MICHAEL GORMLY
Sydney
politics is littered with the wraiths of buried documents. But simply demanding
better access to them does not address the deeper problem: that council staff
create and possess the documents in the first place because they set the
agendas and control the projects.
While the “City of Villages”
brand emblazons council literature, it’s a mere slogan compared with real
community-centred models such as Seattle’s “City
of Neighborhoods”.
In 1988 Seattle
created a Department of Neighborhoods which set about hiring organisers rather
than planners. Their job was to liaise with the many community groups who were
typically in conflict with authorities – as they tend to be here.
In a grass-roots process, organisers brought groups together
in town meetings which brainstormed ideas. Each area came up with unique
projects, diversifying and enriching the city’s texture.
The city provided “matching funds” which allowed groups to
hire their own planners to develop proposals to approval stage. Volunteer time
was counted towards matching these funds but some projects also involved
serious fund raising.
Council then approved and funded projects, realising not
only the usual street upgrades but also a lot of affordable, sustainable
housing, civic facilities and even an art project that painted faux main street
businesses onto empty shopfronts which sparked urban renewal.
Thousands of volunteers gave their time. Different people
worked on different projects with a finish point, far more engaging than our
pattern of endless meetings and often fruitless lobbying.
This strengthened the community, reduced crime, boosted
economies and engaged marginalised people and youth.
Importantly, the ideas came from an initial consultation
whereas Sydney
typically cherrypicks community input to find support for projects already on
their agenda, then holds “consultation” meetings to sell projects, designed by
council to a highly uniform style and predetermined budget.
Any input contrary to the existing agenda is ignored, no
matter how popular or well argued – for instance the coming “upgrade” of
Fitzroy Gardens in Kings Cross, to say nothing of the granite/smartpole/banner
uniformity that stifles Sydney’s streets.
Not one council candidate at the recent elections campaigned
on this key issue. What a shame.
Michael Gormly, writer, photographer and publisher of
kingscrosstimes.blogspot.com
ANDREW WOODHOUSE
If knowledge is power, then council is all-powerful. It
controls what we know, what we see and therefore what we think. It is the
ultimate “thought control” machine.
Do you know how much council receives in rates or how much
councillors are paid? Answers: $100 million pa; $25k pa including GST. Why are
tender project amounts secreted away like Aunty’s lace knickers? What’s the
cost of the new, on-street steel entertainment info pillars being implanted
this week? Why are recommendations about DAs from the high-powered, high-paid,
Urban Design Review Panel, costing $100k pa, not fully released? The vexed DA
for “Deepdene”, Elizabeth
Bay, for a large sky
penthouse overshadowing neighbours which breached height and density controls,
is a case in point.
We’re treated like chooks and only thrown pellets of
information. Why are council background reports always late? Last week they
were unavailable at midday in hard copy the day before committee meetings.
Has council forgotten the “golden rule”? “Those who pay the
gold [rates], rule.“
Where’s our right to know, or is the “public interest” just
the interested public? It’s actually about us and what affects us.
Knowledge is like justice: it needs to be delivered and to
be seen to be delivered. Am I asking too many questions? Good.
A fully informed public has a sense of belonging to its
council, which must be better for everyone. Council should provide more
transparency than an airport x-ray security scanner, security data exempted.
So try these for starters: allow the public to attend pre-DA
briefings by planners and experts’ panel meetings, publish developer meetings
with staff, release Heritage Experts’ reports and Urban Design Review Panel
reports, advertise amended DAs to all those possibly affected, publish DA files
on line and be damned, appoint an independent Ombudsman, video council meetings
live on-line, allow petitions to be lodged directly, abolish the so-called FOI,
”Freedom of Information” section, really the Frustration of Information
section. If “freedom of information’ exists, why does it need to be censored?
There is no transparency or accountability without
accessibility. Less it not more. After all, whose council is it? Ours or
theirs?
Andrew Woodhouse is a Potts Point local and urban
environmentalist
Source:
www.alternativemediagroup.com/ThreadView.aspx?tid=10487#post_10487