Victims of Holiday Letting (VOHL) have read all submissions that have been posted for the inquiry by the Independent Planning Commission into Byron Shire’s proposal to institute a 90-day cap for short-term rental accommodation (STRA).
One submission is less than edifying, where Mr Michael Murray, who states that he is a local buyers’ agent, has completely misrepresented VOHL’s position. We certainly have been ‘strong vocal critics’, as Mr Murray says, of those STRA that continue to damage residential amenity. We have also criticised the flaws in the STRA regulations and the current 180-day cap in mainly residential zones.
Mr Murray says, ‘The VOHL lobby who want to completely eliminate HL (holiday letting) need to work through the implications of their request. This result could…destroy tourism in Byron Bay’. This misrepresents VOHL’s position – our members have always recognised the value of tourism to the Byron Shire community.
Initially VOHL wanted the regulation, that short-term holiday letting was illegal in residential zones without DA approval, to be applied by Council. This was supported by Land and Environment Court landmark decisions.
When Council, and later the state government, initiated the process of regulating STRA VOHL compromised its position and became involved in making submissions for regulation.
VOHL’s position is that STRA and community interests could co-exist, and VOHL recognises that the rule of law, and treating all stakeholders with respect, should apply.
Oh, they have appointed themselves as a victim class now while trying to steal peoples property rights. They cry out in pain as they strike YOU!
Here is the most valuable advice the STRA people will get during this attack…. to stop someone using the book ‘Rules for radicals’ against you, read ‘How to Beat Sir Humphrey’. It will tell you everything you need to know to stimey these Marxiods attempts to use the government as a weapon against you.
Give us one example of any country/state that operates totally devoid of any planning regulations, building standards, health and environmental regulation. You might live on a few hectares but we have these things now called cities. Balancing competing rights is tricky. Everyone doing exactly what they like is the recipe for nasty brutish and short.
Your not balancing rights. You don’t have a right to other peoples belongings without consent, even if you pass a law saying you do. If it is the renters interfering with other peoples enjoyment of their homes through noise or whatever, that’s the fault of the renters, not the land lord.
You are also confusing inter and intra regulation. My 4kms of boundary fence, is of course, my neighbours boundary fence as well. My front fence’s neighbour is the council (cause the road), so they should have some input about that fence if they like. The other three sides are none of their business, they are between us property owners to decide. And my 9 kms of internal fence is no-one else’s business at all. Yet the council presumes it can dictate all fences, down to ridiculous and unnecessary little details.
These basic Libertarian/Common Law concepts of property rights apply equally to your ‘stack and pack’ butter boxes in your coastal ‘human feed lots’. Totalitarianism is the recipe for nasty brutish and never ending.
I asked you to supply your readers with an example, Christian. Can you, or is the nasty pastie aggression – “your ‘stack and pack’ butter boxes in your coastal ‘human feed lots’” – meant to suffice for an answer?
Is this straw man argument the best you can do? I never argued for us to be Somalia. Your Totalitarianism vs Anarchy paradigm is a false dichotomy you are using to attempt to confuse my readers. Shame on you.
Right – so you can’t. Why not just say so? And keep yourself nice Christian!
Your not balancing rights. You don’t have a right to other peoples belongings without consent, even if you pass a law saying you do. If it is the renters interfering with other peoples enjoyment of their homes through noise or whatever, that’s the fault of the renters, not the land lord.
You are also confusing inter and intra regulation. My 4kms of boundary fence, is of course, my neighbours boundary fence as well. My front fence’s neighbour is the council (cause the road), so they should have some input about that fence if they like. The other three sides are none of their business, they are between us property owners to decide. And my 9 kms of internal fence is no-one else’s business at all. Yet the council presumes it can dictate all fences, down to ridiculous and unnecessary little details.
These basic Libertarian/Common Law concepts of property rights apply equally to your ‘stack and pack’ butter boxes in your coastal ‘human feed lots’. Totalitarianism is the recipe for nasty brutish and never ending.