Cancelled: City of Fremantle’s $3,000,000.00 Shopping Day

Up till the full council meeting started this evening we (the audience some who had only come to listen to this one issue) where expecting the C1503-4 HEIRLOOM DEVELOPMENT to come up in “discussion” at council.

But up first the Mayor let everyone know that Match had withdrawn the request for the city to buy in, so just like that a $3,000,000.00 investment of city funds is off the table, The Mayor Brad Pettitt did note they would get back to them should they need the city to buy in later, good to know the city bankroll is sitting there on tap? Yesterday the Mayor was blogging on the all the reasons it had to happen, Andrew was the same, today no need, simple? I wonder if any justifying “thinking alouds” or letters to the editor are being filed for another day?

So what caused the sudden withdrawal of the request for investment?

Hopefully investors are coming to buy up the existing apartments needed to kick start their project?

Perhaps all the attention was unsettling the investors?

I hope it gets up and running, I just don’t believe the city should be the financial investor to make it happen.

What I find quite amusing is people who I hear openly criticise the State Government for doing what the council was proposing but its ok for COF to do it, the hypocrisy is amazing, god politics sucks?

Another interesting point is how quick it came to full council without passing thru any other level of council to allow for full and open discussion at a couple of levels, to ensure proper transparency? This actual point was raised by a councillor about another agenda item that was before council tonight, all of a sudden it also seemed to skip a level, its issues like this that also make people wonder what’s going on?

Tonight we also saw questions raised at public question time where in regards to the match issue they were;

  • About Sirona being involved in the Match development and why with its business interest it was not noted in the agenda information?
  • Did the COF consider there was any conflict of interest with the situation before them, involving Sirona and whether the city had sort any independent advice on this issue

Answers where pretty much;

  • Everyone knows
  • no issues and no need

So we just sit back wait and keep an eye on the agendas coming through looks like we have to more and more vigilant to what is happening in our city?

Leave a Reply

6 comments

  1. Diana Ryan says:

    Did the Council really respond to Sirona Qs with those answers?

    Probably a good thing to have recorded that, as Adele Carles did voice her concerns about this particular developer (involvement with), it wasn’t that long ago, and Council’s memory of that seems short.

    • Mark says:

      Well not word for word but that was the general meaning i got from the answers, is that they thought it was clear that everyone knew match had partners, no they did not think the Sirona being an investor was a conflict, and no they did not seek advice about it.
      Personally i think the fact the heading on the agenda index was so brief as not to catch attention but its briefness is what caught my attention.
      But that was two days after i first tried to download the minutes as over the weekend the cities website system was down making it impossible to get to the minutes

      • Diana Ryan says:

        Timely access by the public to Agendas for council meetings always seems so tight.

        In Canning the public battles away with a huge Agenda with attachments, being published Fridays often, and try to grapple (without representatives and or anyone to call over weekend) with it all, in time for a meeting that starts about 42 hours after business resumes the next week!

        Maybe the public should request how to have this changed, as part of the latter aspects of reform Simpson will be following up on.

  2. Good analysis Mark. They seem so desperate to see their vision come true that the Mayor and Sullivan are making emotional decisions regarding large purchases, with City funds and no security.

    The Mayor is no business man. He is an academic, pure and simple. Sullivan is an idealist. Both have Green ideals and are driven by this.

    Some of the people who have suggested a loan should get their heads read. Giving unsecured loans to developers such as match and Sirona is laughable.

    These are multimillion dollar companies who have, in their own admission, invested in Fremantle for the long term. I’m sure if they dropped the price, then the apartments would sell.

    Where is the economic gain for the ratepayers? Maybe if you could buy them for $2.5 mill might be worth it. But it’s not really what ratepayers money is supposed to be used for and that opens a lot of questions up regrading embezzlement and favouritism towards parties who are close to the Mayor. Some might even suggest corruption.

    Remember it was the Mayor that suggested and pushed a ’50 year loan for the warders cottages’ as a brilliant idea not so long ago.

    • freoishome says:

      Matthew, Just wanted you to expand your comment about elected members having “Green Ideals”. I have difficulty with such general ‘labels’.
      Is this a personal attack or a compliment?
      At the last federal election, I think I am correct in saying that the Greens were the only party to have all the policies vetted and costed by the Parliamentary body setup specifically to do that. I know the Liberals did not.
      So presumably the attack or compliment is based on the ideals within some specific Green policies you are alluding too, but you are expecting us to read your mind. I certainly don’t want to be accused of the latter so please help out with something more specific.
      A good start would be was this a personal attack?
      As a politician yourself, what would your course of action have been if you were Mayor with Match and Sirona? Would you have entered into discussions? How open vs confidential would you be? Would you retain and build on the capital investments the CoF has, as a tool to lever loans and hence power to influence future significant building, etc.

      • I think the issue with this whole ‘idea’ is that it assumes governments have to play business partner.

        Investing $3 mil of ratepayers money in these investments to get the developers over the line should ring alarm bells to anyone who owns or has investments of their own.

        Are they a good investment for the City. No. Good investments are based on good returns.

        Why hasn’t the Mayor or Sullivan been focussing on the returns if they were such a great investment.

        I’m talking about ideology over common business sense and practicalities and the responsibility of a city council to its ratepayers first and Formost.

%d bloggers like this: