The story today of a golf club’s members and owner fighting for a fair go is undoubtedly a debate which has evolved over time.
Like many disputes, there will have been certain triggers which created further divisions, and consequent bitterness.
Similarly, there are no doubt more than two sides to a complex and long-engaged behind-the-scenes battle for compensation.
The lessee has made his version of events clearly known. Council will be less forthcoming. There are contractors, bureaucrats, lawyers and others with their account of how and what transpired.
An unfortunate habit heard often from council employees is a reference to “our” land, “our” project, “our” infrastructure.
It’s often uttered in good faith to reference a public asset as opposed to that of a private concern.
There are pros and cons when bureaucrats feel a personal attachment to what they manage, especially when that’s happened over a long period of time.
The ugly downside can be a consequent arrogance, a feeling of ownership of projects or infrastructure which actually belongs to all of us, as ratepayers of the city.
Sometimes, it takes someone new to come along and hit the re-set button on such projects, sparking proactive and fresh conversations with outcomes that will best benefit the city.
