I understand why most state politicians and public servants support building a third rate port facility on the Point Lowly peninsula. It is (probably) the cheapest and quickest option to serve the mining ventures of the north, it fulfils the need for the present government to present an approved project before the next election and, because the mining industry will have to pay all development costs, it doesn't bother the government if the port is inefficient. There is no down side to the government or the public service if Whyalla's recreational gem is wiped out, as long as their holiday and recreation is not affected and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) declares that the cuttlefish and other marine life will survive.

But I cannot understand the "couldn't care less about Whyalla people" attitude by some councillors and business or community leaders who support trashing the Point Lowly visual, recreational and sustainable development future in exchange for a third rate, relatively shallow port and it's industrial surround.

I want to hear their explanations for refusing to support the proper investigation of an alternative, genuinely deep water port site south of Whyalla. This would be more efficient, potentially more effective for Eyre Peninsula mining export and have at least the same employment opportunities. Most significantly it would keep the Point Lowly peninsula as free as possible for the continuing enjoyment of its natural beauty and important recreational opportunities.

I want them to listen to the many people who understand the value of an un-spoiled Point Lowly peninsula, the importance of shacks to many more than shackowners, the massive use of the Lighthouse cottages for children, families and healing and the need and potential for further facilities. And I want those in important community positions who think that "only a few shackowners" use the area to allow their ignorance to be challenged. by Allan Nield 12th November 2008.