THE writer of the latest Lonely Planet guide (see story page 8) certainly didn't go overboard describing Grafton as a "mildly interesting apparition from an uncomplicated past", but is he or she really that far off the mark?
And is that description any sort of an insult?
I don't think there is anything wrong with a city or town reflecting an uncomplicated past, as that probably indicates a fairly uncomplicated present
"Mildly interesting" isn't going to have the tourists flocking but if it is describing where you live then maybe it's not such a bad thing.
The recent naming of the North Coast Tourism Awards finalists overlooked Valley attractions so maybe a lot of we have is "mildly interesting".
The question has to be, if the description is correct, do we want to be more than that as a tourist destination?
With the recent restructuring of the Valley's tourism promotions, and the rerouting of the Pacific Highway on the horizon, now is the time to assess what we have to attract tourists and what we need to drag in more of them. What would you like the area to be - mildly interesting or wonderfully intriguing?