I’m not a fan of articles like this. There’s so little detail on why the proposal was knocked back. It’s impossible to know, by the end of the article, whether it was a good or poor action by the committee.
Anybody got the inside scoop?
No idea on this article, but yeah I swear 90% of local news I read is so clearly slanted in a way as to evoke a specific response, usually obvious ones (pro business, anti homeless, anti city, copaganda). It’s frustrating to be denied the actual story
I always think about cafes that have papers out for free and they’re obviously always going to be that. Never see our local trot rags getting coffee in the morning
I don’t even know if theres an agenda for some of this stuff. I reckon the journo has been given two short sentences from each side and told to make 500 words or whatever
plus a story about ‘firies being strangled by beaurocracy’ will sell clicks and most people wont think past the headline
Article very light on the actual details. For all we know it could have been like this:
Requirements: “Please provide a detailed description for the intended purpose of the funds. Include plans, quotes for materials / labour for each item the funding will go towards, and the benefits this grant will provide for the local community”.
Volunteer firies : “givvus 50 grand to help us build a shed for the fire truck, ay?”
Committee: “??? Sorry this does not meet submission requirements.”
Firies: “OMG literally death by bureaucracy.”
Ha! Exactly! ABC really hit a home run on this one
My guess given the comments about the other brigades in the shire is that using money to better provision the other brigades was considered a better use of funds than having an additional station. There are a lot of factors to balance in allocating funding, and spending the money to build a station to house a fire truck in that location might mean they end up with one less actual fire truck overall in the region.
