Grace mentioned this quite a while ago, but her parents’ shop at Sutherland station will be forcibly taken away by RailCorp, which wishes to widen the concourse at the station to, apparently, ease congestion. Despite their investment in the business, from what I understand, the problem lies in the fact that their contract does not provide for recompense in the event that RailCorp needs to do something with it.
I’d say that most people would be supportive of railway infrastructure development — who doesn’t want better stations, and better trains, and better services. The problem here is the way in which this development has been earmarked to proceed — to the detriment of one family, and with dubious benefits to railway commuters as a whole. RailCorp’s alleged attitude (i.e. silence) doesn’t instill confidence in the ability of this case to result in an equitable solution. As I commented (on the newspaper article), just because it’s legal doesn’t mean you should do it. If the redevelopment of the station must go ahead, other solutions, such as buying out the business, or offering to relocate the business to another part of the station, are both reasonable alternatives that RailCorp should consider. RailCorp is a corporatised business, but at the same time, as a business owned by the people of New South Wales, a more caring attitude would not go amiss, and should be mandated in the organisation’s practices.
Somehow, I get the impression that pushing RailCorp buttons won’t work in this case. The Ngs will have to search for other, bigger buttons to push. Let’s all rally behind them in their moment of need.