Brisbane

The Lord Mayor quite explicitly displaying his poor economic understanding.

He says that investment properties are being sold "and then becoming owner-occupied properties". He says this will drive up rental prices. Usually, the LNP likes to ignore what happens after investors choose to leave the market, because the answer doesn't work very well for them. The answer is: a renter buys and leaves the market, making it net-neutral on the rental market. It's weird that in this case he chooses to explicitly highlight the thing that defeats his argument.

Jesus Christ what a waste of question time. Cr Cassidy literally just asked "will you finally admit the LNP has been in power too long in Brisbane". Come on man. At least pretend you're doing something vaguely non-partisan or fact-based.

Cr Johnston calling out Council's inaction on a petition to reduce the speed limit on the Corso, which forms part of the River Loop in her ward.

She points out examples of how "Council will jump for a marginal LNP member" but won't do anything to keep people safe in her ward.

The petition isn't even calling for much. Most of the Corso is 50 km/h. A small bit of it near the UQ bridge is 40 km/h. A small bit at the other end is 60 km/h. The petition is only calling to reduce that 60 km/h section to 50.

The whole street should be a 40 zone, given its use as a major cycling commuting route but a secondary driving route.

The LNP did end up voting in support of Cr Whitmey's motion.

Council and the State engaging in a shit-fight over who should get credit for the idea of building a tunnel under Gympie Rd. Both sides seem to be relatively amenable to the idea at the moment though. Which is disappointing, unless perhaps they were to accompany it with a narrowing of Gympie Rd at street level to one lane each way for cars, full-time bus lanes, and fully-separated bike lanes. Which we all know will never happen.

So instead all we'll get is yet another toll tunnel inducing yet more demand to drive.

Wow. Cr Toomey, the Chair, is now trying to stop councillors even reading out the motion that they want to move when moving for a suspension of standing orders for an urgency motion. For a long time the LNP has been haphazardly attempting to enforce the rule that the speech must be about the reason for urgency, not on the substance of the motion (and Labor has attempted to squeeze in debate of the motion itself into their speech). But this time the LNP didn't even want to let them get out so much as what it was that would be debated if urgency was granted.