than what they offer , but in the end they loose more cause nobody wants to live next to a high rise .. 

 

and big m .. wasn't a 20 storey cruise terminal, it was a 20 storey high rise next to your house if you would be a nimbyists , block your sun , stuff your gardens up wreck your view ..  its ok to call people nimbyists or greenies , etc until it affects people  then they become one of those nimbyists, or greenies..  so you ok with it cruise terminal  because its not in your backyard , and a matter of convenience for you to board and cruise ship ,  no matter what the destruction building it or the dangers of it.. so long its not in your back yard ..  im not asking for a new deep water port to be built , im asking that they use there existing ones in Newcastle and Wollongong , not destroy a whole bay for massive ships just to use 3 months of the yr.. that's a joke

[in rod we trust]

https://www.smh.com.au/national/yarra-bay-cruise-liner-base-a-disaster-on-all-fronts-20191118-p53box.html

[The_Big_M]

46 minutes ago, in rod we trust said:

https://www.smh.com.au/national/yarra-bay-cruise-liner-base-a-disaster-on-all-fronts-20191118-p53box.html

 

:-> Titled Opinion. From the "convenor of Save the Bay Coalition". So potential bias as well.

 

46 minutes ago, in rod we trust said:

im not asking for a new deep water port to be built , im asking that they use there existing ones in Newcastle and Wollongong , not destroy a whole bay for massive ships just to use 3 months of the yr.. that's a joke

 

So, in two different cities. Just like them building a second airport for Sydney when expansion was needed - instead of redirecting all flights to Wollongong or Newcastle - why should all cruise passengers be redirected there?

 

You complain about the environmental cost, but the environmental cost of redirecting all those international (and domestic) passengers up/down to Newcastle/Wollongong before/after each cruise would be at least as bad. That's 10000 seats (excluding Sydneysiders) a day just for one single cruise on Ovation!

 

This is the issue with NIMBYists. They dress up their arguments with whatever they can find, including environmental, but don't actually look at the logic and practicality of the solution. Just like your fellow supporter who said an undeveloped national park was a better choice for a cruise terminal than the industrial, established ship heavy port of Botany (cause the environment) you suggest alternatives that have far more environmental and financial cost - all just to get it out of your backyard.

 

 

Edited December 10, 2019 by The_Big_M

[lyndarra]

1 hour ago, in rod we trust said:

sorry but if there was a 20 storey building next to you they would not pay big bucks they will give ya stuff all , and tell you who are you going to sell it to and who wants to live in a house next to a 20 storey building ..  so they will offer you stuff all probably even lower than market value to get your house for peanuts..   seen it done many times , people hold out thinking there house is worth more than what they offer , but in the end they loose more cause nobody wants to live next to a high rise .. 

 

and big m .. wasn't a 20 storey cruise terminal, it was a 20 storey high rise next to your house if you would be a nimbyists , block your sun , stuff your gardens up wreck your view ..  its ok to call people nimbyists or greenies , etc until it affects people  then they become one of those nimbyists, or greenies..  so you ok with it cruise terminal  because its not in your backyard , and a matter of convenience for you to board and cruise ship ,  no matter what the destruction building it or the dangers of it.. so long its not in your back yard ..  im not asking for a new deep water port to be built , im asking that they use there existing ones in Newcastle and Wollongong , not destroy a whole bay for massive ships just to use 3 months of the yr.. that's a joke

You can count Newcastle out because "massive" cruise ships wont fit in there, as I recently discovered.