If my critic had done her homework, she would know that my proposals will preserve the heritage listed frontage of Belbridge and, with one miniscule qualification, preserve the green open space of QEII Square, which I too enjoy. I also propose the restoration of the Anglican rectory, currently the subject of demolition by neglect, something that my critic has neglected to mention.

The Jackling family has been contributing extensively to the Albury community for almost 120 years. Those who know me, know that over the last 10 years or so, my own contributions, made lovingly to my birthplace, have been considerable, albeit made from afar. My critic claims that I have more information about the Albury cultural precinct masterplan than anybody. My freely available knowledge comes from The Border Mail, Albury council meetings on YouTube and ABC Radio Goulburn Murray.

My several proposals do include a KLM Uiver Museum with its state heritage listed Uiver collection, to tell the unique story of the Uiver. That story can also be used to distinguish Albury from other cities, and so attract tourists who will reinvigorate a decaying city centre. My critic's attitude appears to be that of opposition to change, to leave everything as it is. My aim is to preserve the precious heritage of my birthplace, and to boldly advocate for change for the better, not to ossify, as Ethel Wilson would have us do.

IN OTHER NEWS:

Just as our governments and their bureaucracies try to work through the massive issue of constraints we get a 'scientific report' telling us they are limiting the amount of environmental water flowing to wetlands.

A couple of key points should be noted. For over a decade many farmers and organisations who know about river flows and water management have been trying to tell governments that the issue of constraints was ignored in the Basin Plan but had to be addressed. They continued to ignore it.

Isn't it coincidental that as soon as they realise it's an issue that needs to be addressed, we get another 'scientific report' that blames the farmers for the plan's failings, when all along the real problem is the false 'science' on which it was based.

In the Basin Plan's development, taxpayer funded scientists promoted the myth that the Lower Lakes were traditionally freshwater and must be filled by pouring huge volumes down to South Australia. Of course, the fact that this supplies SA with cheap water and fills its lakes for recreational purposes was just a coincidental benefit, wasn't it? Despite indisputable evidence to the contrary, this freshwater myth continues to be maintained because without it the Basin Plan doesn't have a gigalitre to stand on.

And now, our city-based taxpayer funded scientists tell us we need to buy more water from farmers because they made a mess of all the modelling in the first place. They blame farms and towns, when the real problem is their blinkered approach. Perhaps the 'scientists' should prepare a report on the benefits of eradicating the environmentally degraded cities where they live and work.

That's where our real environmental damage has occurred.

As a further suggestion, would there be any chance these taxpayer-funded scientists, supported by our bureaucracy, could try working with farmers and rural communities, instead of always trying to work against them?

Because most of us in rural Australia have had a gutful of being dictated to by those who live, work and breathe in our polluted cities and try to force onto us their flawed ideologies which threaten our future and livelihoods. All with the support of our left-wing, taxpayer funded ABC.

You can submit a letter to the editor via the comments section of our website at bordermail.com.au, or by emailing letters@bordermail.com.au. Your letter must include your full name (for publication) as well as an address and contact phone number (not for publication).

MORE COMMENT