Words: 605
I wanted to go deeper in this investigation and find out why, and does it really confirm pollution because I know I don’t get polluted by seeing a road sign. The features covered by visual pollution policy include: 1 . Factories 2. Sheds 3. Buildings 4. Fences 5 Signs 6. Indicating 7 . Ex. imminent 8. Graffiti 9. Stored unsightly material 10. Ageing construction 1 1 -any other unsightly material considered a problem by the Council. The government cut down your taxes if you pay for something that will make you money.
If you buy something for your business you would not be taxed n it. If you by a adverting sign and walk down the road with it ( advertising your business) it will be against the law. This was clearly said in the taxpayer office. Is the taxpayer entitled to a deduction under subsection 40-755(1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (IOTA 1 997) for vegetating an area used in their income earning activities for the purposes of providing a visual effect and preventing erosion? Decision No.
The taxpayer is not entitled to a deed auction for the cost of vegetating an area under subsection of the IOTA 1997, as the expenditure is not in elation to an eligible environmental protection activity. The government care for the environment. By penalizing the offender should stop the pollution and it did work because my boss never advertised again. Any distraction what so ever is a pollution. The ME states that ‘although eyesores are sometimes loosely referred to as visual pollution, pollution does not include merely presenting an unattractive or unappealing appearance’. Anything you want to look at is pollution.
So why isn’t a billboard a pollution. You are driving down the freeway km/h and you see a meter billboard tit a picture of a half naked women with a massive heading saying “SEX is this not against the law, I know plenty of male drivers who would want to look at it. My point being is and why I am arguing is because the council is taking advantage of everything. Most other councils will let visual pollution go however the Whittles council disagree and will put fines up to $ 1500 for the smallest Of visual sighting. We are in a free society and people have the right to look, I believe the law should be taken off all together.
It is the local law of Whittles and it will be braking the law with on the spot fines if you: Issues include: Littering Keeping animals Roadside selling Displaying goods on footpaths Incinerators Unsightly premises Vehicles on private property The reason they put the laws is for our safety and the community’s quality of life. Fair enough we cannot sell or display goods so we can download a form from the councils website. Their was NO form or law stating Visual pollution. If it was a law you could even apply to be accepted but their isn’t even a form. Here is nothing stating anything about pollution or my argument visual elution. As we rang the Whittles council and one of the senior officers answered they said it is against council rules to advertise off your property. Even thou they have nothing on paper in doing so. As I dug deeper in the investigation finally found something that would be braking the law for visual pollution. And that was Unsightly land. Your property must look clean and no mess. Their is no law on anything about visual pollution. All it is that your tax wont be deducted from advertisement. The only law that can be fined is car advertisement.