(MORE) NOTES FROM UNDERGROUND

 New material added 1 August 2016 - Rhymes for the Times

Community Service Announcement 310716

LOST BUDGIE

Has anybody seen BUNDY, who flew away from his home at 70 Newcastle Street on Friday morning 29 July?

Bundy is light blue in colour.  He is very friendly.  He talks, and answers to his name.

His owner, Joy, is heartbroken.

So please, if you see him, contact Joy on 0419 360 639 or 9641 2591.

Question: When is an oversized shed no longer oversized?  Answer:  when the Shire of York planner gets leaned on…

York trends back to the future, with Crs Smythe and Randell pointing the way

In my previous article, I mentioned the surprising show of support from Cr Smythe—and the much less surprising show of support from Cr Randell—for the construction of an oversized shed in Lewis Road.

Well, I’m no longer surprised.  Since I put fingers to keyboard on the matter, several indignant residents of our fair shire have told me that those two upstanding representatives of the community are also longstanding friends of the applicants, bearers of an old ‘established’ York name.

From the outset, I want to make clear that nothing I say here is intended to reflect on the applicants.  They’ve done nothing wrong.   They’re not elected officials, holding positions of trust.  They’re entitled to make any planning application they wish, no matter how far outside policy limits it may fall. 

It’s up to Council, not applicants for planning approval, to safeguard the public interest.

No, fault and blame rest solely and squarely with the councillors mentioned, who appear to have adopted in this instance the dubious view that the interests of their friends should take precedence over the public interest, as expressed in policy, whenever those public and private interests conflict.

Cronyism

I think the correct term for such behaviour is ‘cronyism’.  Even if it involves no greasing of palms—it usually doesn’t, and and I’m sure it didn’t on this occasion—it is still, in my opinion, a form of corruption likely to involve the transfer from applicant to councillor of intangible benefits like gratitude, admiration, consolidation of mutual affection and promises of electoral support.

We’ve seen more than our fair share of cronyism in York.  Some of us may have naively believed that with the election last year of a new council, cronyism would fade out of the picture.  Sorry, folks, Ashworth Road was just the beginning.

Readers will remember that at its ordinary meeting in May, Council wisely accepted the officer’s recommendation to reject the Lewis Road application.   It did so because according to the shire senior planner—who produced the recommendation—the dimensions of the proposed outbuilding were inconsistent with the rural residential provisions of Town Planning Scheme No. 2, and because to approve it would set ‘an undesirable precedent’.

In her admirably detailed report, the senior planner provided a tabulated summary of how far the proposed shed varied in size from what policy allows.  Her argument for rejecting the application was clear, cogent and convincing, precisely what one would expect from a qualified and experienced shire official.

As I indicated in my previous article, the proposed shed wasn’t just a little bit oversize.  It was bloody enormous.  However, the planner noted that a suitable reduction in the size of the shed so that it no longer appeared ‘bulky and out of scale’ could result in a happier outcome for the applicants, and she invited them to discuss possible changes with the Shire.

Sure enough, the applicants re-applied, presumably after sharing tea and bickies with Shire officials and perhaps a councillor or two.  And guess what?  This time, the officer’s recommendation, included in the agenda for tomorrow’s Council meeting, is for Council to give conditional approval.  Let’s see if we can find out why.

But first, we need to have a closer look at relevant aspects of policy relating to sheds in the rural residential zone.

Variations

According to policy, the prescribed maximum wall height for a shed in the rural residential zone is 3m, with a permissible variation of 5% to 3.15m.  The prescribed ridge height is 4.2m, again with a permissible variation of 5% to 4.41m. 

For a property of the size of the one in question (1171m²), the floor area is limited to 200m², again with a permissible variation of 5% to 210m².  That’s also the prescribed cumulative floor area of outbuildings on such a property, so if your shed has a floor area of 210m², that, one might suppose, would be the only outbuilding you can have.

The prescribed side setback from boundary is 10m. 

The ‘revised proposal’—really a new application—coming before Council tomorrow is for a shed of the following dimensions:  wall height, 3.5m; ridge height, 4.56m; floor area, 200m²; floor area cumulative with existing outbuildings, 312m²; side setback, 5m.

These dimensions reflect, respectively, a variation in policy (allowing for permissible variations) of 0.35m in wall height; 0.21m in ridge height; none in floor area of the proposed shed, but a massive 102m² when existing outbuildings are taken into account; and 5m in side setback.

In rounded terms, this amounts to variations of 12% in wall height, 10% in ridge height, 67% in cumulative floor area, and 50% in side setback.  The height variations may be deemed relatively inconsiderable.  The cumulative floor area and side setback variations may not.

Trashing policy

In her report on the ‘revised proposal’, the senior planner states:  ‘It is considered that the reduction in height and area has reduced the scale of the outbuilding to a size which, with implementation of appropriate conditions will not appear out of character in the locality, maintains amenity and will not set an undesirable precedent…’ (Emphasis added.)  Regarding that last point, I beg to differ, for reasons set out in my previous article.

By the same token, I differ also with her conclusion that her recommendation ‘will not result in any policy implications for the Shire’.  How can it fail to have that result?  Existing policy permitted specific variations of 5%.   Going beyond those variations amounts, frankly, to trashing the policy.

So what’s going on?

It isn’t easy to determine what’s revolving in the bureaucratic mind as it weaves deftly towards a decision or recommendation.  Time-honoured locutions like the ubiquitous impersonal passive construction ‘it is considered’ give the impression that what is being delivered is of oracular rather than human origin, and not to be laid at the door of any breathing person in particular. 

But in this case, rightly or wrongly, I sense unease, a clutching at straws, an ethical tremor, a quiver of professional trepidation—and I have sufficient regard for the senior planner’s capacities to hope that what I sense is really there.

I don’t actually know if she was ‘leaned on’, or by whom, to produce this current lamentable recommendation.   But whatever the truth of the matter may be, something is amiss.

Will Council accept the new recommendation?  I expect so.  Will it do so unanimously?  I hope not.  My guess is that Crs Saint and Walters will vote against it.  Will Cr Ferro vote against it?  I rather doubt it, but I hope I’m wrong.

Some final questions

Finally—I suggested earlier that this so-called ‘revised proposal’ is really a new application.  Was it treated as such?  If so, were the applicants required to pay a new set of fees?  And shouldn’t neighbouring landowners have been consulted again, as the planning application process requires?

If the proposal isn’t to be regarded as a new application, then Council will have to revoke its decision of 23 May 2016.  Has enough time elapsed for that?

Grossly oversized shed, Canberra

A nasty story

On Saturday morning, as I wandered along Avon Terrace on my way to our friendly IGA, my attention was caught by the sight of a mature—but by no means elderly—couple holding placards demanding their money back from a local businessman whom of course for legal reasons I won’t name.

I accosted them near Settlers’ Courtyard and asked them what the placards were about.  They told me that the person named on the placard had signed an agreement to borrow $45,000 from them, but had repaid only $11,000 and was dragging his heels regarding the rest, payment of which is now very much overdue. 

Who would have guessed that something like that could ever happen in York?  I was quite shaken by what they told me.

I’ve had no independent confirmation of their story, but I’m curious to know more.  If you have some information to share, I’d be happy to publish it on the blog.  No names, though, or identifying details—sensibly, I’m taking my cue from the Shire’s decision to withhold the Fraud Squad’s report.

POSTSCRIPT:  And the word of the month is…FLEXIBILITY!

This evening, I attended the July meeting of the Shire of York Council.  Naturally, my main reason for being there was to witness the debate and vote concerning the matter of the oversized shed.

Cr Randell moved to accept the officer’s recommendation.  Yes, he said, the proposal didn’t conform to policy, but what the heck, let’s live dangerously, the applicants had reduced the size of the shed, and the planner had done an excellent job in helping them bring the building down to a more or less acceptable size, and look, the property abuts the agricultural zone, and anyway, bugger the policy, this is the country, we have to be flexible, let’s show some flexibility and wave this one through.

I’m paraphrasing, of course.  I may have inadvertently added a word here and there to enliven the style and substance of his discourse.

He forgot to trot out his trademark line, namely, that the applicants are friends of his and belong to an old York family.  I felt cheated, to put it mildly.

Cr Smythe seconded Cr Randell’s motion.  She added nothing to Cr Randell’s argument, instead repeating his mantra that this being the country, Council should be flexible and let the applicants build their oversized shed.  She, too, forgot to mention that she and the applicants are friends. 

I suppose that when you’re busy being flexible, it doesn’t matter a toss that a few disrespectful miscreants might construe ‘flexibility’ in this instance as another word for doing favours for your mates.

Cr Ferro, confirming my suspicion that she has completely lost sight of why many of us voted her on to Council, spoke briefly in support of the motion.  And yes, she too mentioned the need for Council to be flexible because this is the country. 

It doesn’t seem so long ago that she dipped out on flexibility when she applied for permission to run more than the prescribed number of horses on her property. 

Better luck next time, Councillor.  No doubt unintentionally, you’ve set yourself up for a quid pro quo.

Crs Saint and Walters opposed the motion, both arguing in effect that Shire policies exist to preserve the interests of the whole community, not to provide councillors with the scope and opportunity to create exceptions. Cr Walters pointed out that if policy proves to be unworkable, the answer is to revise the policy, not to disregard it. 

Alas, their words fell uncomprehended on deaf ears.  The motion was carried 5-2.

Welcome back, the good old days of cronyism triumphant.  Beneath the surface of life in York, not much seems to have changed.

 

POETRY CORNER

Rhymes for the Times

Early and late, early and late,

Big sheds sprang up on the York Estate:

Buildings as tall as the Taj Mahal

Permitted as favours to this or that pal,

Sheds wide as a prairie, sheds pricking the sky,

All done with approval—not one on the sly!

Some residents wondered, how came this to pass?

Surely rogues from the old days were put out to grass?

Well, no, not exactly.  Not as you might wish.

Some things might still happen that stink like stale fish.

All councillors differ in means and in ends:

Some do the right thing, others favour their friends.

It’s easy to see which way each of them tends.

So, the deed now is done, but some questions remain:

Pray tell us what happened to Councillor Jane?

And President Braveheart—what led him to stray

From the straight, narrow path into Cronyhelp Way?

I saw no surprises from Councillor Denese—

She had old friends to favour, to flatter and please—

While Councillor Pam, cards held close to her chest,

Having nothing to say, tagged along with the rest.

So did they all flunk on the probity test?

The plebs looking on seemed much less than impressed.

Councillors Heather and Trish, as we’ve come to expect,

Spoke up for the truth—they were fair and correct—

But truly to tell you, they argued in vain.

That’s what comes on York’s council of having a brain.

Young Councillor Trev was the star of the show.

He pointed the way for the others to go.

He reminded us all that York’s in the countree,

Which means that the Council must ‘flexible’ be,

Yes, flexible, flexible, that was the word—

What, stick to the policy?  Don’t be absurd!

Now, I have to confess to once looking askance

At Trev in his role as York’s Lord of the Rants;

He might well have exclaimed, in a voice loud and rude,

“We’re shedding our principles!!!!! Go and get screwed!!!!!

Your grumblings and gripes get us old Yorkies down!!!!!

So button your lips, or be run out of town!!!!!”

But he didn’t.  Then let me give praise where I should.

He’s a very nice fellow—just misunderstood.

(From Song of the Sheds, by Polly Amory)

NOTES FROM UNDERGROUND

Trigger Warning: this article contains material that some councillors and ex-councillors may find hurtful or offensive.  In case of emergency, smelling salts and tissues are available from the first aid cupboard in the Shire’s front office.

A Tale of Three Sheds

It must be tough, being a shire councillor.

Just take a look at Section 2.10 of the Local Government Act 1995, which imposes on councillors a range of duties and responsibilities that would probably tax the capacities of a minor mythological deity or a Marvel Comics superhero—to borrow a trope from my opposite number on the other blog, David Taylor.

For starters, councillors not only have to represent the interests of electors, residents and ratepayers and provide leadership and guidance to the local community.  They must also ‘facilitate communication between the community and council’—which presumably means in practice making sure the community is kept fully informed of what councils are doing.

On top of that, they have to turn up to meetings and deliberate and vote on important local government issues, like repairing roads, rubbish removal and by what percentage to put up the rates.  

For everyone involved in local government in WA, the Act has the status of holy writ.  And like holy writ of a more transcendental nature, it’s open to argument and interpretation, and may give rise to competing sects and schools of thought. 

That’s no less true of Section 2.10 than it is of any other section of the Act or of legislation generally.  Arguing about the meaning of legislation is one of the things that help lawyers to wax fat at our expense, especially, as we saw during the Best-Simpson era, if their client is the Shire of York.

Whose interests?

Let’s just confine ourselves to the first of a councillor’s duties—representing the interests of electors, residents and ratepayers.  What exactly might that mean?

Does it mean representing the interests of individuals from those categories, even when those interests conflict with the interests of the community at large? 

Or does it mean giving precedence to the community’s interests, broadly considered, over the interests of private individuals?

This conundrum seems to have been resolved in part by the declaration councillors make on taking office.  The declaration is mandated by section 2.29 of the Local Government Act. 

The form of the declaration is prescribed by regulation 13 (1) (c) of the Local Government (Constitution) Regulations 1998.  It reads as follows (with directions in square brackets inserted by me):

I, [name] of [address], having been elected to the office of mayor/deputymayor/president/deputy president/councillor of the [local government district council], declare that I take the office upon myself and will duly, faithfully, honestly, and with integrity, fulfil the duties of the office for the people in the district according to the best of my judgment and ability, and will observe the code of conduct adopted by the district council under section 5.103 of the Local Government Act 1995.

Declared at [place] on [date]

By [signature of declarer]

Before me: [signature and qualification (e.g. Justice of the Peace) of the person authorised to witness the declaration].

‘Duly’ I take to mean ‘in accordance with the terms of this declaration, the code of conduct’—of which more shortly—'and other relevant legislation’.  ‘Faithfully’ and ‘honestly’ shouldn’t need explaining, not even in this God-forsaken postmodern era.

‘Integrity’ is more complicated.  It’s a quality every public figure boasts—rarely convincingly—of possessing.  The word derives from Latin integritas, meaning ‘wholeness’ (compare ‘integer’, a whole number) and has come to signify moral uprightness and consistency of principle, purpose and judgement.

So we would expect a person of integrity to approach tasks and duties—like those of a councillor—honestly, consistently and impartially, and guided by what is often described as ‘a moral compass’.

As everybody knows, councillors aren’t elected to serve their own, or their friends’, interests or to act as spokespeople for favoured individuals or sections of the community.  It’s the public interest—made up most directly of local community interests—that counts and should be uppermost in a councillor’s mind when deciding what to say and how to vote.

Code of Conduct

Those considerations are amply reflected in the Code of Conduct for councillors, which you can find on the Shire’s website.  The code has been formally adopted as policy by Council and has the force of law.

It requires councillors to act honestly and with integrity and be open and accountable to the public.  It states that councillors must make decisions ‘solely on the basis of public interest and merit and in accordance with statutory obligations’ (section 2 (b)), and that ‘councillors will perform their role impartially and in the public interest’ (section 3.3).  (Emphases added.)

Policy

Admittedly, what is meant by ‘the public interest’ is open to dispute.  To carry any weight in Council’s deliberations, it has to be clearly and scrupulously defined.

That’s why firm policies are needed to cover every aspect of a local government’s operations. 

Ideally, experts draft policy.  By experts, I mean people with a professional understanding not only of relevant law, but also of the practical implications of policy for the situations to which it applies or is likely to apply.

It’s then up to councillors to consider policies, if necessary revise and amend them, then to approve and adopt them and make sure they’re enforced impartially on their own account and by Shire employees. 

That’s their job as representatives of the community, elected and sworn in as guardians of the public interest. 

Policies, once adopted, define the public interest—that’s to say, the community’s best interests—in relation to the various functions of a local government. 

Council policies find expression in local legislation governing such matters as planning, building, public health, roads, rubbish, the natural environment, community groups and activities, recreation, the keeping of horses, dogs, cats and backyard fauna like sheep, goats, pigs and chickens, and the proceedings of council itself.  

The great thing about policies is that they provide certainty.  They tell us what we can and can’t do vis-à-vis the Shire’s functions—in other words, what Council will or won’t permit us to do.  They also define, in relation to its functions, the limits of Council’s power and authority.

Properly conceived and drafted, policies should admit of no exceptions.  Once approved, they are set in stone.  If they prove to be ambiguous, unworkable or unfair, or become irrelevant or out of date, Council may vote to revise them or replace them with something better.

But until then, policies should be regarded as inviolable and applied rigorously, transparently and above all impartially in every case.

Otherwise, the door gapes open to favouritism, patronage, bribery, and other forms of corruption.  It also gapes open to chaos by creating precedents that conflict with the law and each other.

Discretion

For councillors to exercise so-called ‘discretion’ by making exceptions in particular cases is unfair, unjust and fraught with peril.

Here’s an example.  Suppose somebody wants to install a swimming pool closer to his neighbour’s wall or fence than the relevant policy allows.  And suppose that person is a friend of a prominent councillor, say, a councillor who is also a former shire president. 

Should Council approve the application?  Of course not!  Such a thing could never have happened in York. 

Approving it would have meant creating a precedent enabling future applicants to claim the same degree of discretion, to the detriment of the relevant policy—and therefore to the interests of the wider community, that is, the public interest.

Sometimes applying policy strictly may seem hard on individual applicants, but making exceptions is by definition always contrary to the community interest, because the community interest is what policy defines and enshrines.

Here’s another example.   Suppose somebody wants to erect an oversized outbuilding or shed…

A tale of three sheds

Shed No. 1:  Early in 2011, a resident living in Eighth Road applied for planning permission to construct an oversize outbuilding, or shed, on his 1000m² property. The shed was to be used ‘for general storage purposes’.

His application was duly advertised, resulting in objections from neighbouring landowners. 

Most of the objections were briskly disposed of by the Shire’s then planning officer.

But there remained one consideration neither she nor Council could overlook. This was that the floor area of the proposed shed exceeded the prescribed limit of 60m². 

In fact, it exceeded the limit by 12m², which the mathematically minded among you will immediately have calculated as being 20% greater than what the regulations prescribed.

On 21 March 2011, the Council of the day decided unanimously to approve the application subject to various technical conditions. 

Council’s reasons for giving that approval were that rural residential zoning permitted an outbuilding, and the property was large enough to accommodate an outbuilding of the size proposed.

The minutes record no reason for allowing the applicant to build a shed with a floor area one-fifth greater than the prescribed limit, other than that his property was large enough to accommodate it.

I’m not suggesting for a moment that Council’s decision was influenced in any way by the sort of hanky-panky, chicanery or jiggery-pokery to which municipal bodies occasionally fall prey.  All the same, it was unwise. 

By waiving the policy, Council created a precedent that effectively rendered that policy useless in similar situations. 

Henceforward, any owner of a similarly zoned property measuring 1000m² or more, who applied to build an oversized shed of like dimensions would have been justifiably outraged if his application were turned down.

Shed No. 2:  Fast forward now to 20 October 2014, when an application came before Council for the construction of a shed on a property in Ensigndale Court.

The town planner of the day stated that the size of the shed exceeded zoning limits prescribed for the residential zone and was ‘more consistent’ with sheds built in the agricultural zone.   She recommended that if the applicant was unwilling to reduce the height and floor area, Council should refuse the application.

Despite the town planner’s recommendation, former shire president Cr Pat Hooper moved, with Cr Duperouzel seconding, that Council should support the construction of the shed. 

The motion was lost 4-2.  Cr Boyle, also a former shire president, voted against the motion, asking to be recorded as having done so.

It was noted in the minutes that ‘no single reason emerged for the vote against the Officer Recommendation’.  It was also noted that the applicant should be advised to submit an application ‘in terms of ‘—i.e. consistent with—‘the local planning policies’.

Something very odd seems to have been going on here.  Why were Crs Hooper and Duperouzel so keen on approving the application, while unable or unwilling to say why? 

Anyway, let’s move on to the following ordinary Council meeting, held on 17 November 2014, when the matter of this oversized shed popped up again.

This time, the application got short shrift from Council, including from Cr Hooper, who had clearly changed his mind about it. 

I say this because Cr Hooper seconded a motion, moved by Cr Denese Smythe, not to approve the application.  The motion listed four reasons for rejecting the application.  These included inconsistency with planning and outbuildings policies regarding floor area and height of the proposed shed.  The motion was carried 5-0.

It’s tempting to conclude from those proceedings that Cr Smythe, currently deputy shire president while keeping a wistful eye on the top job, is a stickler for the proper observance of planning and outbuilding policy.

But wait—there’s more.

Shed No. 3:  Fast forward yet again to the ordinary council meeting held on 23 May 2016, which I had the pleasure of attending.

On that occasion, Council had to consider an application from the residents of a rural residential property in Lewis Road, who wanted to construct a colourbond outbuilding covering 240m² with a wall height of 4.2m and a ridge height of 5.48m.

In her recommendation to Council, the Shire’s current senior planner pointed out that if the application were approved, the total area of outbuildings on the property would be 352m², exceeding the maximum permitted in the zone by 142m²—that’s a difference of more than 28%. Moreover, the wall height exceeded the maximum of 3.15m, and the ridge height the maximum of 4.41m.  (You can do the sums yourselves.)

Those weren’t the only issues, but they’ll do.

The planning officer concluded her recommendation by observing that the proposed outbuilding would appear ‘bulky’ and ‘out of scale’ and would ‘be likely to impact on the existing and anticipated visual amenity of the area’.  This, she continued, would be ‘inconsistent with Town Planning Scheme No. 2 and Local Planning Policy’.

Definitely not a go-er then, and that was the majority view of Council.  Cr Saint, seconded by Cr Ferro, moved to refuse the application on the grounds set out by the planning officer.  The motion also stated, wisely, that approving the application would ‘set an undesirable precedent’.  It was carried by five votes to two.

Eh?  What’s that? The decision wasn’t unanimous?

No, it wasn’t, because Crs Smythe and Randell spoke and voted against it.  What’s more, they both asked for their names to be recorded as having voted against the motion.

I can’t remember the reasons Cr Smythe gave for opposing the motion, but I seem to recall Cr Randell saying something to the effect that the property in question was more or less on the boundary of the agricultural zone, so it wouldn’t matter if the construction of the outbuilding were to go ahead.

Nothing Cr Randell says or does is likely to surprise me, but I’m still shaking my head over Cr Smythe.  Surely the Shire’s deputy president—she who had once led the charge against a considerably smaller outbuilding—she who is the Shire president’s heir apparent, the next in line, so to speak, to the throne—would have wanted to serve and uphold the public interest by voting to refuse the application?

What could possibly have inspired her to do otherwise?  And why was it important to her and Cr Randell to have their dissent recorded in the minutes?

Had the applicants approached both Cr Smythe and Cr Randell and extracted from them promises of support for their application?   If so—and I’m not saying it was so—we might reasonably ask on what basis such promises were extracted.

What I’m sure of is that whatever considerations were involved—those of friendship, maybe, or simply wanting to be nice to members of an old York family, which as we know is one of Cr Randell’s weaknesses—both councillors were obliged by the declaration of office and the Code of Conduct to put the public interest ahead of other claims on their support.

That they did otherwise was shameful—and uncomfortably reminiscent of the bad old days, now thankfully well behind us. 

Or so we should hope.

Deputy Shire President Denese Smythe

His Master’s Voice

When it comes to advocating for a friend’s interests in preference to those of the wider community, Cr Randell has form.

At the Council meeting of last October, he spoke with passionate eloquence in favour of Avon Waste’s application to establish a truck depot at Ashworth Road, in the agricultural zone.  A former councillor, the brains behind Avon Waste, is one of Cr Randell’s friends and staunch supporters.

Council approved the application, despite opposition from Cr Ferro who moved unsuccessfully to have the matter deferred to give local residents time to gather their forces, formulate their arguments and seek legal advice. 

I don’t know how much Cr Randell’s eloquence contributed to that approval.  Other factors—perhaps including the heavy presence of Avon Waste employees in the public gallery and fear of costly litigation for the Shire were the application to be disallowed—no doubt played their part.  Whatever may have been the case, this was not the newly elected Council’s finest hour.

In his speech, Cr Randell put forward as a reason for approving the application that Avon Waste’s proprietors were members of  ‘an old York family’.  Why he should have seen that as in any way relevant to the application is a mystery to me, but it certainly helped establish Cr Randell’s credentials as a spokesman for the interests of a particular section of the community rather than those of the community as a whole.

I’ve been wrongly accused of pursuing a vendetta against Cr Randell.  Not guilty, Your Honour.  I just wish he would comport himself as a councillor with a proper blend of dignity, integrity, impartiality and concern for the public interest, as the declaration of office and the Council’s Code of Conduct jointly require him to do. 

By doing that, he could become a role model for generations of councillors to come.

Cr Trevor Randell

BREAKING NEWS—NO LANDFILL COMING TO YORK!

 

NEWSFLASH 11 July 2016…I’m told that Robyn Davies will be interviewed at 7 pm tonight on ABC TV News about her reaction to SITA/SUEZ’s decision to pull the pin on its Allawuna landfill proposal.   

It is now certain that there will be no rubbish dump at Allawuna Farm.

Niall Stock (pictured) general manager of SUEZ (formerly SITA) in WA, has issued a media release confirming that his company does not intend to proceed with its proposed landfill.

Here is the full text of the release.  I have altered the format to make it easier to read.

'From: Turnley, Laura <laura.turnley@suez.com>
Date: 6 July 2016 at 15:42
Subject: MEDIA RELEASE: SUEZ DECIDES NOT TO PROCEED WITH ALLAWUNA FARM PROJECT

SUEZ DECIDES NOT TO PROCEED WITH ALLAWUNA FARM PROJECT                                                                                                         

Leading recycling and resource recovery company SUEZ, formerly known as SITA Australia, will not proceed with the Allawuna Farm landfill project near York.

SUEZ State General Manager for Western Australia, Nial Stock, said the decision was made for commercial reasons following the company’s acquisition of waste management business Perthwaste. 

“While the Allawuna Farm project was acknowledged as an environmentally safe and appropriate development for the site, the Perthwaste acquisition delivered additional waste management infrastructure to SUEZ in Western Australia which removed the need for the new landfill facility,” Mr Stock said. 

The $87 million purchase of Perthwaste became effective on June 1 and has expanded the SUEZ portfolio in WA with additional infrastructure including an operating landfill at North Bannister, two waste transfer stations, two materials recycling facilities, three depots, and a composting facility. The North Bannister facility opened in 2015. 

“SUEZ is excited by our expanding footprint which enables us to deliver innovative and efficient waste collection, recycling and reuse solutions to even more local authorities, commercial customers and the broader community in Western Australia,” Mr Stock said.

End of press release.'

This is not only a victory for the people of York.  In view of the many environmental issues and potential traffic hazards associated with the proposed landfill, it is even more a victory for decency and common sense.

SITA’s decision won’t please everybody.  There are a few individuals who appear to have been looking forward to what I have called ‘a rubbish-led recovery’ for the town.  To those people, I have pleasure in extending my somewhat less than sincere commiserations.

Let’s hope the effects of the decision will result, over time, in rising property values together with a surge in tourism, more jobs and greater overall prosperity for our shire.

In his latest column—I almost said ‘encyclical’—in YDCM, Shire President Wallace says that we are entering a new era for York.  He is right. 

Mr. Stock’s announcement gives extra force to the Shire President’s opinion.  It brings an end to a major existential threat that has hung over York for the past four years.

Congratulations are due to everyone—especially Kay and Robyn Davies and members of AVRA—who took part in the struggle against the landfill.  Without such fervent and relentless opposition, work on the landfill would have begun in 2013.

York’s future is now firmly in our hands.  Let’s make it as happy and prosperous as we can.

And now, I’m off to crack open the champagne.

Kay and Robyn Davies, who did so much to save York from the landfill

FEAR NOT, MY FRIENDS—OUR WHITE ELEPHANTS WON’T BE GOING HUNGRY NEXT YEAR

(NOTE: Postscript added 26 June 2016
and another on 28 June)

The trouble with socialist governments is that sooner or later they run out of other people’s money.

Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher

An elephant is a mouse designed and built to Shire of York specifications.

Anon.

Maggie Thatcher was wrong.  It’s not only socialist governments that run out of other people’s money.  Sooner or later, all governments do, regardless of type, level or political composition.

Other people’s money is the only kind of money governments—politicians and bureaucrats—have to spend.  If they were spending their own money, they’d be more inclined to spend it carefully, even when lavishing it on themselves.

If you spend money, your supply of it dwindles away.  That’s a law of nature.  It’s a bit like the second law of thermodynamics applied to the world of finance. 

Luckily for overspending governments, there are simple remedies at hand.  One is simply to print more banknotes, a risky solution at best.  (When the US Federal Reserve does that, as it’s doing right now, it’s called ‘quantitative easing’.  Spare me.) 

Another is to stop or reduce spending on services that government provides. 

The first of those remedies isn’t available to local governments.  (I bet they wish it were.)  The second is available to them, but tends to provoke howls of protest from sections of the community that benefit most from those services—who are not necessarily the people who pay, or pay most, for them.

Government services at every level are usually more popular with folk who use them but don’t pay for them than with folk who pay for them but don’t use them.

As the saying goes, if you rob Peter to pay Paul you can always rely on Paul's support.

That’s a law of nature, too.  Human nature.

If Paul doesn’t get from government what he thinks he deserves, he can whip up a tidal wave of popular dismay that sweeps the offending government out of office.  Faced with that prospect, a government will usually respond by thrusting its claws more deeply into Peter’s pocket.

There are other, no less hazardous ways to replenish diminishing government funds.  The most obvious is through direct (poor old Peter) or indirect taxation.  Another is by borrowing, from your own citizens (including corporate citizens like banks) and investors overseas.

Running low on cash? Have to maintain or increase spending on a bloated public sector and people who can’t or won’t pay their own way? 

Easy!  Impose new or higher taxes (and charges for service) on those who can afford to pay them, at the same time building up a humungous deficit for your grandchildren to take care of.

This is the process that keeps the economy—local, national and global—bubbling merrily along.  The mantra is ‘Buy, spend, tax and borrow’, followed by ‘Buy, buy, buy, spend, spend, spend, tax, tax, tax and borrow more.’

No wonder astrology is big business on the Internet.   Everyone knows that sooner or later, S.S. Titanic is doomed to hit the iceberg.

I thought that would chase away your midwinter blues.  Now, to the point of this article.

Feeding the little white elephant

At the municipal level, taxes go by the name of rates.  We in York have seen for ourselves how unwise and extravagant spending decisions have resulted in swingeing rate increases over the last few years. 

Take the purchase of the Old Convent School, poetically christened ‘Chalkies’ by the vendors and by me as ‘the little white elephant’. 

That incomprehensible purchase was the work of Commissioner James Best.  A bumbling state government minister appointed him to masquerade as the shire council while doing his best to crush the spirit of dissent in York.

For the grossly inflated price of $625,000, the Shire got back a near-derelict building it had disposed of many years before to save the cost of maintaining it.  It didn’t have enough in the kitty to pay for the building, so it took out a loan (at interest) from Treasury Corporation, and put up the rates. 

There you have it—modern political economy in a nutshell.

The present council, guided no doubt by community contributions to the draft corporate business plan, must soon decide what to do with the little white elephant.  First, though, the building must be ‘brought up to code’, i.e. made safe for public use or perhaps habitation. 

That will cost money—our money.  The elephant will have to be fed, even though it’s doing nothing for us.

Then, if Council decides to sell the building, it will almost certainly do so on a sinking market, resulting in a considerable loss to the Shire—that’s to say, us— made up of the difference in the building’s value, the cost of repairs, the residue of the Treasury loan and every cent paid by way of interest.

Thank goodness somebody got something out of the deal.  Verily I say unto you, greater love hath no man than this, that he fork over lots of other people’s money to his friends.

What if Council decides not to sell Chalkies?  In that case, it will have to be turned to some profitable purpose. 

Here’s my suggestion:  convert the building into a high-class Gothic-style bordello catering for wealthy sado-masochists from Perth’s western suburbs.  Call it ‘Kiss of the Whip’ and hire somebody to run it under the nom-de-bonque Madam Lash.

That’s the only way we’ll get a reasonable return on our investment. 

And we can arrange overnight accommodation for bordello clients at the York Palace Hotel.

What about the big white elephant?  He needs feeding too

Assiduous readers of this blog will recall that at the May OCM I asked a question about the costs and benefits past and present of the YRCC, and received from Shire President Wallace what I can only describe as an anodyne, cavalier and intellectually vacuous reply. 

Somebody must have told him I’m a fool.  I was trying to keep that a secret.

Well, the past may be off-limits so far as the Shire is concerned, but the future is up for review.  (Don’t be daft, James, you can’t review something that hasn’t yet happened.)

All right, then: the Shire has published estimates of the operating costs of the centre for the coming financial year.  You can find them on the Shire website.

Let’s cut straight to the chase.  Taking Forrest Oval and the YRCC as a single enterprise, the Shire intends to spend a total of  $775,907 and expects to receive income amounting to $447,762, resulting in a net cost to ratepayers of $328,145. 

Peanuts.  What a relief.  Remember, fellow forelock-tuggers, it’s only money, and our money at that.  No reason to lose sleep.

But remember too that these are just operating costs, taking no account (so far as I can tell, I’m no accountant) of other costs like repayment of principal and interest on associated loans.

I haven’t included the cost of salaries ($34,684) and superannuation ($40,877), because I’m still trying to work out how that amount of salary can attract a superannuation liability, calculated at 12%, that is $6193 greater than itself.

If those estimates were to be included, that would raise the net cost of the enterprise next year to $403,706.

That’s the merest bagatelle compared, say, with the annual cost of Perth’s latest white elephants, the pricey Burswood Stadium ($1000 for a good seat, i.e. one from which you can see the game) and toxic, child-poisoning Elizabeth Quay.

Some good news…

On a positive note, you’ll be glad to learn that the bar in the convention centre is expected to make a profit (income $208,000; expenditure $191,914; profit $16,086).  So is the café/restaurant (income $140,000; expenditure, $137,732; profit $2,268).  

That’s a combined profit of $18,354.  Not a lot, but better than the proverbial boot in the nether regions.

(Still, as I said in a previous article, I have doubts about the morality of a local government running those kinds of facilities in competition, as in York, with privately owned munching and swigging stations.  I’m told that at least one senior DLGC bureaucrat has expressed similar misgivings.)

The gym is also expected to make a profit of $12,863 (income $22,880; expenditure $10,017).  Thank you, physical jerks.

…and some bad

Everything else at Forrest Oval will continue to run at a loss.  The Shire expects to spend a total of $219,694 on the convention centre, compared with an estimated income of $70,720 (including income from the gym).  That’s a net cost to ratepayers of $148,994.

I was under the impression that the expense of providing services for the benefit of sporting clubs would be to some extent defrayed by agreed contributions from the clubs.   

Apparently that was once the case, but is no longer so.  Council waived that requirement a couple of years ago.

I recall that in 2012 or thereabouts, the Shire took out a loan for the Bowls Club that the club agreed to repay at the rate of around $30,000 per year.  It appears the remaining balance of that debt was also waived. 

Next year, the Shire expects to spend $11,350 on turf maintenance for the bowling greens and to receive green fees of $8,320 (a net cost to ratepayers of $3,030).   Of course, the club wasn’t responsible for the sinkhole, so we’ve really no right to grumble.

A similar consideration arises in relation to the corrugated tennis courts, which will run at a loss of $4,268 after green fees of $8,320 are set off against $11,350 to be spent on turf maintenance.  (Try playing corrugated tennis!)

I suppose that the cost of re-turfing the bowling greens and tennis courts, and fixing the bowling green sinkhole, is included somewhere else in the estimates, as asset maintenance.

One of the clubs is doing really well at ratepayers’ expense.  Can you guess which one I mean?

Yes, you’re right.  It’s the Hockey Club, of which Shire President Wallace is a life member and former president. 

Next year, the Shire expects to spend $26,260 on oval maintenance and $9,739 on a second hockey field.  No income is expected, so that’s a net cost to ratepayers of $35,999. 

There must be something about the game that attracts good luck—maybe the balls, or the stick.

What was I saying about other people’s money?  Enough, already.  My brain hurts.

NB: Councillor Randell has been unable to contribute to this edition of the blog, but may make a cameo appearance in the next one.

POSTSCRIPT:  Balls or stick? York Hockey Club holds hand out for help in cash and kind

Our currently most successful sporting mendicant, the York Hockey Club, has its hand out for more of our money.

You can read all about the club’s application on pages 55 to 58 of the agenda for tomorrow’s ordinary council meeting. 

Notice, before your eyes glaze over as you read item SY069-06/16-1154505 Application for Support, that it records no disclosure of interest, despite Shire President Wallace’s long association with the club including a stint as its president and current status of life member.

That’s a bit of a conundrum, because when the application first came before Council in May, SP Wallace played no part in the decision to defer consideration of it until the June meeting.  However, he took part, along with CEO Martin, in a meeting on 9 May with representatives from the club to discuss the proposal that is the subject of the application.

The club has provided the Shire with a copy of its ‘financials’, to be circulated ‘as a confidential attachment under separate cover for Councillors’ information’.

Here we go again.  It’s our money the club is after.  Why should its financial situation remain a secret from the rest of us?  If it’s doing well, does it really need help from the Shire?  If it isn’t doing well, can we trust it to spend our money and use our resources wisely? 

And can we trust our councillors to make a rational decision in the interests of ratepayers rather than of people waving a begging bowl under their noses—especially when the president’s friends are holding the bowl?

The club is asking for support in cash and kind for its proposal to host the 2016 Great Southern Hockey Tournament in York, to be held on the weekend of 8 and 9 July.

It wants $1000 in cash to pay for ‘security services’ and ‘an in kind allocation’ of $7,751 to to cover the cost of various benefits and services for which the club might otherwise be charged by the Shire.

We should be wary of the sleight of hand involved in phrases like ‘in kind allocation’.  What the club is really asking is that Council waive fees and charges for a series of items, namely: additional playing field maintenance; provision of rubbish bins; venue hire; cleaning; hire of Forrest Oval; hire of the stadium for camping; and ‘camping on YRCC grounds’. 

On page 58 of the agenda, you can find estimates of the individual costs of those items.  The highest estimate is for camping on YRCC grounds ($2,550), while the lowest is $140 for hire of the YRCC as venue for a dinner on Saturday night.

Throw in the cost of security—for which the club would normally be responsible—and you have, in effect, a donation from the Shire to the York Hockey Club of $8,751.  I won’t describe it as a loss to the Shire, because what it is really is a ‘failure to gain’ rather than a loss—except for the $1000 cash for security, which however you look at it would be lifted ultimately from ratepayers’ pockets.

Can this donation be justified as conferring a benefit on the community as a whole? 

The Shire thinks so, on the grounds that the proposed event will attract ‘in excess of’ [in plain English: ‘more than’] ‘300 visitors… making use of local accommodation providers or local camping facilities’. 

But according to the Shire’s estimates, at least 100 of those visitors will be camping for nothing on YRCC grounds, and I’m betting the number of campers taking advantage of free accommodation there and elsewhere will be considerably greater than what’s envisaged by the Shire.

It seems likely, too, that not many of those visitors will come into town to eat breakfast, lunch or dinner when food will almost certainly be available on site—perhaps from their own supplies, or on sale from the club.

From a ratepayer’s point of view, the cost seems definite, the benefits nebulous.

And don’t expect those visitors to spend a fortune in the tavern.  The hockey club has 13 liquor licences per annum, granted en bloc every year.  My guess is that any profit resulting from the sale of alcoholic beverages will flow directly into the club’s coffers, not the Shire’s.

Okay, $8,751 isn’t a huge amount of money.  But there’s an issue of principle here.  No community group, however well connected, should consider itself entitled to a handout from municipal funds—our funds—without offering something tangible in return.

It troubles me that the hockey club, already doing quite well out of the Shire compared with other groups, doesn’t seem to have included in its application an offer to divert some part of any profits from the event—for example, from the sale of booze, soft drinks and grub—to its benefactors, the ratepayers of York.

I ask again: is it the balls or the stick that brings the club luck.  Or is it just brass neck?

[Disclosure: one of my nephews plays hockey at county level in England.  Further disclosure: he’s in my bad books at the moment because unlike his parents and siblings the treacherous fellow voted for Britain to remain in the EU.]

POSTPOSTSCRIPT:  At last night’s OCM, Council approved the ‘in kind’ request, but not the cash payment to the club of $1000 for security purposes.  So the club will have to pay for security from its own resources.

It would be churlish of me to object to Council’s decision (wouldn’t it?).

However, I was too hasty in claiming that such a decision would cost the Shire nothing, resulting merely in a ‘failure to gain’.  Shire staff will have to prepare the grounds for the event at an estimated cost to ratepayers of $1,200. See p. 58 of the agenda for last night’s meeting.  The Shire will also have to provide additional rubbish bins—estimated cost $261.

In response to recent comments on the blog critical of SP Wallace, I repeat here an earlier observation that he is a good chairman of meetings.  I’m not being patronising.  It’s the truth.

 

 The Splurj Mahal, York