Kyogle rallies round Repco | NSW News | Breaking State News in New South Wales

"It was also noted that some people against the rally went into individual businesses and ‘threatened that they would not shop in those premises if they supported the rally’."

This highlights the fact that some residents have no concern for locals business, putting their own agenda first. Anyone in business knows that 70,000 people coming to town will increase sales.

Some businesses may not be affected by this influx of motor sport fans directly, but surely the area has benefited from being broadcast to 53 million viewers worldwide.

In regard to community consultation, this was part of the process. And the government introduced legislation to avoid delays caused by opponents dragging the matter into the ever so slow legal system.

A good example of this being the case bought forward by Ms Milne. Who was happy to try and drag it into the courts, only to be left with a large legal bill. After having a person that was not a legally qualified representative present her case:

“Justice Stone dismissed the application because Ms Milne's case was without merit”

The case can be viewed here
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/ct...

Of interest is the notes in regard to her evidence:

Judge Stone said;

"Other parts of the affidavit were totally irrelevant and clearly inadmissible"

"opinions in the Graham and Ambrose reports are largely expressed as unsourced assertions and generalisations which rarely indicate the reasoning process which underlies them or the source of statements and information upon which they have relied"

"The authors’ opinions are expressed at the highest level of generality. For example, no attempt is made to locate geographically with any precision any of the species dealt with, nor to juxtapose those locations with the area in which the rally will be held"

"The Court is being asked to accept their “opinion” that certain consequences must flow because an undefined rally course passes in some unstated way through or near an undefined area of unstated size and unquantified habitation."

I won't go on, but this outlines the merit of the anti rally groups. Much of what is said is based on their own opinion, and fails to reference any facts.

Of course the wild claims constantly catch the media's attention, but fail to have any lasting effect.

If this is the level of argument in a Federal court, one can imagine the arguments bought forward at a local meeting...

The Rally should return for the greater benefits

To balance your biased opinion here are a few informative websites. Thank you:-
http://candobetter.org/NoRepcoRally
http://sites.google.com/site/kyoglesp...

As a long standing Kyogle resident, I have seen the ups and downs of the town.
When the Rally came to Kyogle in October last year, I had not seen the town in such a wonderful 'buzz' since I was perhaps a kid - but especially since Norpy burnt down in 2005. The town made me so proud to be a member of our community. BRING ON THE RALLY 2011 and anything else in between!

india

You response really demonstrates your level of thinking.

My point was that community consultation is a waste of time when you are arguing with several opponents who hold their opinion as fact.

When the Federal court dismisses a case bought against the rally, and states that it is without merit then continuing to link websites full of opinions is inefficacious.

These sites are really an embarrassment for the anti rally community. I won't bother highlighting some of the more stupid comments, as I don't have all evening. And accept that most people don't care to hear opinions expressed on such websites.

Has no rally group ever considered working with the organisers rather than making life difficult for them. And avoid having some residences being inconvenienced for the two days of the year?

The approach taken in 2009 has clearly backfired, so maybe showing some compromise in 2011 could work in their favour?

The actions of protesters, such as spray painting roads and pushing portable toilets into creeks shows that this is not an environmental issue, rather one of inconvenience for a select few.

Until evidence is produced to prove otherwise, I believe the environmental concerns raised are fabricated to assist in gaining support and media attention.

While those that oppose the event are more concerned that someone uninvited may visit 'their backyard'. Something that was all too obvious when I drove the rally course documenting the condition of the roads (twice) in a hire car (out of state plates).

As I stopped to photograph the road, some locals made me very unwelcome in my own backyard. And I wasn't driving a rally car, or associated with the rally. Makes you wonder what they really have to hide from the public?

I was also in town that Saturday morning walking along the main street wearing a white t shirt when 4 young blokes in a car slowly drove by on the main street. The bare chested, intoxicated one in the back seat was repeatedly shouting out the window directly at me ,"Oi! Oi! Are you are one of those hippy protestors? Oi" I ignored them and carried on walking. At the time I found it very confronting.

Articles and comments from folk who are "for" the rally talk about a "minority" of folk against the rally and yes most of that minority live along the rally routes. From the social review conducted on behalf of Kyolge Council page 50 under the heading of "Acknowledgement of the affected minority" does state "The results from the resident phone survey demonstrated the impacts on the "residents on the Rally Route" were found to be significantly higher than the general population". and that is fact...those most impacted were those living on the routes and they are a minority (in numbers)as we are talking about a scattered population along rural residential roads...there can be 5kms or 10 kms between some of those properties so the numbers of people compaining about the negative effect is low....however maybe the percentage of those living along the rally routes who were negativly impacted and don't want the rally may be 80 or 90% of the total number of residents. But because the actual numbers may be low does that mean it is okay for businessses to make money out of the distress of those residents? Does that mean these residents are of no value to this community? Does this mean those residents are not allowed a voice to say "this event is distressing for me..I do not want cars racing past my home at 200kph?". Residents are being shamed for raising their concerns...it is refelcted in the many letters in the papers and comments on aritcles such as these...residents along these routes who are trying to be heard that they do not want these cars racing past their homes at up to 200kph are just not being heard. Instead they are being vilified for daring to oppose the very wealthy motorsport industry....who by the way are laughing all the way to the bank and who do not care that they have left behind broken communities. They just want to come back for more money. Someone suggested that residents leave their properties during the event...for me that shows a lack of understanding of rural living and rural property responsibilities. Many farmers and rural land owners do not have the luxury of deciding to go away for a few days especially in a high fire period and drought. For those of you who want the rally please contact the rally organisers and give them your address so that they are able to put together a data base of all the "for" rally people and then they can work out routes that can go past your home every year for the next 20 years.

I feel it was inappropriate for the word "threatened" to be used in the manner in which it was in the Kyogle Council's review doucment in reference to consumers airing one way of objecting to the rally by not financially supporting a business who was promting the rally - "boycott" is the recongnised word for that action. How many of us "boycott" a business when we don't have staisfactory service? We all do this when we are dissatisfied and most of us do it covertly so why are those residents who once again are trying to be heard vilified for doing so. One thing I have observed over the years and that is when any animal is backed into a corner and are threatened or frightened they come out fighting and my obersvations includes humans when they feel no other way worked.

The motor sport industry targets 16-36 year old males. Guess which age group is the highest risk of motor accidents?

The other side of the injunction case can be viewed here.......
REPCO Rally injunction raced through court up blind alley
http://www.candobetter.org/node/1506

Those opposed to this rally, had an uphill struggle from the moment the rally was presented to the community as a 'Done Deal' !!!!!
Where is our Democracy in all that ???

The 'people' have been totally 'walked over' and then vilified, in trying to be heard, and 'rumoured' to have been vandals, violent, and feral hippies. Mostly all those, who 'dared stand up and be counted,' are upright, responsible, adult members or the local community, who actually care about the community and the environment.

I am very tired of the few vocal, and derogatorily, outspoken, pro-ralliers, who continually try, to validate the rally being held in the wrong location.

Didn't they read the top rally drivers saying they were shocked at racing thru National Parks (or beside), and past residential rural homes. They aren't allowed to do that in Europe !!
Wake up Australia, wake up NSW, This is not the appropriate spot for a 'Queensland' rally, paid for by NSW taxpayers thru the State Government, over riding everything with it's hasty 'Special Legislation'.

I can't wait for the Official report/review to final be released, as then, the'Independent Report' on the Tweed business, can also be released, to finally 'Show' those in Kyogle, and elsewhere, that the majority of Tweed Shire businesses, did not have a 'roaring trade' and greater than average turnover, at all.

Many had below average sales and customers.
Murwillumbah 'was a ghost town during the days, except for squads of police patrolling the deserted 'racetrack that the town became'

Sure maybe there were crowds at night, but the food they were able to buy came from Queensland Take Away Caravans !!!
Petrol Stations did well and I do know that one Gallery Shop had an excellent fortnight leading up to the weekend, but that's not all attributable to the rally.

Pull your heads out of the compost and don't believe everything you read in the newspapers.

The thing that worried me most about the rally was the disgusting, non-democratic way it was introduced by way of "Special Legislation". Every Australian should be concerned with a state government that rides roughshod over the normal democratic process, and the fact that it was done for a so-called "sport" is risible.
And why the hell would I want to support businesses that sponsor legalised hooning?

Interesting that you think that community consultation was "part of the proces". I've done that stuff for a living in the environmental field for over 20 years (and still do) and I can assure you that what the rally organisers went through was NOT a properly conducted process. Public participation in the Environmental Impact Assessment Process is one of the basic tenets of environmental law at all levels (international, Federal and state). The rally organisers knew they could not meet the standards required of environmental law (including the precautionary principle) and so they lobbied the govt to change the law to allow the rally to happen. (I know that for a fact). That was the main beef of a lot of the opponents to the event, the fact that the govt and the organisers could change laws that were soundly based to allow an event with questionable sustainability. I guess you could justify that by saying that making decisions is the role of government, but not when it is done in a manner that erodes public confidence and is blatantly illegal (as the rally was until the law was changed to "switch off" various pieces of legislation). I don't support the more radical actions taken by some of the protestors, but depriving people of due process does that.
As an experienced and trained environmental scientist I can assure you that there is NOT enough evidence to say without fear of contradiction that there was no environmental damage done by the rally. Certainly there appear to be economic benefits, but on balance which is more important in the long run (Yes I have a job and yes I have kids at Uni and at work) but economic benefit at the expense of long-term sustainability is no bargain.
Cheers

Totally over all the greedy people. If the rally makes soooo much money for the region then build a race track for it in and put all plants around to make it look like a national park. People on the Byrill Creek stage of the race spent 8 years in time and money enticing the wildlife back to the area, only to have a rally put through there. Stop being selfish and any businesses or people that want this race put your own money where your mouth is and pay for a rally track away from our heritage listed parks. By the way Gold Coast is a stone's throw away from this part of the race so QLD is laughing with all the business (accom bookings, nighclubs etc) they are getting from the rally, so much for a great location in NSW. Stupid.

WRC2484 says the opponents to the rally are not considering businesses' profit. Our point is that businesses are not considering the impact on wildlife and the environment of the rally. We live in this area because we love the purity of the natural environment, which is becoming increasingly hard to find, and want to protect it.
We have more species here in this area than anywhere in NSW and 2/3rds of them are at risk of extinction. We have destroyed their habitat, and continue to kill the ones left with motor accidents and stress. If you think screeching cars driven at maniacal speeds is not stressful to a wild animal you know nothing of animals, and obviously you don't care about them or you wouldn't be pro-rally.
WRC2484 has no respect for democracy. He says 'community consultation is a waste of time because the opponents think their opinion is fact.' But the pro-rally people think their opinion is fact too without considering the other side.Just because Justice Stone ruled Cr Milne's case without merit does not mean it is. She didn't even read the evidence. Two credible ecologists not employed by Repco warned that the stress to endangered species especially during the breeding season, in rural habitat, cumulatively with increased tourism would be devastating to species in the long run. The precautionary approach is sensible because we really can't know the true impacts till it is too late and we are not willing to risk loss of biodiversity for profit. Did you even know WRC2484 that without biodiversity humans will perish? Or is making money more important to you than the future for our species and grandkids?Instead of making life difficult for organisers, perhaps organisers might think about how they are making life difficult for opponents who love peace, clean air and water and wildlife and how many hours, dollars and energy has been wasted fighting something that is not making money and is unwanted.
WRC2484 are you sure you don't work for the rally people? Why else would you be driving with out of state plates in 'your own backyard'? You stated 70,000 people came yet where were they - only a few hundred at the final closing in Kingscliffe.
Accusing us of hurling the portable toilets into creeks was never reported in the media. Environmentalists wouldn't pollute a creek for anything.

When someone is told something they want to believe it is almost impossible to get them to change their minds, no matter how reliable is the evidence to the contrary.

Right from the first mention of the WRC being held here residents were gushingly promised that the rally would greatly benefit the local economy and promote the area internationally.

They were warned that Councils in WA got rid of the event because they found it was more trouble than it was worth.

But those who want to believe the rally was 'good' for the area are not going to be swayed either by the WA experience nor by the dismal effect on the local economy and employment reported in the study commissioned by the Kyogle Chamber of Commerce.

Nor by the fact that only 1% of Kyogle residents thought the 'pit' in the main street on the Sunday of the rally was worth the trip into town.

Nor the dribble of 2,000 (out of a total of 72,000 rally spectators) who bothered to turn up on that 'huge' Sunday.

There's a series of pictures (which I've never seen published) taken of Kyogle's main drag just after the 'pit' finished.

The only people to be seen, along the entire length of the street, are the musicians of the two bands.

That's an embarrassing flop, not a rip-roaring success!

Hands up anyone who's got fulltime, permanent employment as a direct result of the rally.

What about promotion of the area?

Did anyone hear the word 'Kyogle' when the rally was shown on TV?

Why does Kyogle's population fall for the same gag every time some clown comes up with a "This'll make us all fabulously wealthy" scheme?

You'd think they'd have learned by now.

Read my first paragraph again.

Meanwhile the more cluey amongst us just have to hope like hell that they eventually catch up.

Nobody's querying the "1%" typo in my previous posting. It should, of course, read "10%".

Does that mean that all readers, both pro- and anti-rally, accept quoted figures without question?

Isn't that a little scary?

One of the best learning moments during my education was a wise teacher urging his students to "... question what I say ... research it for yourselves ... until you're satisfied I'm right!"

Here's a project for the pro-rally mob:

Provide evidence (other than heresay or newspaper reports) that either supports or refutes this statement:

"Drunken rally fans, angered that their hero's win had been disallowed by officials, tossed portable toilets into a creek."

Here's a project for the anti-rally mob:

Provide evidence (other than heresay or newspaper reports) that either supports or refutes this statement:

"Anti-rally protesters, through their own deliberate actions, put lives at risk, damaged private and public property, and made a general nuisance of themselves prior to, and during the Repco Rally Australia. Their efforts did themselves no favours in gaining sympathy for their cause."

Actually, you can use newspaper reports if you so wish.

And Siddha, I don't even know where to start with you...

WRC2484, my hat is off to you. You obviously have reserves of patience that no ordinary person has. As Radigis said, "When someone is told something they want to believe it is almost impossible to get them to change their minds, no matter how reliable is the evidence to the contrary."

I find it both amusing and worrying that the rally opponents are still trying to push the "We're the silent majority, and our concerns are unquestionably valid", despite all evidence to the contary.

Before the rally, we heard tales of doom and gloom, including stories about scores of wildlife being mowed down, about a spate of young driver deaths caused by copy-cat behaviour, about people locked out of their homes, an so-on.
All of these predicted catastrophies failed to eventuate - just as the rally organisers and supporters said they wouldn't.

Further, it is now been shown several times over that the majority of people are in support of the event.

And yet the bleating continues! It is incredibly clear that the rally opponents are objecting purely on principle, and will not be swayed by any amount of evidence or rational discussion.

When was our country over-run by NIMBYs? When did it become impossible to tolerate two days of inconvience every second year? When did inconvenience become more important than the health of local businesses?

To argue that there's no democracy, when a democratically elected government moves to ensure that a vocal minority does not jepordise an event, is simply laughable.

Hey Radigis, how about you do some research. Sebastian Loeb was penalised and subsequentely dropped to 2nd place by the FIA very late on sunday night. Most people only found out on monday,long after everyone had gone home.Do you really think "Drunken rally fans" travelled back to the area to "toss potable toilets into a creek' on monday.

Unfortunately, the quote by Matt8870 also applies to pro rally people. Nobody seems to respect the other side's point of view. It has to be understood that the anti rally people in general (and I don't speak for a radical few) but the people in the No Rally Group who are tax and rate payers, just happen to believe that our environment is important. My main concern is the impact on the wildlife in areas where there is not much traffic ( and it is a fact that the rally route and stages went through such areas). The reports by Drs Phillips, Ambrose and Mr Mark Graham all had one big flaw- time constraints. It would take literally years to do a thorough study of the areas of the rally. These three consultants are highly trained people and very skilled in their fields. However, there would be people without degrees who would have a lot of knowledge about the wildlife in particular on the rally routes especially those who live in the areas. My husband operated our own tour business carrying people from all over the world and all walks of life into many of the rally areas in the Tweed and Kyogle shires for 18 years. His knowledge of the animals and their habits and habitats would be second to none, but his knowledge counts for nothing with rally organisers as he has no degree. Indeed he notified National Parks of the reappearance of the Eastern Bristlebird (threatened) which was a very exciting find. The rally runs right through their environment.
On the day we went to video some of the stage roads in the Kyogle Shire we saw the following animals: Long-nosed Potoroo (threatened); Red-necked (or Red-shouldered) Wallaby;Swamp Wallaby; Red-legged Paddymelon; Red-shouldered Paddymelon; Eastern Grey Kangaroo; Antechinus; Pheasant Coucals; Brown Quails; Superb Blue Wrens plus many other birds we couldn't identify. All of these animals were actually on the rally route roads. Please don't tell me they are not important and will stay off the roads the days of the rally with cars going through their environment at incredible speed.Just for once, try to see another side of the whole issue- the value of our native animals.

I would hope that the reports that not many animals were killed during the rally were actually true, though I would find it hard to believe knowing the habits of the animals in some of the areas where the rally was held. We are not sheep bleating our objections but rather people who live in this beautiful environment voicing our opinions. We are entitled to our opinions just as you are entitled to yours. There is still no hard evidence of overwhelming support for the rally. I just hope the official review is going to be a fair one for all concerned.

An RTA spokesperson said speeding remains a major factor in fatalities throughout NSW and had increased by 40 per cent in 2009 - from 152 in 2008 to 213 in 2009.

Express Examiner, January 6, 2010

The evidence shows that the rally was responsible for very, very few wildlife deaths - likely fewer than than would have occured on a 'normal' weekend.
Anecdotal evidence from other rallies strongly suggests this is a normal scenario. Despite emotive, uninformed statements such as "Please don't tell me they ... will stay off the roads the days of the rally with cars going through their environment at incredible speed", the format of all special stage rallies discourages animals from crossing the rally route for the duration of the event.

The inferred suggestion that rally competitors are indifferent to the well-being of wild-life is quite wide of the mark.
Even at the most callous and superficial level, running into an animal is highly likely to cause damage to the competing vehicle, which costs time and money to repair, along with a greatly increased risk of not finishing the rally.
The reality is actually much less superficial - most rally competitors are 'outdoors people' who specifically appreciate the value of our native bushland (including the animals that inhabit it).