We are naturally concerned about the environmental, economical and social effects of the mill. However, we were confident that a rigorous, robust assessment process would determine, beyond doubt whether or not the most stringent guidelines would be met so that it would be appropriate for this site, in the beautiful Tamar valley.
Recent events surrounding the removal of the assessment process through the RPDC have left us in no doubt that the mill cannot meet the strict guidelines that were guaranteed by both Gunns and the government.
We are also in no doubt that the alternate assessment process is intended to remove all unachievable requirements from the process, to a point where it is
deemed to be acceptable, unhindered by inconvenient truth. It has in fact, become an approval process with legitimate assessment removed.
We believe that it is impossible for the facts to be accurately, fairly and robustly analysed by people, conscientious and well intentioned as they may be, who are not appropriately familiar with the facts and details associated with this project in the time frame permitted.
We are extremely concerned about the economic benefits promised to Tasmania. The loss to existing tourism and clean green industry, through the negative effects on our environmental reputation will, without a doubt negate much of the supposed benefits. The cost of the loan must mean that much of the benefits would not materialise, even ending up to be the responsibility of the taxpayers. It is possible that the value of the timber resources that
would feed this mill could also be reduced to virtually nothing in order to make the mill viable.
Mr, Lennon in his speech to parliament on 15th March detailed the impressive economic and social growth and progress of Tasmania over the past ten years.
This is, in our opinion, due to the influx of innovative, creative entrepreneurs who are steadily but surely building a Tasmania that is the envy of the world. He then, somehow, intimates that all this will be lost if
this mill (which after honest analysis, could prove to be as economically destructive as it is touted to be beneficial) does not go ahead. There will be far more jobs created for young Tasmanians by diverse industry than a single project such as this mill.
In our view, there are only three possible outcomes;
1. If the mill is indeed essential, recommend that it is built in an appropriate location where it is wanted, where it will not have devastating adverse effects on the Tamar/Launceston environment, roads, water, tourism
industry and society in general.
2. Approve it in the Tamar Valley and hope (without qualification) that it will be all that has been promised.
3. Reject it outright.
We are concerned that the passage of progress in this process is spiralling down to, or even beyond third world standards. We are no longer confident that the outcomes are likely to be any better.
Please do not gamble with the future of our wonderful state, and that of future generations. Let us rely on honest, innovative and creative hard work that is guaranteed to benefit all Tasmanians, and not in a single, risky project that falsely promises an economic Utopia.
Please, please, please - Choose with extreme wisdom.
Yours faithfully
Mr Mrs Taylor
Sent via bcc to tapvision.info and uploaded by admin
