THE HISTORY CHANNEL

[The article below is the work, lightly edited, of the late David Paton, probably written in 2011.  It offers a provocative viewpoint that some may consider wrong or even offensive.  I invite readers to submit short articles (500-800 words), or letters, for publication on the blog, which as I have often said is open to all points of view on relevant matters.  The only stipulation is that the article or letter must be more intellectually engaging than a mere rant, which on the face of it would exclude contributions from one prominent member of Council – but he’s welcome to try.] 

The Squatter Influence Still Flourishes in York

Most people would agree that in York, the shire council and nearly all influential clubs and peak bodies are controlled, directly or indirectly, by descendants of squatters or people who would like to be seen as such although of more lowly station or more recent arrivals.

Most of the persons of influence have had only a minimal high school education.

Perhaps a few have gone on to agricultural college but in the main—only a basic, if expensive education.

Those same people, when serving as councillors, are now expected to understand complex accounting methods used to operate a multi-million dollar business.

The descendants of squatters have been quick to sell off their land for housing and other developments. Many have regretted this loss of land with the accompanying loss of prestige that went with it.

Other actions may come back to haunt them.  Consider the giving away of the use of the York Tennis Club land. The York Tennis Club was formed in 1929.  Club premises were cared for by volunteers and became useful to other organizations and individuals.

By vacating the York Tennis Club land, the sons and daughters of former squatters have given away probably a million dollars worth of prime land in the centre of York. This included river frontage, and a one hundred year old grape vine, for practically nothing.

There was no need for them to do this, because members of the Shire Council, and some members of the tennis club, were the descendants of squatters. So they had enough influence collectively to tell the powers that be ‘to stick it where the sun don’t shine’.

The same influential people were also dudded when they handed over their stake in Forrest Oval for the promise of the use of land and buildings at the York racecourse. The York Agricultural Society is the oldest in Western Australia, having been formed in 1843. At first they used to hold their shows along the foreshore of the York River, but later, as their organisation grew, and with the help of the York Municipal Council, they exchanged their land by the river for a larger site at Forrest Oval. 

The Agricultural Society quietly handed over buildings that were constructed for them in exchange for the use of some of the racecourse buildings. We all know what happened early in 2011, when buildings on the racecourse—dating from 1843, and also squatter controlled—blew away in a summer storm and could not be replaced because they had been under- insured.

The racecourse committee consists of some (past and present) members of York Council and the shire administration. Those people should be held accountable for the York Racing Club having twice had to cancel meetings because of a bad track.

The above examples demonstrate that the squatter influence is largely responsible for the downgrading of historical sites and the erosion of York’s history.  History and heritage don’t matter to them.  It’s money that counts.

And let’s not even mention the sad fate of the ficus tree, a significant feature of York’s identity, which was destroyed by a gang of thugs encouraged by council inaction.

However, the original settlers’ blood is running thinner with each passing generation. Not quickly enough for most of us!!

David Paton

POSTSCRIPT: In his article, the late David. Paton (whom I never knew) makes a number of assertions.  Some of them I find a bit puzzling.  Sadly, I can’t ask him for clarification, because the dog ate my ouija board, so I’ll summarise them briefly and ask readers who wish to comment to say which of the assertions are true, partly true or entirely false.  Here they are.

1.     The Shire of York and local organisations generally are (or were) controlled by descendants of squatters and their hangers-on.

2.     Such people are too poorly educated to run a large organisation like the Shire and to oversee the Shire’s finances.

3.     The York Tennis Club made a serious mistake in ceding the use of its premises to the Shire, getting little of real value in return.

4.     The York Agricultural Society made a serious mistake in giving up its Forrest Oval premises in exchange for use of racecourse buildings that blew down in a storm.

5.     The people who run York are too preoccupied with making money to care about York’s history and heritage.

What do readers think? Did David go too far?