My recent FCPIA column asked a simple question: can we plan Hervey Bay’s foreshore with the next generation in mind? It wasn’t about towers, the Gold Coast, or bulldozing caravan parks. Yet on Facebook, a small group hijacked the thread and accused me of all three. None of it was in the article.
Here are the facts: that post reached 27,000+ views, and 56% of viewers were over 55. Many wrote thoughtful comments—thank you. But too often, any attempt at a rational conversation gets derailed by tangents and personal attacks. When grown-ups throw the toys out of the cot, we don’t get better outcomes; we just scare off people with good ideas and silence younger voices who will live longest with today’s decisions.
Planning takes years. If we can’t even discuss options without insults, we’ll keep doing what’s easiest for today and short-change tomorrow. I’m happy to debate alternatives—show me a better idea and the numbers behind it. What I’m not fine with is name-calling the moment someone suggests change.
Interestingly, the same piece on LinkedIn drew a very different response: civil disagreement, practical suggestions, and a willingness to weigh trade-offs. That tells me the problem isn’t the topic; it’s the culture we tolerate on certain platforms.
So, a proposal for future discussions about the foreshore—and any major community asset:
- Stick to what’s written. If it isn’t in the article, don’t invent it.
- Bring evidence. Costs, benefits, timelines.
- Play the ball, not the person. Disagree without the dig.
- Think in decades, not days. Our kids deserve more than quick wins.
Hervey Bay can be proud and forward-thinking. Let’s prove we’re capable of a mature, solutions-focused conversation—one that welcomes different views, bans personal attacks, and keeps our eyes on the people who will inherit what we build.
