King concerns | Fremantle Herald Interactive

King concerns | Fremantle Herald Interactive.

So we wait to see what Minister Simpson has to say?

Freoviews fremantle-city-to-bail-out-heirloom-project

Hopefully it’s because investors have come to buy up the unsold apartments?

Some of the comments on local blogs have suggested its withdrawal was due to the bad PR or image it’s attracting in the community? If you believe what councillor Sullivan claims it was due to the hard bargain the COF staff were driving, wasn’t quite what the Mayor said that night at council? As he seemed to think that that other buyers wanted to get in at list price? I don’t recall in the agenda seeing any indication of a hard bargain being driven? From what I read, I think it would have been hard for an impartial person to vote for the issue?

It’s interesting that comments in the agenda state that the city is getting a better price than current list prices, if the market is down who pays current list prices anyway? If they haven’t sold enough apartments after 3yrs to activate their finances, then that’s the market telling you they are possibly overpriced, isn’t it? I recently heard a real-estate agent state, there isn’t any problem in real estate that the price can’t fix!

Given the Mayors statement in council and Councillors Sullivans, that the city drove to hard a bargain, it would be interesting to see what deal the City was offered by Heirloom and if any, what was the COF counter offer, which I don’t recall seeing in the agenda?

It seems that a few responders on the blog did not take to heart Councillor Sullivan’s comments?

The other issue, by the Herald, that of the Councils Kings Sq Business plan being raised in parliament last week,  perhaps the Heirloom deal was withdrawn due to attention that the COF was getting from parliamentary questions?

It will be interesting this week to see if any other media picks up on this issue and where it goes considering the minister, is yet to respond to the questions?

Rate Payer Funded Junkets are not just the Rage in Fremantle?

jet polution

Looks like it’s not just Fremantle councillors who refer to rate payer funded overseas trips as Junkets? A link to a letter from last week.

Quote from herald letter “When Melville councillor Susanne Taylor-Rees mentioned the word “junket” in reference to a similar state government trip to Japan, she was ordered to withdraw the word (despite her reliance on the Oxford dictionary’s definition it is a trip funded at public expense).” A BUNCH of councillors and staff from Melville and Cockburn councils are packing their bags for a 10-day tour of Asia and Europe to study waste-to-energy technology. Just don’t call the $6000 per person mystery trip a junket.”

Another letter this week on the same sort of issues?

Burns me up
ANOTHER incinerator junket trip (Herald, March 21, 2015)?
I am outraged to read that Melville and Cockburn ratepayers will be paying to send delegates around the world to look at more waste to energy incinerators.
The previous state government-organised junket trip was only last year and the premier went the year before that. How many is enough?
The Barnett government is bullying councils to support its expensive dirty waste-to-energy incinerator agenda against the best interests of the community, environment and our children’s health.
WA needs a sustainable zero waste strategy, not dirty energy technologies that emit more greenhouse gases than coal and gas, poison our air with dioxins, heavy metals and nanoparticles and destroy many more long-term jobs that come with composting and recycling.
Residual waste can be treated without incineration but the focus really should be on reducing our waste through better education and better recycling and composting infrastructure.
While some south metro communities face private bin audits, we still do not have public place recycling bins meaning this vast volume of public waste will be used to keep the toxic burners viable.
I wonder if delegates will get to meet affected host communities living close to incinerators. Or speak with the European Union which is moving to decommission incinerators in favour of safe, renewable energy technologies like solar and wind as it moves towards a sustainable circular economy? Our state government is selling our children’s future by pursuing this dirty energy industry, however local governments have the power to stop them. But will they?
Jane Bremmer

I don’t know if I agree with the Barnett government bullying councils our Mayor after his Junket to Japan to check out the incinerator seemed to be in favour of it, he certainly didn’t talk out against the incinerators at the rubbish forum I went to? Strangely it’s all quiet on the rubbish front lately, I still haven’t heard anything about our 3 bin trial Brad spoke about that evening?

On the recycling front Fremantle for a so called progressive council can’t even offer garbage separation bins in the CBD? It’s always the basics?

When I lived in Genève in the early 90’s they had a better rubbish separation program than Fremantle has 25yrs later.


Questions in Parliament on City of Fremantle


On Wednesday questions on notice were given to the Minister for Local Government in parliament, in regards to City of Fremantle’s (COF) Kings Square plan.

I wonder how long to see what response the Ministers office will have?

Interesting timing with last nights withdrawal of the request for the COF to invest in another business venture in the north side of freo, which was well commented on in Roel’s freoview blog post “Fremantle City To Bailout Heirloom Project“?

Here is the link to WA parliaments hansard on the questions.

Question On Notice No. 3834 asked in the Legislative Assembly on 25 March 2015 by Mr P.C. Tinley

Question Directed to the: Minister for Local Government
Question Directed to: Hon A.J. Simpson
Minister responding: Hon A.J. Simpson
Parliament: 39 Session: 1


(1) Is the Minister aware of community concerns over how the City of Fremantle has represented the financial implications of their $45 million investment of ratepayer funds in its Kings Square Business Plan, and if so, what action has the Minister taken to address these concerns?
(2) Has the Minister directed the City of Fremantle to answer legitimate ratepayer questions concerning the Kings Square Business Plan, and if not, why not?
(3) Has the Minister conducted a full and proper investigation into the questions raised with regard to the Kings Square Business Plan:
(a) if so, what were the findings; and
(b) if not, why not?
(4) Is the Minister satisfied that the Kings Square Business Plan:
(a) accurately represents the financial implications that the $45 million project will have on the City of Fremantle’s asset base; and
(b) correctly represents the rate of return and net present value derived from this investment of ratepayer funds?
(5) Is the Minister satisfied that the Kings Square Business Plan contains sufficient detail for ratepayers and Councillors to properly understand whether this project increases or decreases the asset base of the City of Fremantle, and if so, for what reason?

Answered on


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?

Fremantle Council, on the nose over Dunnys

07-8news-1 herald dunny pic

I see in the Chambers Newsletter they have an article or info piece on toilets from the COF and a link to a survey.

So it seems while the City of Fremantle has what you think would a responsibility in managing the city to supply such amenities as basic as public toilets?

In the survey they are trying to gauge the response from business owners/operators to open up their own toilets for public use?

For a city that has some of WA major tourist attractions this is pretty P1ss weak to say the least. You think if you paid rates as a business that these would be basic services a city would provide in at least the CBD?

Back in December 2104 ‘From the Chambers” (gives a new meaning right), the report identified the need I quote to “Provide for high quality public amenities (toilets etc.) that can be integrated with other activity to provide surveillance.

Below are a list of recent toilet comments, petitions, complaints, workshops etc., showing this issue and its neglect by the COF

  • ” June 2104 feedback from the leisure centre shows a need for maintaining toilets cleanliness
  • Arthur head placemaking brought up toilets as in issue in 2013?
  • Article in the gazette, “Public toilet facilities raise a stink
  • Article in the herald,  “BEACH LOO BLUE
  • Article in the herald  “COUNCIL TAKES 4 DAYS TO CLEAR LEIGHTON LOO”
  • Bill Massie has raised the issues of Toilets in the CBD, High St Mall, not being enough, easy to find or being closed, he was scoffed at by fellow Councillors for raising the issue? Funny considering the toilet petition was in their ward?
  • Approx. 4 yrs. ago a 1000 strong petition was reportedly handed to council to fix toilets and upgrade south beach facilities which have been described as 3rd world, still waiting?
  • Point St Car-park toilets have been closed?
  • No proper facilities or changing rooms for parents with babies?
  • In 2011 the International placemaker/vagabond David Engwicht, mentioned the message toilets sent in Kings Sq, about how they looked, I wonder what message it sends when you can’t find any, perhaps it send a message don’t stay to long or we don’t care?
  • They built a skate park for kids to use no toilet facilities, so where do u think the kids go, u guessed it right in the park.
  • Council plan is to give the toilet problem to the local businesses and all the associated problems with it, side note saw a great you tube from CC on this sort of idea last year, its classic?
  • Council made a local business trying to install a toilet, life as hard as possible to do?

Would health inspectors allow businesses to run with toilets in the condition the city maintains theirs?

Is this how the COF activates Fremantle?

What does the city have against toilets is the same as their anti-car campaign, maybe it’s because they use water, is this a new water saving initiative by council, we divest in toilets to save waste??

When a developer needs 3 million $$$ investment to drive their business model no problems, when it comes to years of complaints from ratepayers, residents, visitors, for basic amenity is there any action? Who what us please, no press time there?

We wonder why people are drawn to big shopping centres, a few hints, cleanliness,  safety, little anti-social behaviour, clean safe toilets, parent comfort rooms, no over flowing bins, open shops, oh and plenty of car-parking, perhaps a few pluses in their favour?

It’s the basic’s, always the same, having toilets, maintaining the ones they have, emptying rubbish bins, not photo opportunities I know, but basic to the successful activation of our city, not to mention this is a basic service the aforementioned pay you to do, or not??

The stench of urine is not a plus in the grunge appeal?

%d bloggers like this: