Re: DSRM is ....

[robson <robson@cia.com.au>]

Trevor Edmonds wrote:
> 
> The roller was going to scrap.

Regardless, it was still a public owned asset donated to DSRM

> As for the loan, see my comment above.

Regardless of how it was paid back, public funds were provide to DSRM to
buy land in both cases. In the case of the house it was a "low interest"
loan according to your early newsletters.

> 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?

> 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.

> 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.

> We obtained tax deductibility because we met the criteria.

Yes, but the Federal government is still foregoing tax revenue and DSRM
is benefitting by increased donations because of that tax deductibility.