Opposition to Mt Wellington plan
By Sarah Stephen
HOBART — A proposal to construct a cable car, revolving restaurant and artificial ski field on Mt Wellington — the beautiful, largely untouched, backdrop to the city — has state tourism minister Peter Hodgman beating the employment drum and crying "Jobs, jobs, jobs!"
He went on to claim that the project "will be seen as an icon that will compete with Ayers Rock [Uluru], the Great Barrier Reef and the Sydney Opera House".
Soberer judgments have said that the project, with its restaurant looking like a flying saucer launch pad, would seem comically out of place. People come to Tasmania to witness its natural beauty, not some glitzy five-star monstrosity that they could find almost anywhere else.
There have been several previous attempts to put a cable car on Mt Wellington, but none as well planned as this. The developers have even set up a 008 number for anyone with queries.
The Tasmanian Greens and Friends of Mt Wellington have strongly opposed the development, calling for more public consultation and an exploration of alternatives.
There are a number of major problems with the existing proposal:
* It was presented to the public as a fait accompli.
* The developers project 188,000 passengers in the first year, which is almost half the population of the state. There are concerns that overoptimistic projections may lead to government subsidies.
* The proposal to create a beginners' snow field on the summit seems faulty. Snow settles on Mt Wellington only for short periods.
* Construction of the restaurant and terminal on the
summit would cause massive disturbance to the area.
* The tourists who inject most money into the state's economy are backpackers — not the sort who would use a cable car to see the sights.
* The developers claim the cable car will promote equality of access. But how many pensioners or young people are likely to be able to afford a $15 return jaunt in a cable car?
There is already a road to the summit. This would mean very stiff competition for the cable car, but it would also make it possible to run a cheap bus service for public access.
The issue is not development versus anti-development, but the fact that the mountain belongs to the people yet is being treated by the government as if it were the property of a handful of developers.