It has been suggested by some that council does not care what happens to the Willow court site, nothing could be further from the truth, the issue of protecting Willow court from the vandalism that has and is occurring is not a simple one.
I cannot speak for other councillors but I will give my reasons for not supporting the motion. I don’t believe that spending more money on fencing will do what needs to be done; it is my belief that council must engage the services of a security specialist to advise council on the most effective ways to protect the site. It is no good to spend large amounts of money on a measure that by the opinion of same may have little or no effect. Fencing may well be one of the measures required but none of the councillors has the expertise to offer that advice. Too often we jump in and make a decision based on emotion, we need to find out the right way to go and then get on with it.
I was one of the councillors on the working group formed to undertake a review of the committee system; the working group was made up of five councillors and also council staff. During that review we asked that councillors send us their ideas and views, we received only one submission. That submission was included in our recommendation put to council. The main reason for holding part of council workshops is to give councillors a forum in which to raise issues or grievances, it has been portrayed by some that the closed sessions are somehow set up to deceive the public, this is simply not true.
Finally let me say I respect every person’s right to their opinion, what I don’t respect is when people start to use derogatory terms to deride and belittle another because their opinion doesn’t mirror their own, be as strong as you like but keep it nice.
Councillor Chris Lester
Mr Lester is to be commended for this public communication, for a fairly sensible decision (don't just spend buckets of money, get expertise to find out the most effective way to spend) and for the timely call for less public villification of councillors.
ReplyDeleteIt could be argued that council should have sought expert security advice long ago, but not being privy to the facts, I can't judge. However it seems to me to be an obvious next step.
At least he's saying something. Some of the others are being ominously quiet.
ReplyDeleteAs a ratepayer in New Norfolk, I say it's time for action, NOT more words!
Delete*Taps fingers on table whilst waiting!*
Well good on Councillor Lester for actually telling people the reasons for his voting decision - people can choose whether to agree or disagree of course and yes, name calling is totally inappropriate. However, it appears that all this is new to Cr Lester but the ratepayers have been waiting for 11 years to have some action on Willow Court and surrounds, so surely he can understand the total frustration by many. As far as the committee system 'review' is concerned, why weren't the ratepayers asked? I personally would like to see a planning committee etc etc as many other councils have. Were'workshops' actually on the agenda for the review? There is no doubt that these should always be open, councillors can have closed or special meetings for them to discuss issues which might be 'sensitive' or 'commercial in confidence' but the ratepayers have a completely unfair limited question time at the beginning of monthly council meetings so don't shut people out Cr Lester (and the others who supported such a stifling motion!)
DeleteObserver
Ominously quiet is correct!
DeleteCorrect me if I am wrong, but for how long have the Ratepayers been paying for the Temp fence around the privately owned Admin Building??? The silence is deafening!!!
DeleteDevil's Advocate - I thought it was council's idea to have the fence around the admin building and that the ratepayer was paying for it? I too am open for correction.
DeleteFair Go
Devils Advocate - would you get in touch via newnorfolknews@gmail.com please?
DeleteCouncillor Lester, the problem is that communication from the council to the residents is extremely poor. In such a vacuum, people will draw their own conclusions.
ReplyDeleteClosed council sessions should be the rare exception, not the norm. As a resident, it seems that there are too many of these, and doing things like closing workshops to the public and councillors making derogatory comments about the the presence of the public only reinforces the negative view that public has.
The council has handled the Willow Court situation poorly for far too long, and has been less than open about it. What you are seeing now is the result of that course. You cannot expect people continue to remain silent about this. Recent events (fires, etc) followed by a breathtakingly negative comment by the Mayor has triggered the comments that you see. While they may be intemperate, they simply reflect the frustration residents feel about the lack of action.
You mention that fencing might not be appropriate. Fine, but the way to handle this is not to kill the idea without putting forward a replacement. You then say that hiring a security expert to assess the situation would be the correct course. The problem is that the council doesn't do that. It simply kills ideas but does not act to implement a suitable alternative.
This results in inaction and, frankly, it appears that residents have had enough of this. The DVC has an uphill battle to regain resident trust. Perhaps the recent fire in town is a chance for the council to show leadership. I really hope this may be the case, but I really fear that it will not.
I think one thing that is frustrating is that the Council (as an entity, irrespective of who has held the helm over the years) has failed to act and there may be a perception that there's always another reason to stall taking action. Sometimes, it is better to be seen to be doing something ... fences at least show we (the community, as represented by Council) do care about Willow Court. While we should always ensure we spend money wisely, this is true and noble, how then does Council justify formerly spending $4,000 per WEEK on ineffectual security? How is it that Council is paying for temporary fencing around Willow Court assets it does not own?
ReplyDeleteOn the matter of security, I understand that the task of getting quotes was to be undertaken by a now Councillor while a member of the Willow Court Committee ...
Further, CCTV is pointless for Willow Court, as more recent enquiries of security companies (such as Chubb and the company that does MONA) have explained. There is not much value in a grainy image of someone in a hoody.
It just seems to me that for over a decade there's been a lot of talk, reviews, reports and paper shuffling but nothing concrete or tangible has been done.
This gets laid at the feet of "Council" ... the entity. How long can Council honestly maintain that "the issue of protecting Willow court from the vandalism that has and is occurring is not a simple one" - Council has had over 10 years to work it out.
Another couple of points re Willow Court.
ReplyDeleteOne thing Council could have done over the last 10 years is actually ensured power supply to the site. This is time and time again a stumbling block for progressing security and other things which might be done about the place.
We can't afford for very new Councillor to turn around and say "hey, not my fault" or "we need more reports, reviews" etc ... otherwise we're back to square 1 every cple of years. The Council has to agree a plan and that has to be accepted as "Council's" plan ... ie, not one that can be changed every time a new Councillor comes on board with different views on the site.
This is why I advocate handing the operation of Willow Court to a separate entity with a board (not a Valley Vision model but one along the lines proposed in the Macdonald Report).
Come on council, let this CBD fire be a blessing in disguise! Now is the time to show leadership and restore our faith. Get these affected businesses back up and running, we have a few empty shops. Make it happen!
ReplyDelete