David Gardiner

Journalist

FACING POSSIBLE EVICTION

There are fewer situations more distressing, in my view, than anyone – let alone an older person – facing uncertainty about having a roof over his or her head.

It saddened me when about 20 elderly long-term residents of Pinnacle Village Holiday Park at Wonga Beach were told that the park was being sold and that their futures were uncertain.

If they had to move out with their caravans – some of them having been parked there for a very long time – finding a new place to live would for most residents have been very difficult.

What was especially poignant was that the outgoing owner told me in the past 12 months he had had to evict two of the long-term residents because “they needed to be in aged care.”

Although there were ongoing, longer term lease arrangements in place at the time for the 14 lots where the permanent residents were set up, outgoing owner Darryl Tenni said, “basically, they are all supposed to be
movable dwellings.”

He said he believed most of the existing residents also faced little or no options other than aged care accommodation – but that was, if it could be found in a sector already coping with shortages of places, especially in the far north.

One resident asked for help from local member Cynthia Lui MP, whose office arranged for the Housing Dept to meet with the long-term residents.

All but two of the Pinnacle Village residents have been able to find elsewhere to live since being given notice they would have to have their vans and hard annexes out of the park by January 20, 2023 – with their homes to be flattened by January 25 if they were still there.

I have to wonder just how many older, more vulnerable people with few assets other than a humble van rent in parks like these – and if their only place to live eventually changes hands or if the park owners transform them into a different use, where do they go?

Maybe authorities, in state and local government offices, need to do more to identify these members of our community, know where they are, and put them on the radar sooner, well before they have to face the
stress of being evicted and possibly left homeless.

RV PARK DEBATE

I was quite surprised that so many of our readers responded to my recent coverage discussing a Douglas Shire councillor’s proposal for a low-cost RV park, with up to 50 sites, in the region.

It was somewhat difficult to believe that for all its internationally recognised and revered attractions for visitors and holidaymakers, Douglas was not recognised as “RV friendly”, whereas our neighbouring
shires were.

Pointed out by those I spoke to for my articles were interesting facts and figures that the RV market – those with self-contained motorhomes and campers (ie. not needing power or town water) – was potentially one which Douglas Shire should be tapping into.

In Queensland another area which did become RV friendly a few years ago – Bundaberg – had since been averaging a $270 per RV per night spend in the local economy, and was very happy with its move towards
welcoming the RV travellers.

Douglas councillor Peter McKeown said on our site that the region was missing out on potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars a year because key RV clubs did not recognise the area as RV friendly.

But in a letter to the Editor, a reader warned “be very wary of any party wanting land, free water and free dump points that the short falls will be paid for by ratepayers.”

Cr McKeown had argued the opposite in his proposal put before Council earlier this year, when he said that an RV park would not be a burden on ratepayers because Council could identify an appropriate piece of land,and pay for it by selling off other surplus land it owned.

And in most cases, infrastructure for the RV parks is built by large groups such as the Campervan and Motorhome Club of Australia, which then pay councils rates and lease fees.

My prediction is that this won’t be the last we hear of the RV park idea.

NEED FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORT

I took great interest in covering the debate largely started by advocate David Haratsis and his Facebook page, Public TransPORT.

The overall need for a regular public transport (most likely, bus) service within Douglas and to link the area to Cairns, subsidised by government to offer affordable fares and having proper timetables, is a concept that seem a no-brainer to some.

But convincing government to take on an expensive funding burden without proving ‘viability’ – in other words, that enough passengers would use the service on a regular basis – will be more difficult to do.

Mr Haratsis, after much social media debate with Member for Cook Cynthia Lui MP, and taking a petition to Council to forward to the state government to at least start a study, did suggest a government funded
trial service.

Personally I agree a trial service, with all of the facts and figures made transparent, would be the best hope for any future permanent public transport in Douglas.