Our local Councils are where it's all happening. South Perth and Melville are building ideas towards the future with their work on Canning Bridge precinct and many other issues. Several thousand people have attended workshops, information sessions and gatherings in the park, about Our Vision Ahead 2030 and about Canning Bridge precinct. Local people have been having their say about a plan for South Perth in 2030, about Canning Bridge and about what sort of city we dream of. The effect of this is that new ideas and vision are being put together with everyone’s involvement- the essence of Participatory Democracy.
Swan Federal Liberal MP Steve Irons this week spoke for an extended time in the House of Representatives in Canberra, bagging our consultative process, our public meetings in general and my blogs in particular. Why run down our City? Surely this is not a political issue, an arena for scoring points. We’re working for our future; the support of our Parliamentary representatives will go far to helping us progress towards our shared vision.
Federal Government is so far away they rarely listen to us at all. State Government has been an inspiration- free zone for many years, so public consultation has been totally unnecessary for them anyway. In Council we do it all the time- in deputations and workshops, in blog comments, at meetings in the park and on the street. C’mon Steve Irons, and John McGrath, you can be part of this too.
This process is exciting. Of course, not everyone goes away happy, especially when a majority opinion differs from their own, but everyone is certainly heard. Sometimes the language and emotion get a bit spicy too. Local Government and community is where dreams for the future of Australia are born. Here people are demonstrating inspiration and courage, essential ingredients of vision.
Can we hear from you too? Feel free to click on “Comments” below.
13 comments:
Pete
you mention democracy in your blog yet you approve comments made about your own statements. Steve Irons was spot on with his comments in parliament - what makes you think the majority of people want the vision as proposed- are you ignoring the fact that the vast majority of submissions sent to WAPC were opposed to the vision - stop assuming we are stupid Pete.
Well said Cr Best!
What can you expect from a second rate footballer (that was his great claim to fame in his electioneering material)representing a third rate party; and I think Mr McGrath is more interested in following his geegees than what his electorate want - well if you are in a blue ribbon seat of course you can just coast to your lovely taxpayer supplied pension for life without a care for public opinion, can't you? Show up the odd occasion for a bit of profile and put your hand out just for turning up in parliament.
Never mind, although not always in agreement with you, I know that, unlike your Liberal state and federal counterparts, you really sincerely do have the best interests of the local community at heart, and in that context you will always be supported.
Worry not what the local lightweight Libs sprout - no one really takes them seriously - keep up the good work ensuring the consultative and inclusive approach continues so the actual community get a chance to make input into their collective futures; instead of the Irons/McGrath bulldozer approach of presenting as a fait accompli.... like it or lump it! Or just not presenting anything at all - just taking the money they don't earn!
Well said Cr Best!
What can you expect from a second rate footballer (that was his great claim to fame in his electioneering material)representing a third rate party; and I think Mr McGrath is more interested in following his geegees than what his electorate want - well if you are in a blue ribbon seat of course you can just coast to your lovely taxpayer supplied pension for life without a care for public opinion, can't you? Show up the odd occasion for a bit of profile and put your hand out just for turning up in parliament.
Never mind, although not always in agreement with you, I know that, unlike your Liberal state and federal counterparts, you really sincerely do have the best interests of the local community at heart, and in that context you will always be supported.
Worry not what the local lightweight Libs sprout - no one really takes them seriously - keep up the good work ensuring the consultative and inclusive approach continues so the actual community get a chance to make input into their collective futures; instead of the Irons/McGrath bulldozer approach of presenting as a fait accompli.... like it or lump it! Or just not presenting anything at all - just taking the money they don't earn!
Pete
In Table 1 of GHD's Report on Submissions for the Canning Bridge Precinct Vision, 225 OPPOSED the high density development proposed in the vision and only 19 supported it. In other words, 92% OPPOSED. And yet both the CoSP and the CoM endorsed the vision with only the minor change of adding a height limit of 20 storeys to a portion of Melville. The first draft had no height limit for this area. Please explain how so blatantly ignoring the feedback from the consultation process can be "the essence of Participatory Democracy"? It sounds more like local government steamrolling over the wishes of the local residents. Peter, you should be ashamed of yourself for not having the COURAGE to support the overwhelming majority even if YOU didn't agree with them. That is what you are elected to do.
Pete
For goodness sake turn up your hearing aid 'cause what you think you're hearing ain't what's being said.
We also agree consultation with the locals has to be real consultation. We should not have the State Planning Commission bulldozing their whims on us. We dont want another 15,000 new residents in S Perth. We dont want our city ruined with more high density housing and through traffic on our few remaining quiet roads.
Whats this nonsense about turning Jackson Road into a main highway for Curtin students. Keep the traffic on the existing main roads like Manning, Douglas and Kent St. You and Cr Cala seem to be the only Councillors who are listening to the residents.
Very well said Besty, what you're doing and suggesting/proposing is a wonderful idea and initiative for a region that sorely needs this sort of development!
In Table 1 of GHD's Report on Submissions for the Canning Bridge Precinct Vision, 225 OPPOSED the high density development proposed in the vision and only 19 supported it. In other words, 92% OPPOSED. And yet both the CoSP and the CoM endorsed the vision with only the minor change of adding a height limit of 20 storeys to a portion of Melville. The first draft had no height limit for this area. Please explain how so blatantly ignoring the feedback from the consultation process can be "the essence of Participatory Democracy"? It sounds more like local government steamrolling over the wishes of the local residents. Peter, you should be ashamed of yourself for not having the courage to support the overwhelming majority even if YOU didn't agree with them. That is what you are elected to do.
So what is Steve Irons' problem? Local Govt is required to be more interactive and inclusive with the community, and that is exactly what you are doing .... me also .... and no doubt many other councillors and councils.
There is a push by some for recognition of LG in the Federal Constitution as a way of guaranteeing Federal cashflow direct to councils. Is this his
problem? Is he trying to run an argument that LG has to disappear.
I appreciate that everyone has their own point of view, but I cannot fathom the logic of the small minority who support what Cr Best is advocating. For an elected representative to go against such a vast majority is untenable. I find it amusing that people are too afraid to put there name to their comments. I also find it amusing that Pete Best condemns my local pollie Steve Irons for his stance on the consultation phase with this issue, and then disregards over 75% of the stakeholders involved. Did someone say consummate hypocrite? It will be a sad day for the people of the South Perth/Manning area if you are ever elected into a position of more serious power.
Steve Irons and John McGrath have both been working towards a solution. Steve Irons presentation called for a solution that meets the needs of the local community whilst achieving other policy objectives. The Council have advocated that this is what they are about as well and one would have to assume that this is so but it is hard not to be cynical in this current name calling environment where community input is not reflected in current plans.
Providing for population increases and the need for more housing whilst ensuring affordability in a sustainable manner is a great concept (although somewhat motherhood). This however does not place responsibility on one section of the community to a greater extent than others. That is to say, we are currently not sustainable in practices throughout urban areas. There are many ways that we can improve (identifying individual sites which would faciliate a coordinated higher density approach for example(Mt Henry Tavern, Old Telecom, road reservations along Canning Highway)and increasing base densities throughout South Perth, ie Kensington being R20/40 (with associated performance criteria)instead of R15 - all communities are therefore responsible instead of concentrating development in one location). It is hard not to be cynical when the current vision allows for four storey development across the road, in the next street block west, 6 and 10 storeys. In adjoining street blocks (south and north), 4, 6,10 storeys are all advocated, yet for my house and my immediate neighbours we will not be able to do anything more than what currently can happen . Others are likely to have a bus ramp in their local street and an elevated bus terminus in front between them and the river (great way to protect riverine environment!). In Henley/Jackson Ave roads are to be opened up for through traffic (bus particularly) through to Curtin University. It is easy to sit back and say that we support the vision, particularly where it does not directly impact on you or your lifestyle. To preach that we need to look to the future. But in circumstances where your residential amenity is to be impeded, the character lost, traffic congestion and pollution excessive, where your home (often your only investment) will be devalued it is harder to offer support. To suggest NIMBYism is to suggest that one should not stand up for what they own or preceive value in. To sit in Kensington or middle South Perth and say we as residents support the vision really just smacks of something akin to "in your backyard not mine". Groups active in the community wish nothing more than to be able to supports development and traffic solutions that does not destroy amenity of our local neighbourhoods. These members wish to remain in the local community, not realise increased property values,sell up and move on. It is time that we worked together (we now have federal, state and local political interest in the project!), that we are not preached at nor ridiculed for having a say, and that in return we are listened to and it is not the case of "mother knows best!" (or I'm the expert and your oppostion is just because you do not understand or are not educated in these matters).
Planners are forward thinkers, but they should not forget to look backwards and study the lessons learned in the past! At the moment the combined state/local government approach to the future planning of this area reminds me of the days of WA Inc.
Steve Irons and John McGrath have both been working towards a solution. Steve Irons presentation called for a solution that meets the needs of the local community whilst achieving other policy objectives. The Council have advocated that this is what they are about as well and one would have to assume that this is so but it is hard not to be cynical in this current name calling environment where community input is not reflected in current plans.
Providing for population increases and the need for more housing whilst ensuring affordability in a sustainable manner is a great concept (although somewhat motherhood). This however does not place responsibility on one section of the community to a greater extent than others. That is to say, we are currently not sustainable in practices throughout urban areas. There are many ways that we can improve (identifying individual sites which would faciliate a coordinated higher density approach for example(Mt Henry Tavern, Old Telecom, road reservations along Canning Highway)and increasing base densities throughout South Perth, ie Kensington being R20/40 (with associated performance criteria)instead of R15 - all communities are therefore responsible instead of concentrating development in one location).
It is easy to sit back and say that we support the vision, particularly where it does not directly impact on you or your lifestyle. To preach that we need to look to the future. But in circumstances where your residential amenity is to be impeded, the character lost, traffic congestion and pollution excessive, where your home (often your only investment) will be devalued it is harder to offer support. To suggest NIMBYism is to suggest that one should not stand up for what they own or preceive value in. To sit in Kensington or middle South Perth and say we as residents support the vision really just smacks of something akin to "in your backyard not mine".
Groups currently active in the community wish nothing more than to be able to supports development and traffic solutions that does not destroy amenity of our local neighbourhoods. These members wish to remain in the local community, not realise increased property values,sell up and move on.
It is time that we worked together (we now have federal, state and local political interest in the project!), that we are not preached at nor ridiculed for having a say, and that in return we are listened to and it is not the case of "mother knows best!" (or I'm the expert and your oppostion is just because you do not understand or are not educated in these matters).
Planners are forward thinkers, but they should not forget to look backwards and study the lessons learned in the past! At the moment the combined state/local government approach to the future planning of this area reminds me of the days of WA Inc.
As a recent participant in the debate over the Canning Bridge Vision, I have been amazed by the vocal, but very small, anti-change group. Certainly, voicing concerns over proposals in the democratic system is important; yet the derision and misrepresentation of the consultation process is not warranted. It has now reached the rather ridiculous point of the Federal Member for Swan, Steve Irons, speaking in Parliament about the Canning Bridge Vision and making bold, and potentially misleading, comments about the consultation process.
While I am personally in favour of the Canning Bridge Vision, I recognise that there is a group which is against this idea. This is a healthy part of the democratic process which should be encouraged.
What I object to are comments such as those made by Steve Irons MP stating that there is “almost unanimous opposition” to the Canning Bridge Vision. In fact, a large number of residents are not only in favour of this proposal but warmly welcome it. As an example of this, with Jessica Strutt, I spoke in favour of the concept to the City of South Perth Council.
Aside from myself and Jessica Strutt, there is a large and silent majority in favour of the concept. This majority is not extremely vocal; however, it supports the Canning Bridge Vision and encourages its implementation.
I would have remained silent, but for some of the misleading statements and criticism I received for simply speaking my mind on an issue that impacted where I live. In this discussion, it would be good to have some perspective on what constitutes the majority and also what marks unanimous opposition.
Post a Comment