Response to Roel Blog “FREO MAYOR ARGUES YES FOR AMALGAMATION”

https://freoview.wordpress.com/2015/02/02/freo-mayor-argues-yes-for-amalgamation/

My response to the blog post above.

46% of the vote in i guess all this is a little late.
Closing the doors after the horse has bolted, so to speak.

Clearly EF residents have organized themselves to run this campaign,
If they look at what Burt St is facing,
Issues like Jshed,
Poor community consultation
The concerns at McCabe St,
Concrete in our Parks,
Esplanade given away for events to use for free and rate payers picking up the restoration costs,
Simple things like rubbish collection at major sites a ongoing issue,
Inappropriate developments for areas.
100+ mature trees cut at Kim Beazley site.
Sale of city assets, i.e. parking?
R160
Empty shops
$50,000,000.00 outstanding maintenance,
Anti-car attitude
Housing diversity policy
Parking Policy
Poor anti graffiti policy or even a pro graffiti policy
Encouraging CBD begging, then moving it around or banning in certain places??????
A state government that doesn’t want to invest in Freo
No public facilities and closing existing ones in and around the CBD
i could go on,

You wonder why they are concerned??

 

Does Fremantle Have Good Governance

leaders wantedimage governamce wall

I saw an interesting interview on the 730 Report the other day. It was with Tony Fitzgerald.

This was the man who headed the crime and corruption commission in QLD, some 25 yrs ago. While of course his commission looked into many issues, he has raise 4 simple principles of accountability and good governance in the interview.

  1. To govern for peace and good order of their electors,  district or state.
  2. Treat all people equally with no privileged  access.
  3. To make decisions in the best interest of the district or state & not by reference to personal considerations or considerations favouring contacts and so forth.
  4. To keep people properly informed, accurately informed and as promptly as possible in relation to all matters of public interest or potential controversy.

Now these principles can be applied I think to all levels of government

He further spoke about the public expectations declining in reference to these basic principles due to the elected members have ignored their electors for so long. These principles are the basis of what representative democracy is or stands for. Its where the elected members are elected to represented and govern on behalf of its people. Not run their own ideology and special interest groups.

You should watch the video on the link or read the transcript. Its quite interesting quite relevant what he is saying which is based around the upcoming Qld election. These principle I think apply equally to local council.

The various individuals/groups, who have spoken  @ council this last couple of years should read the principles above and see how they where applied to their situations. Do they think the they  have been the recipients of the good governance?

Its not just a matter of what you  do or don’t like but whether a proper procedure has been truly followed, that does not mean a box ticking exercise, but good governance in the spirit those rules are intend to applied. This is the question to judge our elected members by?

A good comparison is the outcome of Burt St and McCabe St, this week at full council. One was deferred for more reports to be finalized. For me I don’t think it will help the outcome, but good to see they have a window of hope. Interestingly that night we heard current councillors speak of ex-Freo councillors involved in the process of speaking out for the deferral, due to the knowledge of council process , experience, etc they understand he said. So did that help them get a deferral, Now the Burt St group presented a strong sensible argument for not going ahead with R160. Yet theirs had no stay of execution, perhaps if they had had East Freo councillors talk on their behalf or an ex-Freo councillor on their side, could it have changed the result? So it brings me back to the 4 points of good governance mentioned above, did both groups get the same fair go?

Refer to the written submissions for and against the rezoning of Burt St, submitted to council, 2 private citizens for, 47 against, is the outcome fair representation?

6a54e6b6-d70b-11e2-93ec-5c5ae0a9c884_IMG_0002--646x215

We saw this in 2029 report, $90,000+ for we know best?

Comment to Roel Blog post RESIDENTS’ TSUNAMI AT FREMANTLE COUNCIL

Berlin-Tempelhof_Dorfkirche_vor_dem_Klarensee_im_Alten_Park

Roel link

The residents around Burt Street would feel less than happy with Council approving the Department of Housing development there that will have considerable parking, traffic and social impact on the area. Councillor Bill Massie was on the side of the residents, saying that it needs a lesser scale development and that Council should listen to the community on this, while Councillor Sam Wainwright said it would be a Berlin-style development that would be o.k. as long as traffic management considered bicycle and pedestrian priorities.”

 

 

Good to see council Massie has a better understanding, than most of the representation we see.

Strange a councillor would mention Berlin in this discussion, as just recently a resident group led a battle against government plans to build high density developments on the old Tempelhofer Park (airport) the residents being victorious in their kämpfen (struggle). This was done by a similar polling system to our current amalgamation process, petition with signatures, to call for a poll, the polling giving electors their voice.

I find it quite amusing to hear our council complaining about their wants from state and not being heard, “bit like kettle calling the pot black” don’t u think?

Berlin is an example of where the resident’s voice was heard and acted upon by government saving the old closed Berlin airport from inappropriate development, now planned to continue being used as a park  with many activities for locals and tourists alike. The local residents feared the outcome of another high density development, rightly so with issues it has brought in the past. Perhaps why Berlin keeps such a high open public/green space ratio unlike our own cities dismal 202020 report.

As mentioning Berlins high density also comes its huge crime rate and social issues being more than double that of places like Munich in the south. Which has far less gang, drug, violent crime and dense living or high rises.

No Representation for Burt St, What’s New?

1560393_594400603992912_1101543101530769146_n

Fremantle, City Council kicked off 2015 , showing what representation means in Fremantle,  Bugger All.

After looking over public submissions they are massively against the proposed zoning at  R-160, did that sway council 1st night of vote for 2015?, at 4 councillors for R-160 and 2 against, I guess not?

So we will wait to see at full council, what ward representation means to COF elected members. Be interesting to hear Brads comments on the situation

This development will be over 30M high, towering over the arts centre.

Will have approx 290 apartments.

Approx 900 people, to this tiny block.

Does this represent the best interest of the electors in the Burt St area, or is more in the ideological interests of council? Support

Is anywhere in Fremantle safe, from council ideology, could your suburb be next, would u be happy to have a 30+M high building across your home, some 900 people added to a block near u?

We often hear the term nimby (not in my back yard) well now days it could be any of us.

3 yrs ago would White Gum Valley residents expect council to approve 100 + trees to be cut down on 1 block. 150 + residents put in submissions against it did it help, not likely

3 yrs ago would Fremantle residents have believed that council would approve tonnes of concrete to be poured into a park in Fremantle, well it happened.

3 yrs ago would they expect council to vote for allowing a booze barn to be set up on a A-class and fence it in, well it happened.

3 yrs ago would people in North Fremantle expect council to be talking up a 40M+ building in McCabe st, well its happening.

3 yrs ago would Freo Residents in Outer suburbs have expected council to be proposing parking limits of hours in front of their homes for street parking, well its happening.

3 yrs ago would residents of Burt St have expected council to drive R-160 in Burt St, with 47 strong worded public submissions against the proposal well u guessed its happening, anyway

What we would expect is bugger all parking for this development, and u guess it, bugger all, is what we got,  just as well we have a Ward system to ensure our views are represented by our elected members, yes u guessed it representation, we get/got bugger all of that too.

A piece on it by the Herald

 

 

1st night of council @ Freo 4 2015

burt st 2 google earth

32°02’46.09″ S 115°45’24.28″ E google earth

Well council kicked off 2015 tonight with Planning Services committee.

All were onboard, we heard that Brad is on Holidays.

So while we are into  a new year the issues the residents are taking/complaining  to council are still the same.

Tonight there where residents amenity,  traffic, density, R- Rating being set to high (seriously from R-25 to R160 that’s a hell of a jump for across the road), open space,  loss of tree canopy a few others and finally u guessed it, PARKING.

It makes u question the lifestyle u buy into  today with  a stroke of the your quite urban heritage style street precinct could get a R-160 zoning in a quiet place like that of Burt st, Vale St, and Skinner st, just NE of the arts centre, west of East st (Google Map). Can u imagine some 900 people being added to that little area.

Tonight this group of residents brought up the issue of representation and were is theirs,  53 public submissions on the issue 47 against the proposal.

Seems strange to have such a massive density in an area with plenty of physical challenges, some issues raised in the submissions and by residents talking to night.

  • Limited infrastructure
  • Train station 2 kms away, unusual for such high density planning, strange choice for a new social housing development
  • Limited road size and ability for such heavy traffic
  • Narrow roads and footpaths
  • Limited access to bus routes
  • No shops
  • Small footpaths
  • Massive R-160 increase
  • Not greenfield but infill
  • Limited or no parking, the area already has a massive parking issue
  • Steep hills
  • How much open public space will there be
  • Impact on amenity of the local residents some have been there for 50yrs
  • Lack of primary school access
  • Lack of community services
  • Destruction of heritage value in the area
  • Petty crime is already and issue

I could go on but u get the idea, as i will try and keep this brief.

So allot of angry people there tonight.

It will be interesting to see were this issue finally comes out.

In general their seemed to be an issue of moving things or items along tonight, not in a meeting sense but that the fact that several councillors made mention of the looming date of 1st of July 2015, the day proposed for commissioners to take the helm of our city for a yet to be undetermined time. So it looks like council will be trying to push through as much as they can to leave their mark on our city before C-Day. Lets hope these issues are all in the best interest of the residents and rate payers.

Lets hope for 2015 we get an independent commissioner, and a October 2015  local government election. Giving the electors of Fremantle the best democratic outcome.

%d bloggers like this: