Sunday, May 3, 2009


No one would dispute that tourists contribute to the peninsula in many ways, however many ratepayers are concerned that, in the final analysis, tourists do not contribute cash to the shires' income relative to the cash cost to support them and that the shire should investigate ways to have the tourists pay their way.

No matter what the cost to them, tourist numbers will continue to explode and they should contribute more to the cost of running the shire so that ratepayers do not have to subsidize them. Even if they pay more than their fair share.

The shire does not seem to look at tourism as a product line that should generate positive cash flow to the shire coffers. It seems, that for some reason, they think that we have an obligation to provide tourists an inexpensive playground.


  1. I live in a tourist area and it seems you are right about one thing. I don't think tourist expect to come to an area and not spend money. That is part of being a tourist and expected. Mel Roush

  2. In respect of Rye, it is quite clear the premise on which this town gets any assistance or regard, is in respect of the 4 weeks of the year when Tourist traffic peaks. Whether it be carnivals, parking road enhancements, camping features or whatever, the logic driving the Council is Summer, and NOT thre needs of the residents or holiday home owners who are here for the full 52 weeks. A change is required to reinforce that the residents have needs as well, and we cannot coninually accept reasons for NOT doing things is due to summer. George Paterson, Rye Beach.

  3. There is no doubt that tourists add an enormous revenue stream to any local community. Why do governments around the world try desperately to entice tourists - good example of money spent is the Australian Grand Prix. good or bad it happens. So too with the Peninsula. The difference is that it is for prolonged periods of time in a confined space.
    Due consideration should be given to the inconveniences experienced by locals and they should be compensated some how. Any ideas. GB

  4. Tourists and Rate Payers conflict. Having lived on the Peninsula for over 40 years I have seen the huge change in Tourist numbers attending the Peninsula, especially over Christmas to Easter. Just take a look at Byron bay and the massive degradation of the rate payers rights and privelidges and lifestyle they enjoy by living in that area. On the Southern part of the Peninsula we now see totally congested roads, more road rage, no available parking, no available boat launching, no parking in shopping centers, less food on the supermarket shelves, fees by parks Vic to access several backbeach areas (when the rest of the year is free????)and noticeably many more parking infringements by there is nowhere to park. Certainly the above does not apply if one is prepared top wait, and wait, and wait. With the planned Frankston bypass this issue is set to escalate dramatically. Where is the equality of the rate payer. Do we get free boat, do we get a free pass to the back, are there rate payer only parking areas in shopping areas over the holiday I reality does the Shire Council make any compensation for the loss of amenities and rightful privelidges - as rate Lets get the balance right as its becoming very skewed one way...tourism/economics and to hell with the lifestyle of the ratepayers.

  5. Now that we have seen the 09-10 budget increase of 7% and more borrowing, it is evident that we need to get the tourists to pay their fair share. We can no longer continue to subsidize them. The time for action is past. (for a solution to this never ending problem also see the section titled "Endorsing Councillors"

  6. Traffic management will become the issue of greatest urgency in the Southern Peninsula. Witness the area becoming a giant car park every public holiday, or in my case, living along an access route to a back beach, the street becomes a mini freeway.

    I'm not sure how it can be done but it would be nice to get some of these people out of their cars and use a bicycle or their feet instead. It would be a political and administration nightmare but some sort of Etag style toll on cars not registered locally may be a consideration.
    Richard Horvath

  7. The etag is a great idea and it is along the lines of an idea that I am perusing!

  8. The cost of tourism raised its ugly head again at the section 223 meeting (14.07.09) during submissions on the draft budget.

    The council continues to dismiss the cost of tourism to the ratepayer. They continue to go on and on about how wonderful it is.

    They continue to dismiss the concerns of the ratepayers about subsidizing the tourist trade. Yet they are overwhelmed during the tourist season to support them.

    Another example of where they have made up their minds and are not listening.

    Where does it say that we have to make it nice and cozy and cheap for tourists to come and trash our home? If they are going to come then let them pay for the privilege and contribute to the cost of supporting them.

    If we had two lane dirt roads and no accommodation they would still come and visit and their numbers would continue to increase exponentially.