Blue Lights Blue

Strange as it may seem, senior Council staff seem determined to kill off, or at least interfere with, the 'Winter in Bridgetown' blue lights which were so spectacularly successful when launched last year.

The lights are due to go back on next month, but Council officers are pushing to introduce a policy, which would give them the right to dictate how the lights can and cannot be arranged. Those who wish to display the lights on the town's many Heritage-listed buildings (like the Freemasons Hotel, which I part-own) would have to pay $80 and go through an approvals process each time they wanted to put them up.

Its regulation for regulation's sake and a poke in the eye for the business people trying something innovative to bring tourists to the town. 

I'm all in favour of restrictions on advertising and signage to protect the ambiance and amenity of the town. While on Council I drove the formation of a new signs policy, but saw this process constantly undermined by concessions given to entrenched vested interests.

If the Council is serious about signs and visual pollution, why has it taken no action to remove the illegal signs which have been chained to the lampost right outside the Council offices for at least the past three years?  (They can be seen in the photo above)

Airbrushing (and demolishing) history

Q:When is a Council decision not a Council decision?

A: When the CEO disagrees with it.

 

In December 2010, Council voted against a recommendation by the CEO (it would never happen with the current council) to get rid of the historic home known as Zinnecker's House next to the Visitor Centre in Hampton Road. Council decided the house should be retained, and set aside $30,000 over three years to make repairs.

 

Less than 18 months later, at the urging of the CEO, Council has thrown this decision out and resolved - unanimously and without debate or discussion  - to demolish the building.

 

 Normally, to perform such a backflip, Council must consider and pass a special motion to revoke their previous decision. But in this case, the CEO swept that formality aside saying it was "not required as that (previous) resolution has been acted upon - the building has been retained since then (the decision cannot bind Council forever) and funds were included in the 2010/11 budget for the first stage work to the building."

 

Never mind, either, that Council's recently adopted Strategic Plan endorsed as a key strategy 'To enhance and protect our built heritage' and that one of the actions listed to achieve this was to 'Prepare and implement a conservation plan for Zinnekers House.'

 

So what was the reason given for bulldozing an historical building in the main street of a town which sells itself as WA's only National Trust listed Historic Town?

 

The estimated cost of renovating and repairing the building was $175,000 and this money would be better spent on, among other things, improving the Shire staff office accommodation.

 

I'm not making this up.