Re: DSRM is ....

["Trevor Edmonds" <trevor_edmonds@dingoblue.net.au>]

robson wrote...

> > The roller was going to scrap.
>
> Regardless, it was still a public owned asset donated to DSRM

It was not donated. It was paid for in kind.

> > A court settlement is hardly a donation.
>
> The repairs to the bridge and the responsibility for its ongoing
> maintenance are still saving DSRM the expense, irrespective of whether
> it was part of a settlement. How much public money did the SRA expend
> defending itself against the DSRM claim in the Land and Environment
> Court?

Then the State Government should not have got itself into the legal mess
that forced this outcome. A guess is that the entire process, including the
legislation, tendering, etc cost the State Government close to $1M. It was
their decision to go down that path.

> > You forgot to mention the cost to us from the actions of the
> > State Government, which is far in exess of any benefit we obtained.
>
> What actions are you referring to? I thought any action taken by the
> State Government was a result of what DSRM aledgedly did, not the other
> way round.

They never made any alegations about us. They simply made a unilateral
declaration that the lease was either cancelled or had never existed. And
then passed legislation to validate that action.

> > These repairs have been lost with the State Government cancelling
> > the lease, and letting the line fall into disrepair.
>
> Be that as it may, DSRM benefitted at the time from expenditure of
> public funds. That it has fallen into disrepair is not the Australian
> Army's fault.

Agreed. No criticism of the Army was intended by my comment.

Trevor