Decision Time

To nominate or not to nominate, that is the question (with apologies to William Shakespeare).

Shakespeare had Hamlet go on to question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles
And by opposing end them.

As a current Councillor for the Town of Vincent, perhaps I'd better not go down that road!

But I have made my decision - and today submitted my nomination for the election to be held on 17 October. And this is the mugshot you will see on the 'candidate information' sheet that comes with your ballot papers - as you can see, 14 years in local government has turned my hair white and I've probably pulled it out in frustration at times.

Each candidate is also allowed up to 150 words to be included in the candidate information you will receive. That isn't very much, but here are mine (actually 149 words):

I am a proud Vincent resident and want you to feel the same. I have lived here for 24 years and been a Councillor for 14 years. I live and work in Vincent, so understand the aspirations of both residents and businesses. My four children attended Sacred Heart Primary School, Highgate, and I was active in keeping the school from closing in 1997. I have chaired the Town’s Local Area Traffic Management and Universal (Disability) Access Advisory Groups since their establishment, developing an inclusive and consultative approach to resolving issues for residents. Vincent is in good shape for the future and I will help ensure this continues - through making our town centres places for people and businesses, improving residential amenity, supporting quality development and working for better public transport to places other than the Perth city centre, including the University of Western Australia, QEII Medical Centre and Subiaco.

You can find more in earlier posts to this blog or you can contact me by e-mail (ian_ker@hotmail.com) or phone (+61 8 9328 8978).

The important decisions are those that are yet to come - the votes of each and every eligible resident, ratepayer and business owner.

I encourage you all to vote in this election.

With the reversion to 'first past the post' voting, each elector in the South Ward has two votes, as there are two positions to be filled.

The Town of Vincent uses postal voting to make it as easy as possible for you to vote. Ballot papers and information on candidates will be mailed out by the WA Electoral Commission from 23 September 2009, so you will have up to three weeks to mail back your completed voting papers, which must reach the Electoral Commission by Saturday 17 October.

If you do leave it late, you can deliver them to the Town of Vincent Civic Centre (cnr Loftus and Vincent Streets, Leederville) up to 6pm on Saturday 17 October.

I hope to be able to continue to serve the Vincent community to the best of my ability after 17 October.

Updates

On 11 August, Council supported the 30km/hr speed limit for Oxford Street but ditched the reduction in pedestrian safety and amenity at the Vincent/Oxford Streets intersection. Further information from Main Roads clarified that whilst it is their intention generally to replace all-pedestrian light phases with so-called parallel walks, they would not be insisting on it for this very busy location.

Common sense wins the day!

And let's hope that there is no further suggestion of removing the pedestrian phases at Beaufort and Walcott Streets or Flinders Street and Scarborough Beach Road.

On 25 August, Council endorsed a proposal and preliminary assessment to be submitted to the WA Planning Commission for the removal of widening reservations on most of Fitzgerald Street (Carr to Walcott Street) and Beaufort Street (Brisbane to Walcott Street). Widening would gut these communities and, given the number and nature of properties involved would never in fact be undertaken. In the meantime, though, the widening reservations restrict development and business opportunities.

As the initiator of this process, I am very pleased at this support from fellow elected members. It is equally gratifying to see the arguments I have mounted over the past couple of years reflected in the WA Planning Commission's Directions 2031: Draft Spatial Framework for the Perth and Peel, so other communities , not just Vincent, will benefit.

On 25 August, Council decided not to proceed with the draft Streetscapes policy, supporting the Town's officers' recommendation, on the grounds that:

(a) the document has been significantly diluted during the community consultation process and has therefore substantially reduced the value of the document to such an extent, whereby it is no longer considered an adequate planning tool;

(b) the diluted document does not offer significant provisions for protecting “recognised streetscapes”, beyond what is already provided in the Town's Policy No. 3.2.1 relating to Residential Design Elements, the Town's Policies relating to Heritage Management and Town Planning Scheme No. 1;

(c) the nomination process for streets to be included into the Draft Policy is fundamentally flawed and is considered too unrealistic to achieve;

(d) the Town’s existing Policy No. 3.2.1 relating to Residential Design Elements, the Town's Policies relating to Heritage Management and the Town Planning Scheme No:1 already provide appropriate control measures for the protection of “recognised streetscapes”; and

(e) the document, if adopted in its current form, has the potential to cause confusion and ambiguity to the community and the Town’s Officers, whilst at the same time unnecessarily complicating the current Development Approval process.

I did not support this rejection, as I believe there is considerable community support for the objectives of the draft streetscape policy. I stated at the meeting that I was extremely concerned that the consultation process had misled residents and ratepayers, as witnessed by the large number of e-mails I received on this matter.

However, clearly Council did not get it right on this occasion, probably because we didn't talk with the community sufficiently. Acknowledging this, I moved a subsequent motion (adopted 7-1) that Council:

(a) ENGAGE with the community to establish views on streetscape management and to
develop appropriate policies to support those views;

(b) REQUESTS the Chief Executive Officer to provide a report to the Council on an
appropriate process and timeline by September 2009; and

(c) REVIEW the format of the consultation letter and guidelines to accurately reflect
how comments are to be considered.

The timeline is important, as local government elections are being held on 17 October (actually, with postal voting in the Town of Vincent, you can vote immediately you receive ballot papers in the mail) and this will enable the new Council to start moving on this without delay.

Give with one hand…take away with the other

There is an item on the Vincent Council agenda for 11 August that seeks to approve a 30km/h speed limit in the Oxford Centre (Leederville). As one who has been pushing for years for slower speeds in our town centres, I support this wholeheartedly.

However, there is a sting in the tail - Main Roads apparently is agreeing to this only with the trade-off that the all-pedestrian phase at the intersection of Oxford and Vincent Streets be replaced by so-called 'parallel walk' phases.

It is nonsensical to implement a 30kph speed limit with the objective of "improving pedestrian safety" and then reduce the opportunities for pedestrians to cross safely and conveniently at the intersection in the heart of the area.

Parallel walk phases are not suitable for, nor are they safe in, places like this, where there are heavy and complex pedestrian movements. Even outside these areas, parallel walks are dangerous in WA as Perth drivers do not give way to pedestrians even when the pedestrians have right of way. Parallel walks add confusion, by having signals facing motor vehicle drivers change to green when the pedestrian is only halfway across the road, usually on a median island, so the car driver might assume that he/she (driver) has right of way.

Personally, I am not even willing to consider parallel walks at Oxford/Vincent (whether 5 or 10sec pedestrian 'advance').

The same applies at Walcott and Beaufort, where I have heard that Main Roads wants to do the same thing. Business people I have talked to in this area do not want to lose the exclusive pedestrian phase - and certainly pedestrians don't! This is the only controlled crossing point of Beaufort Street between Bulwer Street and Central Avenue - a distance of nearly 2.5km!

Presumably Main Roads will also seek to do the same in Mt Hawthorn at the intersection of Flinders Street and Scarborough Beach Road.

THE WA Planning Commission draft Activity Centre policy (Item 9.1.19 on Tuesday's Council agenda) states that "activity centres and management of traffic" should "sustain high levels of pedestrian movement". This proposal would restrict pedestrian access and worsen pedestrian safety.

I recently helped organise, with the support of the Town of Vincent, the 2009 Mainstreet Conference,held in Fremantle. This conference had the theme 'Rediscovering the Heart', reflecting the rediscovery by local communities of the centres that are both physically and socially their real heart. The key to this is people - so why on earth would we make things more difficult for people to move around our town centres on foot?

I will move that we do not support the removal of the pedestrian phase at the Oxford/Vincent Street intersection and also that: The Council opposes any diminution of pedestrian access and safety in its Town Centres through removal of dedicated pedestrian phases at traffic signals.

Looking Around

I do a lot of walking around the Town. One of the benefits of the end of daylight saving is that more of this is done at dusk and in the dark. I know a lot of people don't like this but it does give you a different view of your environs.

I have taken to carrying a camera with me a lot of the time, and thought I'd share a few of my nocturnal observations from the past few weeks. As a Councillor, I'm ineligible for the Town's photographic competition, but I hope this encourages others to look at the potential for night photography.

Musing: Am I AMUSED or BEMUSED?

I find myself amused by the various claims made by the City of Perth and its Councillors for parts of the Town of Vincent.

Fifteen years ago, the City of Perth couldn't wait to be rid of its residential areas - and so the Towns of Vincent, Victoria Park and Cambridge came into being. The City claimed that the residential areas were being heavily subsidised by business in the CBD and that residents were not part of a Capital City (with Capital letters, no doubt).

Well, if there was subsidisation, it must have been very inefficient, for when Vincent was established we found a tale of sorry neglect of infrastructure and services over a long period of time.

Our major roads were seen simply as traffic sewers, to funnel cars and their drivers (very few passengers) into the city. No consideration was given to the business and residential communities that lined these roads nor of providing any visual respite from bitumen through streetscape improvements - with, to be fair, the solitary exception of Scarborough Beach Road, Mt Hawthorn, although even this was to require much more work - and involvement of the business community - before it really started to pay off.

The rear laneways around the Town were in a shocking state, many of them little better than sandpits. And our footpaths were a disgrace. Vincent Council had to establish long-term programs to improve these.

And before anyone takes me to task because their rear laneway is still like that, let me point out that many of these are still privately owned and the Town can only do work on those that it owns. We are progressively buying these laneways - but it takes time.

Our major parks were tired and run down. When I moved to Vincent Street in 1985, the general reaction of friends and colleagues was "why would you want to live there" - Hyde Park was best known for anti-social behaviour rather than being the family place and 'arcadian jewel' that it now is. Robertson Park was no better.

Sporting facilities in the Town were deteriorating. Perth Oval and Leederville Oval were poorly maintained as playing areas and the grandstands desperately need refurbishment. Compare that to today - Members Equity Stadium is the premier rectangular stadium in WA and Leederville Oval (Medibank Stadium) is the WA Football Centre of Excellence and hosts two WAFL teams that have won seven of the past nine premierships.

Other sports have benefited through redevelopment of the Loftus Recreation Centre to include the State Gymnastics Centre (replacing the decrepit Len Fletcher Pavilion that was literally starting to fall down.

So why do City of Perth Councillors want to take back parts of Vincent? Well, putting aside the fact that we were granted part of their territory last year (which is in the area they now seem to want from Vincent), part of the reason is probably pure jealousy of the extent to which Vincent has been able to partner with others and leverage funding to achieve worthwhile community outcomes. Now that we have done so much in this way, the City wants to take it back - to gain the glory without having to do the hard yards along the way.

I suspect they also have more than half an eye on the value of land in Leederville that will bring the private sector into partnership in the exciting redevelopment there - and make Leederville a real competitor to large parts of the CBD. With the railway from Mandurah to Clarkson running through Leederville and all three freeways providing access by car, Leederville is now the most accessible place in the Perth Region - with the possible exception of the core of Perth itself.

I am amused - yes - I am also bemused, that they have so little knowledge of the past that they seek to repeat its mistakes.

The Role of the Independent

Last year I wrote about 'tilting at windmills'.

A recent book, reviewed in the Western Councillor journal, adds another dimension to the value of the 'outsider' in decision-making. This book (Sway:The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behaviour, by Ori and Rom Brafman) talks about how apparently logical thinking in decision-making can be subverted or "swayed" by unseen behavioural forces.

In part, the authors attribute this to what they call the"chameleon effect", in which people are inclined to behave in a way that fits with the opinions or expectations of those around them.

The converse of this, of course, is those who are willing to say when the emperor has no clothes - the dissenter. According to the authors, the dissenter has a very important place in decision-making processes by forcing the majority to refine their positions and raise the quality of their analysis.

Anthony Quahe, Director of Civic Legal, Solicitors, to whom I am indebted for his review of the book, ends his review with the following question:
With such an array of behavioural influences, it would be worthwhile Councils reflecting frequently on the hidden behavioural forces behind (their) decision-making processes.

And, no, I haven't read the book yet - but I do have it on order - watch this space!

Who's the Goose?

Well, it seems I was wrong about the public transport cuts becoming 6% rather than 3% - but the rest of what I said in December last appears to be on the money.

The reported plans to cut public transport services that are ‘used by few commuters’ and to ‘realign services’ to get ‘maximum value for the taxpayer for taxpayer dollar’ (Transport services face cuts, West Australian, Monday 25 May) may make superficial sense but ignore the realities that face an increasing number of people who live in the suburbs of Perth.

Suburban households need more, not less, public transport.

Yes, it will cost money, at least in the short run, but that is a cost we should bear for failing to protect the interests of a large part of the Perth community.

Because public transport does not serve their place of employment, family entertainment outings, higher education or other needs, many outer suburban residents have little choice but to use cars to travel or to do without.

They are caught in the trap of higher fuel prices (as oil production is unable to keep pace with growing global demand), so spend a much larger part of their pay on simply traveling to earn a living.

That income itself is being threatened by the current economic downturn and, for those who do lose their jobs, lack of public transport can prevent their even getting to first base – attending an interview.

It is time that government faced the fact that this situation is the result of continual failures of the planning system in WA to deliver sustainable residential development or employment close to where people live, in the suburbs, in particular.

It has been estimated that every outer suburban residential lot is subsidized to the extent of $85,000. This makes the outer suburbs appear cheap to families, but results in a high cost of transport for those who buy homes on this basis.

The State Government (and its predecessors) is ultimately responsible for the failure of planning that continues to feed the need to travel by car. This system clearly needs to be made more responsive to the long-term needs of the community.

Public transport should not just be about trains and big buses. In many other places, public transport involves small and medium-sized buses, as well as big ones.

Those of us who live in inner areas such as Vincent are lucky, but it’s time to provide all residents of Perth, young and old, with proper access to the good things that the more fortunate among us take for granted.

Time to Revisit Precincts?

The referendum on daylight saving has gone and the results of the previous three referenda confirmed.

[Incidentally, with regard to that other relatively recent referendum, on retail trading hours, anyone who has traveled extensively overseas will know that there are very few places where 24 hour trading is common practice, no matter what the law says. There are places where trading goes on longer into the evening - but even these are remarkably few, except for tourist shops and convenience stores. But that is another story.]

It is, as someone remarked to me on leaving the polling booth, a clear reflection of the fact that if no new arguments or information come to light, then people will continue to vote the same way.

And that got me to thinking of what, as an economist, I really ought to have been more aware all along. That is that people are rational no matter how it might suit politicians to think otherwise. The key is ensuring that they have the necessary information on which to make decisions or, in the case of local government, to influence their elected members.

Vincent established a precint group system early in its life - encouraged by reports of the success of precincts in North Sydney under the tutelage of Ted Mack as Mayor. For a while this worked well, but it has been difficult for those groups to maintain their energy and several of them have folded in recent years.

The reasons for this are not hard to find, the main one being that our precincts are too small. Each precinct in North Sydney had almost as many residents as the whole of the Town of Vincent. So, as the Town matured and the issues that had been neglected by the City of Perth were addressed, there were too few matters of specific concern to any one precinct group - as distinct from important to the Town as a whole.

For issues of importance to the Town as a whole, the precinct system might actually have worked against the original intention of facilitating informed community discussion and input to Council decision-making - something akin to 'divide and rule', perhaps - a fragmented community is unable to present a coherent and consistent point of view.

Sure, on specific issues we consult widely - matters such as the potential redevelopment of Leederville. But on the less tangible topics that are the stuff of policy (and the Town has heaps of policies), we get very litle input from either precinct groups or individual members of the community.

So is it time to revisit the precinct system in Vincent - to revitalise and recreate?

The award-winning Vincent Vision 2024 identified five 'place-based areas'. These were: Mt Hawthorn; North Perth; Leederville; Mt Lawley/Highgate; and Perth. These have also been used as the basis for the Local Planning Strategy, which lays the groundwork for the review of the Town Planning Scheme.

Each of these areas has a 'town centre' and a local community that relates to it. The local residents may patronise local businesses and, in turn, will understand the impacts of those businesses; businesses in those centres would also have a voice that is often missing at present. There is a multi-faceted 'community of interest' that would lend itself to creating an informed community, on the one hand, and provide an effective forum for discussion of important issues affecting the place, on the other hand.

If we are going to plan on the basis of these five areas, let's do the job properly and establish a consultative structure that accords with them - as part of the develoment of the new Town Planning Scheme and as an integral part of its implementation.

If we are going to do this, we must also be prepared to resource those groups so that they can fulfil their role effectively.

We should also look carefully at the potential value of having a 'place manager' for each of these five places - to integrate the planning and delivery of services for each place across the functional boundaries. The business and residential communities would then have a single point of contact with the Town (a portal) rather than having to penetrate the adminstrative structure to work out who best to talk to. The role of 'place manager' is a relatively new one, but we should look to being once again the benchmark rather than a follower.

The Goose Drank Wine?

There is a song from the 1960s which starts: Three, Six, Nine, the goose drank wine. A bit of a nonsense song, really, but harmless.

But when three becomes six, the result can be anything but harmless.

I have heard that the State Government's 3% budget cut across the board will somehow become 6% for public transport and that this will be achieved through severe service reductions after 8pm.

This would effectively mean that anyone without a driver's licence can't go out in the evening unless they live close to a train station (and want to go somewhere that is also close to a train station) or can afford to use a taxi (if they can get one, which is problematic in the evenings, especially Friday and weekends). This would increase the social isolation of disadvantaged groups in the community and those who are unable to or choose not to own or drive a car. This group includes systematic over-representation of women, seniors, people with disabilities and teenagers.

No doubt it will be buried in the overall message - and the Public Transport Authority will be left to make the announcement about service reductions (and take the flack - unfairly).

Perhaps it doesn't actually breach the accessible public transport action plan (which is enforceable through the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and the Federal Court), as the service cuts will apply to everyone without discrimination, but it is certainly not in keeping with the spirit of it. The practical effects of such cuts in services would certainly be discriminatory.

Ironic, really, that the much-vaunted action plan, which was the first substantial public transport action plan accepted by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, was signed by the previous Liberal/National Government in 1996. Now we have its successor seriously considering subverting the spirit, if not the letter, of that agreement - and potentially facing embarrassment in the Federal Court.

Ironic, also, that the new Minister for Transport is also the Minister for Disability Services - and therefore has a dual interest in this matter.

Perhaps someone should remind the Treasurer (and the rest of the bean-counters in the Barnett Government) of the statement that Albert Einstein had on the wall of his office at Princeton University:

Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.

Tilting at the State Administrative Tribunal?

My previous post talked about the value of challenging conventional wisdom ('Tilting at Windmills'). This post revisits that theme in relation to planning and development approvals.

Sometimes, Council is urged not to refuse a development 'because you won't have a chance with any appeal to the State Administrative Tribunal' (SAT). This argument can be superficially persuasive, especially where the Town's planning staff have recommended approval.

However, Vincent has developed a good track record in the SAT in such cases, largely because we take the trouble to present the case properly, rather than imposing on our staff to defend a decision that went against their professional advice and recommendation. Council's practice, which I helped instigate, is to be represented by an independent town planner, an elected member of Council and,if possible, a representative of the affected local community in such cases.

The most recent such case related to 13 Melrose Street and is notable because the SAT upheld every ground on which Council refused the development application. In doing so, it has reinforced and clarified an earlier upholding of a Town of Vincent decision on what constitutes a multiple dwelling. This is important because at certain density zonings, multiple dwellings are allowed a higher dwelling density than would be allowed for grouped dwellings.

The SAT also placed a clear onus on the applicant to justify variations from the requirements of the planning codes and Town of Vincent Policies.

In its decision dated 7 November 2008, the SAT determined:

a) that the proposed development was incorrectly classified as multiple dwellings and should properly be classified as grouped dwellings. Grouped dwellings are not benefited with tge density advantage associated with multiple dwellings in accordance with the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (2008). The Tribunal therefore found that the proposed development exceeded the density of development allowable on the site.

b) that car parking provision was inadequate on site and that a thorough case had not been made to demonstrate the capacity of off-site car parking to augment parking requirements.

c) that although overlooking and privacy issues could be addressed by comprehensive balcony screening, such a measure would be at the expense of the quality and amenity of the development.

d) the Tribunal accepted the Town of Vincent's argument that the development did not display high quality design standards that would allow discretion under the relevant planning policy to grant a reduction of site area per dwelling. Accordingly, additional units should not be accommodated in the development as sought by the applicant.

This last point means that the proposed density could not be supported even if the development were to be classified as multiple dwellings. As the Tribunal accepted the argument that the proposed dwellings should be classified as grouped, not multiples, the proposal for 7 units was almost twice the number of units allowable.

The SAT support of Council's refusal also highlights the importance of having clear and logical policies, consistently applied, for the management of development in the Town. The own's Policy on Single-Bedroom Dweelings was only adopted in April this year (2008). This is probably its most significant test to-date - and it has come through with flying colours. It will continue to do so as long as we use it sensibly and consistently to ensure that such developments are consistent with both the amenity of the locality and the amenity of prospective residents.

Tilting at Windmills?

I recently mentioned a (probably apocryphal) ancient Chinese curse "may you live in interesting times" to a friend, who asked me of its origins. After some research, I'm still not sure, but I was 'interested' to find that Bobby Kennedy had used it in 1966:

There is a Chinese curse which says "May he live in interesting times." Like it or not, we live in interesting times. They are times of danger and uncertainty; but they are also the most creative of any time in the history of mankind. And everyone here will ultimately be judged -- will ultimately judge himself -- on the effort he has contributed to building a new world society and the extent to which his ideals and goals have shaped that effort.

Many might think that recent events in world markets, in climate change and the price of oil (for all that the last has dropped temporarily) mean that we are truly living in interesting times.

But Kennedy was really talking about not letting the magnitude of challenges deterring us from at least trying to make a difference in the world. Too often we are daunted or allow ourselves to succumb to futility, expediency, timidity, and comfort.

First is the danger of futility; the belief there is nothing one man or one woman can do against the enormous array of the world's ills -- against misery, against ignorance, or injustice and violence. Yet many of the world's great movements, of thought and action, have flowed from the work of a single man.

The second danger is that of expediency; of those who say that hopes and beliefs must bend before immediate necessities. Of course if we must act effectively we must deal with the world as it is. We must get things done. But if there was one thing that President Kennedy stood for that touched the most profound feeling of young people across the world, it was the belief that idealism, high aspiration, and deep convictions are not incompatible with the most practical and efficient of programs… It is not realistic or hard-headed to solve problems and take action unguided by ultimate moral aims and values.

A third danger is timidity. Few men are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality for those who seek to change the world which yields most painfully to change.

For the fortunate amongst us, the fourth danger is comfort; the temptation to follow the easy and familiar path of personal ambition and financial success so grandly spread before those who have the privilege of an education.

I'm sure that we have all succumbed to all these at some time in our lives. And when I think about that, I realise that these were the times when I felt bad - about myself, about other people, about the world. These were the times when I wanted credit for what I had done, rather than simply valuing my having achieved something.

I think, then, of the times spent tilting at windmills, attempting the impossible - sometimes simply putting a thought out there in the hope that someone else would pick it up and make it their own. I have lost count of the times this has worked. There is truly nothing as powerful as an idea that someone has been convinced is their own.

I am often reminded of this on Council - but then find myself buoyed by the small achievements. Last week, Council's draft policy on streetscapes appeared doomed by the large number of objections, despite many supporters of the policy not having made written submissions because the consultation document assured them that if they did not make a written submission it would be assumed that they had no objection. In the end, we were able to find a way through that allowed:
(a) the views of the objectors to be recognised,
(b) the draft policy to be improved in response to comments received
(c) those streets where residents were supportive to progress with streetscape protection and
(d) residents of other streets to 'opt-in' later if there was sufficient support in their streets.

My sincere thanks to my fellow Councillors for voting overwhelmingly to support this approach.

Circuses without Bread: 888 must not overshadow 8888

Today is the grand opening of the Olympic Games in Beijing.

Much has been made of China's human poor rights record in relation to the Olympic ideals. Comparisons have even been drawn to the Berlin Olympics of 1936, although most of these are flawed as Berlin was awarded the Games before Adolf Hitler infamously came to power.

The Chinese apparently believe that 8/8/8 is an auspicious date. Perhaps it is.

But for the Burmese people a previous date of eights, 8/8/88, was anything but auspicious. To millions of Burmese, the day will only bring agonizing memories of a defeated uprising for democracy. An estimated 3,000 fell to the bullets of a brutally repressive military regime, as the Burmese people rose in revolt on August 8, 1988, remembered since then as 8.8.88 or simply as 8888. A large number of protesters fled the country, to survive as refugee populations in neighboring countries ranging from Thailand to India. On the 20th anniversary of the uprising, the Beijing pageantry will be blurred for many, many families as they tearfully recall the time they were torn asunder.

The 20th anniversary of 8888 promises only a tough and lengthy struggle for the people of Burma, one in which they cannot hope for real assistance from the world's best-advertised democracies. Whether the very small number of Burmese athletes win medals in Beijing or not, the pro-democracy movement can only look forward to the loneliness of the long-distance runner.

[Thanks to J. Sri Raman for the above information: http://www.truthout.org/article/the-games-they-play-burma]

The spectacle and hype of the Games opening is akin to circuses without the bread for many in the world, not least those who are denied simple human rights and the right to determine their own futures.

Sometimes It's Important to Make a Statement of Principle

In my younger days, I heard the excuse 'but what can one person do' more often than I care to remember. I thought then, and I still do, that it smacked of an abnegation of individual responsibility rather than being an objective statement about reality. If we really believe something, we should be willing to stand up and be counted - and the more of us that do so, the more likely it will be that you will, individually and collectively, make a difference.

Anyone who doubts that should look at the influence that GetUp had on the most recent Federal election.

So - what has this to do with the Town of Vincent?

On Tuesday 22 April, Councillors will be asked to rescind two policies on the basis that what Vincent does or says will make no difference to the bigger picture.

One of these (Policy 4.1.8 - Nuclear Free Zone) is a simple philosophical statement that has little practical application (I doubt there would ever be a proposal to build a nuclear power station in Vincent). It nevertheless has a potentially powerful supporting impact for communities that might be faced with a nuclear power station in their backyard - just imagine if GetUp hadn't been instrumental in getting rid of John Howard!

The other (Policy 1.1.8 - Selective Purchasing - Burma) is definitely of practical - and humanitarian - concern. It might well be the case that, even in the absence of such a policy, the Town of Vincent would not purchase products from Burma - but that isn't the issue. The political situation in Burma hasn't improved since the policy was first adopted in 1999.

The military dictatorship still refuses to transfer power to the rightfully-elected government under the leadership of Aung San Suu Kyi.

The military dictatorship still refuses to restore to Aung San Suu Kyi freedom of movement, freedom of association or freedom of expression.

The military dictatorship still oppresses the Burmese people and denies them basic human rights, that you and I take for granted.

I believe the policy makes a valuable statement and should be retained.

It would make a very unfortunate statement if we were to rescind the policy, as it could be taken to mean that we no longer objected to the Burma military regime and its oppression of the Burmese people. It would be doubly unfortunate to do so when the United Nations has just reiterated its condemnation of the abuse of human rights in Burma:

The UN Human Rights Council on Friday 28 March strongly condemned systematic abuses of human rights in Burma by the Asian nation's military rulers, including the holding of a high number of political prisoners. The 47-nation body also passed a separate resolution extending for another year the mandate of the UN investigator for Burma. The Council expressed "deep concern at the situation of human rights in Myanmar (Burma), including the violent repression of the peaceful demonstrations of September 2007 and the failure of the government of Myanmar (Burma) to investigate and bring to justice the perpetrators of these violations.

Let us not, even inadvertently, give succour or encouragement the perpetrators of this violence against a peaceful people.

You can find these policies on the Town of Vincent website (http://www.vincent.wa.gov.au/2/209/1/policy_manual.pm). Let's hope they are still there after Tuesday's Council meeting.

Where Will They Go To School?

The current debate about relocation of the Margaret Kindergarten has raised a great many questions about the future of inner urban areas and the people who live in them.

Certainly, it makes sense to relocate the kindergarten not only closer to the primary school to which it is attached but also closer to where the parents of the children live. On the other hand, those children and their families also need park space. Whilst each child will spend one year in kindergarten, they will benefit from parkland for many more years.

But the debate has also started to put a spotlight on some of the potential weaknesses of the State Government's push for higher density in inner urban areas.

One of those is that with smaller backyards and more people living in the same area, we will actually need more public open space.

Another is where will the children go to school. For decades, state governments closed inner urban schools. That process has, thankfully, ceased but already the cracks are appearing in the education infrastructure. Look at the primary schools around the Town of Vincent and they are all full and many are over-subscribed.

It is true that family sizes are falling, but there is no guarantee that the number of children in Vincent will not increase. However, it could become a self-fulfilling prophesy - if schools in inner urban areas are inadequate, families with young children will choose not to live in those areas. That would be to the detriment of the diversity that we in Vincent publicly claim to value.

So where is the future planning for the education of our children and grandchildren?

We are told by the Education Department that existing school sites cannot accommodate any more children (hence, the Mt Hawthorn Primary School site cannot accommodate the kindergarten) but equally there are no more school sites planned in the Town. As some people have already said, perhaps we could do with a more innovative approach to school design and architecture to make better use of existing school sites without adversely affecting their amenity and heritage.

The most obvious planned increase in population in Vincent is for the Oxford Centre, Leederville, with the proposed redevelopment of the car parks owned by the Town. This redevelopment will produce some large buildings - perhaps one of these should incorporate a primary school with a play area on the roof. This would provide additional schooling opportunities for the children of parents who work in Leederville (and there will be many more people working in Leederville in the future) and the 'green roof' would provide environmental and energy benefits for occupants of the buildings.

Come to that, we could require green roofs for buildings in the redevelopment - that would also help provide the green open space for residents, workers and visitors.

Residents, Ratepayers and Planning Appeals - Leveling the Playing Field

I have often been asked whether ratepayers or residents have any right to appeal against a planning approval for another property that adversely affects their amenity or lifestyle. The answer is, unfortunately, 'Not in Western Australia', although why WA should be different from other states has not been satisfactorily explained.

The response when the question is raised usually (see, for example, Janet Woollard's question in Parliament in May last year - below) rests on three things:

1) the danger of frivolous or vexatious appeals - which doesn't appear to be a problem elsewhere. Are WA people likely to be more frivolous or vexatious than others? On the basis of my 12 years in local government, I seriously doubt it - and frankly we should be outraged by any such suggestion.

2) the fact that residents and ratepayers may have some rights when an appeal is raised by others. However, this can only be the case when a developer or property owner appeals against a Council refusal or against a condition of approval. In the latter case, the State Administrative Tribunal will only consider the specific condition the local government seeks to apply and which is being appealed, not whether the development should have been approved at all.

3) the democratic process, which means that the community can express a view on the performance of individual councillors by voting or by standing for Council. However, this is no comfort to those who are adversely and irremediably affected by specific development approvals. In any case, not everyone has the time or inclination to be a local government councillor, which requires long term commitment to be effective.

Vincent, in fact, goes further than any other local government, where Council overturns a planning officer recommendation for approval of a development, with our practice of being represented at such appeals by an independent planner, an elected member and one or more members of the local community - not by our planning staff, who would have extreme difficulty defending a decision that was in direct conflict with their professional advice.

However, Council cannot empower local residents/ratepayers to initiate appeals against its decision to approve a development.

Even the 'best' of Councils will occasionally not get it right. Rather than just say that disadvantaged residents or ratepayers can express a view every two years or even phone us to let off steam after the decision, we should have the integrity and courage to allow direct redress - provided there is a reasonable basis for doing so.

The current planning system is biased in favour of the developer (whether an individual or a large-scale company) who can respond to a refusal by either an appeal or resubmitting the application (with or without amendment). The developer only needs to get the answer he/she wants once - other affected property owners need to get that every time.

This imbalance means that Councils should, if anything, err on the side of caution where there is any doubt about whether a development application should be approved. There is a parallel here with the Westminster convention on the use of the casting vote:

In the House of Commons the casting vote is held by the Speaker or the chairman of a committee. The convention is that the Speaker’s casting vote always gives the House another chance to discuss the subject before any final decision is taken.

It's time to level the playing field - and a Private Member's Bill likely to be introduced into the WA Parliament this year aims to do just that.

Third Party Appeal Rights and the WA Parliament

On 17 May, 2007, the Member of Alfred Cove, Dr Janet Woollard asked the Minster for Planning and Infrsatructure:

In Victoria, third party participation in the planning appeal process has been in place since 1963, and the process is not considered frivolous, costly or irrelevant.

(1) Will the minister explain why Western Australia remains the only state in Australia in which, other than when a local council and a developer disagree on a development application, there is no right for a third party to become a party to a state appeal process?

(2) Does the minister agree that members of the community should be given the opportunity to contribute, or object, to planning applications at a tribunal level?

(3) Will the minister ask the State Administrative Tribunal to provide this Parliament with an analysis of the cost effectiveness of third party appeals, perhaps based on the Victorian model?

The Hon Minister, Alannah MacTiernan replied, in part:

Third party appeals is a very vexed issue. It is not true to say that in Western Australia there is no right to appeal, or, indeed, be joined in a matter. However, there is no right for a third party to actually initiate an appeal. I guess we need to make a judgement about what is in the best interests of the community. Certainly at this point in Western Australia’s history, the idea that we would divert precious planning resources into appeals, many of which unfortunately will be, I think, judged frivolous, is not something that I believe could be justified. I point out that local government is elected by the community. Elections are held every two years. I urge people who are not happy with the sorts of planning decisions that are being made by their local governments to stand for council. It is really important, if people are concerned about these democratic processes, that people take the initiative to get involved, rather than just stand on the sidelines.

You Heard It Here First!

Two weeks ago, I drew your attention to what was in the white space between the lines of statements made by Allanah MacTiernan, Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, about the location of the new major sports stadium. That is a great present (and relief) for the Town of Vincent residents who live int he area between the railway and the river.

[Incidentally, reading between the lines is second only to being able to read upside down (when you're sitting on the opposite side of the desk from someone) in value if you really want to know what's going on. I got to be very good at both reading specialities during my years in the public service - but that's another story!]

I didn't anticipate that an announcement would be made at the same time of $500 million for a world class museum on the banks of the Swan River in the East Perth Power Station, but that is another thing that should warm the hearts of those same residents.

A museum will attract a substantial number of people - but not 60,000 at a time! Moreover, those people will be coming throughout the week and weekend, but in manageable numbers that suggest that public transport will be able to make a very substantial contribution. We will, however, still need to ensure that those who do come by car don't infringe on the residential amenity of the Banks Precinct.

The proposal I made on 24 January (previous post on this blog) looks even better with the museum. An 'inner collar' transit service will help get the crowds away from the new Subiaco Stadium in a more orderly way (especially those who are heading for the Northern or Southern suburbs). It will also provide convenient access to the new museum for many inner urban residents who live too far away to walk but don't live close to a train station - so would otherwise drive their cars.

A side benefit of the museum might arise from associated activities that provide opportunities for this isolated part of Vincent. I am sure that the East Perth Redevelopment Authority will be looking closely at its plans for the remainder of the East Perth Power Station site to include a suitable mix of activities (not just residential) to take advantage of the proximity to East Perth train station (improving access for pedestrians across East Parade in the process) and the proposed "inner collar". But not with a full road link for Summers Street across the railway - more like a 'green bridge' (public transport, pedestrians and cyclists - and. of course, emergecny vehicles only), please. Who knows, it might even be sufficient to get a Brisbane-style fast ferry service (perhaps linking the Belmont racecourse development, the East Perth Powerstation Museum, the Burswood development and the City and on to the University of Western Australia).

Does Alannah know something we don't?

I have previously expressed my concern (shared with many East Perth residents) about the proposal for a 60,000 (or even 70,000) seat sports stadium on the East Perth Power Station site. Well, perhaps the cat has been let out of the bag.

Speaking at the University of Western Australia Summer School yesterday (23 January), the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, Alannah MacTiernan is reported (West Australian, 24 January, p13) as saying that the Northbridge Link, the Mounts Bay foreshore area and "other projects including the cultural centre and East Perth Power Station redevelopment would collectively deliver 10,500 residents and 19,000 jobs in the city". How likely is that if a major sports stadium were to be built on the East Perth Power Station site?

Perhaps the whole stadium proposal was smokescreen to soften up residents of the area to be more accepting of high-density residential or mixed-use development on the site.

A report was released this week that give qualified support to a light rail service between the city, Subiaco and the QEII Medical Centre. At a cost of $400 million, this would be an expensive shuttle service and does nothing to help residents of the Northern Suburbs who would only be able to get to the QEII Medical Centre by public transport by travelling through the centre of the City. Wouldn't it be more sensible to link also to Leederville Station, which provides direct train access to the whole coastal strip (north and south) without having to travel on congested central city roads.

This also makes sense if the major stadium is to be located in Subiaco, as the link to Leederville could provide an alternative public transport option for people from all points north and south along the Clarkson to Mandurah railway.

And while we're about it , let's make it more of system and link round to East Perth (through Vincent) via Beatty Park and Members Equity Stadium, the East Perth Power Station redevelopment andending up in the Royal Street hub of East Perth, which could also be an eastern terminus of the Subi-City shuttle.

I must admit, though, to having severe reservations about light rail - and not only because of the cost. One of the most consistent messages that the people of Vincent have given me over the 12 years I have been a Councillor is that they want power lines put underground - and not just in residential streets. Light rail requires an intensive overhead infrastructure as well as the rails in the roadway. And those rails aren't very friendly to cyclists or pedestrians (especially those who rely on mobility aids, including wheelchairs). Earlier this year, in Cologne, Germany, I witnessed a cyclist fall when her bicycle wheel became trapped in tram tracks - fortunately there wasn't a tram bearing down on her at the time, but she was very shaken and upset.

There are alternatives that are environmentally responsible and less intrusive, using, for example, in-road electronic guidance and on-board power systems such as gas/electric hybrids (similar to the Toyota Prius car) and, of course, hydrogen fuel cells. Let's at least have a look at these before inflicting yet more poles and wire on our communities.

Access and Inclusion

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.

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.

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

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.