So what is really going on?

There is an old saying; ‘Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive!’ which now sums up the Zinnecker’s House saga.

The house has been there for around 90 years and has cost the Shire next to nothing to maintain.

Casting aside two previous decisions to retain it, the current Council decided in April to spend $8000 to demolish this piece of Bridgetown’s history.

The reasons given are all bogus. ‘It would cost too much to restore.’ (So don’t restore it!) ‘We don’t have a use for it.’ (You might find a use in the future, if you simply leave it there.)

The process around the decision to demolish Zinnecker’s is clouded by controversy, with the CEO steadfastly refusing to reveal the identity of the person within the Department of Local Government whom he said belatedly endorsed his advice to councillors there was no need for them to revoke the previous Council decision to retain the building.

This Council, which states its Mission as “to listen to the community...” has now ignored a petition signed by more than 250 locals, as well as the recommendations of a well-attended Special Meeting of Electors which voted overwhelmingly to retain the building.  Instead Council has now required that the building be removed (by others) within four months, or else demolished.

Council’s decision cannot be explained logically.  Why should the building be moved? It would lose its historical context if this was done.  And why the deadline? What problems will the building cause if it is still standing there after January 28?

It seems a simple demonstration of arrogance. Council is so determined to dig in over its decision to demolish the house, it is prepared to trash its own ‘Mission Statement’ and ‘Values’ in order to trample what President Brian Moore contemptuously refers to as “a noisy minority”.

Or is there a hidden agenda. If you ask me, it might have something to do with Zinnecker's next door neighbour Tony Pratico, the Shire Deputy President who owns the Chooks site as well as the property on the other side of Chooks.

If Zinnecker's is demolished and the Visitor Centre operations moved to the old Railway station, as is planned, I wonder what will happen to the site...  perhaps it would be offered for sale?  Would the wealthy and entrepreneurial Mr Pratico be interested in owning a 'super-block' on the main street? 

A new low

How do you feel?  If you are a resident, ratepayer and/or elector in the Shire of Bridgetown-Greenbushes, your Council has indicated it doesn’t give a damn what you think, or say.

In a stunning snub to both its citizens and the legislation under which it exists, our Council has thrown out recommendations sent to it by a legally constituted Special Meeting of Electors, refusing to even consider one of the meeting’s recommendations.

A new low has been reached. A point at which President Brian Moore and his ‘team’ have blatantly revealed their contempt for the people who put them into office.

The resolutions of the Electors Meeting – that Zinnecker’s House be preserved --  were tossed aside on the pretext of a ridiculous notion that because only 70 people attended the Special Meeting of Electors its outcome could not be said to represent the wishes of Bridgetown’s residents.

Hello?? What is it about democratic processes that these people fail to grasp?

By way of illustration which may enlighten them, let’s follow this warped logic for a moment… President Brian Moore’s election must be invalid, because less than half the eligible electors cast their votes. He received 873 votes, which means only 20 per cent of residents said they want him on Council.  So I make a guess the ‘silent majority’ wish he had never moved here, therefore his house should be bulldozed along with Zinnecker’s!

I am at a loss to comprehend the arrogance of a group of elected officials who chose to not even consider a resolution sent to them by a Special Meeting of Electors. The Local Government Act says that the decisions of a Electors Meeting must be “considered” at the next Council meeting. Yet, the third resolution from this meeting was not moved or discussed at the Council meeting.

This resolution called on Council, quite properly, to ask the Shire CEO to state WHO it was he spoke to at the Department of Local Government when, as he claimed, he received advice backing his assessment there was no need to rescind the existing Council decision to ‘retain’ Zinnecker’s prior to deciding to demolish it.

The people of the Shire simply sought to have the Council and its senior officer live up to its Mission Statement (“…provide ethical and open leadership…”) and Values (“Openness and accountability”).

But this Council and this CEO have now demonstrated a belief they can make their own rules and are answerable to no-one.