Can 'morally wrong' situation be justified?

Has the sale of the historic ambulance building on Johnson Street to Wagga City Council for $610,000 exposed a head-scratching double standard?

Or is there a logical explanation as to why the NSW government allows other public buildings to change hands for as little as a dollar, but refused in this instance?

For those unaware of the background to this issue, the NSW government started making moves a couple of years ago to sell the vacant ambulance station.

Fearing that the site, which was valued at $1.25 million, might be sold to a developer and the building bulldozed, the council and community groups stepped in.

They argued that as the ambulance station was originally built using community funds back in the 1920s and gifted to the state government, that it was only fair it now be gifted back.

However, that suggestion fell on deaf ears.

Eventually, earlier this year, the NSW government sold the site to Wagga City Council for $610,000 - less than the $1.25 million it had been valued at, but in no way a nominal fee as had been hoped.

Fair or unfair?

Well, at Monday night's meeting, councillors seem certain to vote in favour of Councillor Dan Hayes' notice of motion to write to the government seeking clarification on the deal.

As the report notes, why was Armidale Regional Council allowed to buy its disused courthouse from the state government for just a $1 earlier this year?

Why are there several other examples in recent years of other historic buildings being sold to councils for a nominal fee in order to keep them from being lost?

Hopefully the council has more luck than we at The DA have had so far in securing an explanation.

In response to a set of detailed questions this week, NSW Health could muster only a pathetic two-sentence response attributable to a nameless, faceless "NSW Health spokesperson" that failed to answer any of the questions posed.

That response read: "Under NSW government policy, the former Wagga Wagga Ambulance station site on Johnston Street was offered to the local council for acquisition before any open market options were explored. In line with government policy, a reduced value for the old site was offered to council, factoring a restriction of use for only community purposes."

Former mayor Greg Conkey - someone not prone to hyperbole - described the situation as "morally wrong".

"They should return the cheque or provide a grant that covers the cost which we paid," he said.

We await an explanation with bated breath.

All the best for the week ahead,

Ross Tyson, editor