As Chair of the Vincent Universal Access Advisory Group (UAAG), one of my great pleasures is to be part of the Vincent Improved Access Awards, which were presented on the International Day of People with a disAbility (3 December). This year, the Awards of Excellence went to:
- Hawaiian Group/The Mezz shopping centre redevelopment
- The Brisbane Hotel
- Workability "Life Works Programme"
- ASeTTS (Assisting Torture and Trauma Survivors)
- Carers WA
- Kieran McDonald
- School of Isolated and Distance Eduction
The All Seasons Hotel (formerly the Acacia) received a Certificate of Commendation. The UAAG was able to suggest some improvements that would further enhance the accessibility of this venue.
You can see more about these worthy winners in the Perth Voice of 22 December - or click on the image at the right. The diversity of recipients shows just how broad the concept of access and inclusion is.
This year, I had the added pleasure of nominating, on behalf of the UAAG, Elizabeth Scott, the Town's Manager, Library Services, as Employee of the Month for December. This was in recognition of her (and her staff's) role in supporting Kieran McDonald through a traineeship in the Vincent Library. The School of Isolated and Distance Education won a Vincent Access Award for its support of Kieran and it is highly appropriate that we also acknowledge Elizabeth for her role.
And the future is in good hands as well. On 12 December, I represented the Mayor at Highgate Primary School to present the Town of Vincent Student Citizenship Awards. I also attended the presentation at Sacred Heart Primary School, but as a grandparent. Every year, I am amazed at the extent to which the award winners are involved in their school communities and in activities beyond their schools.
If you want to contact me, my e-mail is still ian_ker@hotmail.com or post a comment on this blog.
To post a comment on this blog, select the individual post on which you wish to comment, by clicking on the title in the post or in the list to the left of the blog, and scroll down to the 'Post a Comment' box at the foot.
Search This Blog
Monday, December 24, 2007
Saturday, December 8, 2007
Bottled Water and Serendipity
I have been concerned for some time about Council's use of bottled water at Council meetings when we had perfectly good drinking water on-tap. We should be celebrating the fact that we have quality drinking water available on tap, when over one billion men, women, and children (more than fifty times the population of the Australia) do not have safe water to drink and therefore cannot live a healthy life (World Health Organisation).
I was thinking about how best to write a Notice of Motion for Council to remove bottled water from Council meetings and other functions, when an e-mail from the Earth Policy Institute popped up and made it easy for me. Not only did it provide much of the information I needed, it also alerted me to a similar motion that will be considered by the City of Manly (NSW) Council on 10 December.
I will be moving the following motion at the Council Meeting of 18 December 2007.
That the Town of Vincent:
(a) in line with the recent decisions by many US cities, the New South Wales Department of Environment and Climate Change, the City of Manly (NSW) and the NSW Local Government Association, ceases to purchase single-serve bottles of water on environmental grounds; and
(b) investigates the feasibility of
(i) installing more public drinking fountains in town centres, parks and recreation reserves and other public places; and
(ii) following the example of the City of Cologne (Germany) in providing temporary water stations at Town of Vincent-supported outdoor functions (such as the Hyde Park Fair, Leederville Street Festival and Concerts in the Park)
with a report to be considered by Council in February 2008.
Bottled water
According to the Earth Policy Institute, each plastic bottle used for water requires the equivalent of nearly one-tenth of a litre of crude oil. In addition, pumping, processing, transportation and refrigeration require up to a further 0.2 litre. That's nearly one-third of a litre of oil in total in every bottle of water.
To put this in perspective, a litre of crude oil produces just under half a litre of petrol. A typical Town of Vincent Council meeting (with nine elected members and four Executive staff) uses 1.5 litres of petrol to provide drinking water that could come straight out of the tap at less than 1% of the financial cost.
Over a full year (say, 22 Ordinary meetings, 11 briefings, 6 Special Meetings), that’s 60 litres of petrol (125 litres of crude oil).
Temporary water stations
The importance of regular water intake in hot weather (as well as at other times) is a common health message. Many of the Town-supported outdoor functions are in the hot Summer months.
When I was in Cologne in June this year, those who attended a week-long festival in the central city were provided with opportunities to obtain drinking water, where there would have been no justification for permanent facilities.
These could also be used to provide water for dogs brought to the function.
I was thinking about how best to write a Notice of Motion for Council to remove bottled water from Council meetings and other functions, when an e-mail from the Earth Policy Institute popped up and made it easy for me. Not only did it provide much of the information I needed, it also alerted me to a similar motion that will be considered by the City of Manly (NSW) Council on 10 December.
I will be moving the following motion at the Council Meeting of 18 December 2007.
That the Town of Vincent:
(a) in line with the recent decisions by many US cities, the New South Wales Department of Environment and Climate Change, the City of Manly (NSW) and the NSW Local Government Association, ceases to purchase single-serve bottles of water on environmental grounds; and
(b) investigates the feasibility of
(i) installing more public drinking fountains in town centres, parks and recreation reserves and other public places; and
(ii) following the example of the City of Cologne (Germany) in providing temporary water stations at Town of Vincent-supported outdoor functions (such as the Hyde Park Fair, Leederville Street Festival and Concerts in the Park)
with a report to be considered by Council in February 2008.
Bottled water
According to the Earth Policy Institute, each plastic bottle used for water requires the equivalent of nearly one-tenth of a litre of crude oil. In addition, pumping, processing, transportation and refrigeration require up to a further 0.2 litre. That's nearly one-third of a litre of oil in total in every bottle of water.
To put this in perspective, a litre of crude oil produces just under half a litre of petrol. A typical Town of Vincent Council meeting (with nine elected members and four Executive staff) uses 1.5 litres of petrol to provide drinking water that could come straight out of the tap at less than 1% of the financial cost.
Over a full year (say, 22 Ordinary meetings, 11 briefings, 6 Special Meetings), that’s 60 litres of petrol (125 litres of crude oil).
Temporary water stations
The importance of regular water intake in hot weather (as well as at other times) is a common health message. Many of the Town-supported outdoor functions are in the hot Summer months.
When I was in Cologne in June this year, those who attended a week-long festival in the central city were provided with opportunities to obtain drinking water, where there would have been no justification for permanent facilities.
These could also be used to provide water for dogs brought to the function.
Monday, December 3, 2007
Stadium a Risk - but for whom?
Compare the scale and impact of the proposed stadium with Members Equity Stadium
(top right) and the dominance over the adjoining residential area.
An item in this week's Sunday Times raised the spectre of the proposed multi-purpose stadium costing more than $1 billion - that's a lot of money for something that would only be fully-used for one day a week during the AFL season. More to the point, that's a lot of prime inner urban land that would be sterilised and would have to be shut off at other times (with all the community safety and security problems that entails). A dead spot in the inner city is hardly in keeping with the much-vaunted principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design(top right) and the dominance over the adjoining residential area.
From the point of view of the long-standing residents of the Banks Precinct, a stadium on the East Perth power station site would mean a lot of grief whenever the stadium was in use (as well as being exposed to security problems when it wasn't in use!). The Langoulant Taskforce has not properly addressed the question of how to get up to 60,000 people to and from events at the stadium without the Banks Precinct basically becoming a parking lot. The only upside would be that the Town of Vincent could reduce the residential property rate on the back of the parking fine revenue - but that would be cold comfort to the local residents.
When representatives of the Langoulant Taskforce (eventually) came to address the Banks Precinct Group, two things stood out.
One was that, whilst they had lots of examples of new and redeveloped stadia being 'welcomed' by the local community, not one of them involved a community that had not previously had a stadium in its midst. Every example was either a redevelopment on the site of an old and tired stadium or a replacement on a nearby site, with the old site being used for new housing and other facilities. Not surprising that the community saw the replacement as an improvement.
Did someone say that sounds like Subiaco?
The second was they had apparently not considered that the absence of hospitality businesses in the immediate vicinity of the East Perth site, would mean that people would all arrive and depart in a very short window of time. Subiaco, on the other hand, has a large number of cafes, restaurants and licensed premises within easy walking distance, so at least some people come early and/or leave late - and there is a substantial economic benefit to the area. Where would that benefit be for the East Perth site?
And then there is the fairness argument. The people of the Banks Precinct chose to live there because of its high level of amenity, despite (or perhaps because of) its being somewhat cut off from surrounding areas. As inner urban residents, they accept the need for higher residential density, consistent with maintaining the amenity of the area, but a 60,000 seat stadium would be a whole new ball game (pun intended). The Town of Vincent would not be able to approve a major non-conforming use on residential land - indeed it has a policy to remove or reduce the impact of non-conforming uses. This land might not be formally zoned residential, but that was clearly EPRA's intention before the Stadium proposal came on the scene, and it is the adjacent residential area that would suffer the greatest impacts.
Stay tuned - it isn't yet time to be making plans for lying down in front of the bulldozers, but it could come to that if Langoulant has his way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)