While there is some community contribution through their grant system, it is interesting to read that Crookwell 3 could supply power to thousands of homes

Why, then, could places where they have a big impact not have this power, helping the communities they are placed in get the benefit of wind power, making it cheaper electricity for that area.

Maybe they would be better accepted as they benefit not only the farmer, but the whole community.

I am sure they will continue to be put across the state and it is probably not in the interest of the powers-that-be to consider.

There are a couple of statements in Don Southwell's exaggerated death of democracy letter in the Crookwell Gazette (October 8) that, sadly, I cannot let go unanswered.

First, and ungraciously, Don refers to "a small one interest group" affecting the council's decision on naming the new footbridge over Kiamma Creek.

That one small group, with 30 paid-up members, is the same group that for about 10 years has worked with the approval of, and some help from, the council to develop and upgrade the Pat Cullen Reserve using some $310,000 they have raised from several government grant programs.

Now, another "small one interest group" - Don's Crookwell Men's Shed - wants to take over our work that consistently has been developed as a waterside walkway that enabled people to escape the noise and hustle of the town while communing with nature alongside the gently flowing stream.

Don's "small one interest group" want to rename the path "The Walk of Fame", turn it into some sort of gallery cluttered every 25 metres or so with a metre-high metal plaque extolling the merits of some "famous" local.

I wonder what the reaction of Don's "small one interest group" would be if the situation was reversed?

Second, I note that the four letters suggesting "Bridge of Fame" as a name for the new footbridge included two from Don's house: one from him, and one from his wife.

If the eight who supported the Dame Mary Gilmore name had used the same tactic, the eight for her name would have been 16! In fact, one of the eight was signed by two quite unrelated people.

Perhaps the eight should have been nine, Don?

I explained in my Gazette letter of October 8 that those letters that did not favour Dame Mary's name suggested 12 other individuals and 11 non-personal or generic names. No consensus on any alternative.

Finally, the council's decision is nothing like a denial of democracy, nor an ignoring of ratepayers' wishes, as Don overstates in his letter.

The council had a difficult decision, and with no obvious alternative being offered, supported the wishes of hard-working volunteer group whose efforts produced the bridge.

Don, surprisingly, you don't seem to realise the resentment and angst amongst our members that your attempted takeover has caused. We suggest that you stick to your Men's Shed business that you do so well, and leave us to our Pat Cullen Reserve developments that we also do very well.

Democracy is a good thing, but if you don't want to stand up to safeguard it, don't expect to keep it.

The primary role of all councils is to be accountable to the people. The council is required to be transparent and is not above reproach, so if the people don't hold them to account, then no other governing body will.

If the government has nothing to hide, then they should have nothing to fear. Any attempt to silence the media or the people or any of the people's representatives should be considered an abuse of our democratic right.

Have your say in the form below.