As I read into C4's post and following this issue for a while now, I am finding it, if I should say, challenge of being able to verify the general opinion of locals in Newcastle people, regarding their opinion in the future of the railroad line continuing to operate to the Newcastle station.
There is one staggering point that continues to disturb me the most.
Looking into this issue, now a serious crisis, there is also the need for people that would want to use the train to reach Newcastle, not just the locals needing to travel out,
However, it's disturbing to find the conduct of the Baird Government, through this person in the transport minister's office to transfer ownership of rail infrastructure and attempting to maneuver the legal definition of 'rail infrastructure owner' calling HDC exempt from the act as they never owned or ran a railway line before. Even the judge in the court that day stated his acknowledgement that the action was purposely committed to try to bypass the Act.
The Act of Section 99A clearly states you cannot remove the tracks and associated infrastructure or sell off the land without a Parliamentary Act.
Now today we find these cabinet documents from a former disgraced Newcastle MP containing details of the sell off of the majority of the rail land and diverting the light rail onto the road, with the sell of going to developers. (Is this light rail seriously going to be built?)
Putting just these points forward, of this crisis, the situation continues to worsen, along with the chaos at Hamilton, there are these 'projects' at 5 locations (correct me if there are less or more) as pedestrian crossings. There is no parliamentary approval to remove tracks, so the order is given to build these, termed, 'crossings' over the tracks. Bitumen and concrete are poured over the tracks and we are being told it's connecting/revitalizing the city.
It reinforces C4s statement that it's a rush job and at the same time attempting to destroy the prospect of returning the rail services, the infrastructure protected by the act, so therefore sabotage it. (There is no approval to sell off the land, yet they are going to build these 'crossings' over the infrastructure, is this the developers plan and there are buildings taking up the rest? Or could it be that the 'crossings' are there to cheat the hearts and minds of unsuspecting voters where the buildings will be built on top of them anyway if they manage to win the election?)
I am alarmed at the possibility that, overnight, have they got crews secretly inserting chemicals, agents or contaminants, designed to destabilize the soil in the land and render it unsuitable for supporting railroad tracks, or perhaps applying accelerants to break down the structural integrity of the infrastructure in case they lose the election?
A government that can attempt this extreme legal maneuvering and build over the top of infrastructure in attempts to bury the prospect of restoring the line even without the parliamentary act should already clarify how dangerous and narcissistic these 'people' in our ministerial offices are. People want the government to make decisions in good faith and for the benefit of society, yet with this behaviour they still give vague information to all those who will be affected.
I hope in the appeal coming up, there will be no bias in the judgement of the interpretation of the Act. I worry about these possibilities, if they try to use extraordinary legal maneuvers, what lengths are they prepared to go to get their way for their own vested interests? We vote these men and women into our ministerial offices we expect them to execute the office as they are sworn in (it still exists doesn't it?) there are decisions that cannot have a perfect outcome, but Australians upon understanding whilst being informed and knowing it's the only way do their best to respect the decision and accept it. This catastrophe here we have questions marks in Newcastle, and ministers relentlessly attempting to break the boundaries of the act, and, what benefit for Newcastle? As there are question marks, because the light rail project incurs more cost to build over the road disrupting traffic than running it down the existing rail corridor, costing even less to continue the trains, what about sinking the running line or if ambitious and preferred have the developments above the line? It's even stated that it won't cost a substantial amount more for construction to sink it.
If they dare to conduct government business in this manner what will that spell out for the next major decisions not limited to public transport if they are voted back in on March 28th?