Latest Mt Gambier City Council Response Re Hastings Cunningham Reserve Housing

Howdy dear availees...just gunna' post a copy of my latest correspondence with Mt Gambier City Council, and their response...(and our response to their response-Ed)...errr, maybe...(and they'll respond to our response to their response-Ed)...well actually, no, apparently not...(why? what have you done now?-Ed)...well 'Council' seem to be arguing that, 'cos I've questioned their actions/"process", they aren't going to answer my questions about those 'inferred deficiencies'...(nonsense, Council can't simply refuse to answer a perfectly valid question-Ed)...well apparently they can and apparently they fully intend to...but first, our legals...

Caution: This post may contain lines of narcotic humour, but not a trace of MGCC propriety.

This 'Response' contains no answers to any of the actual questions I've raised, nor addresses any of the "detail" of my letter...(magnifique! Council has provided what is possibly the second best sentence in the entire history of noise-Ed)...what do you mean "noise"?...(well, since 'noise' was first invented, you know, before words or voices or even sounds there was just 'noise', since then-Ed)....righto, fair enough, I concur that sentence 2 is a breath-taking masterpiece of vacuous alliteration...actually, please to be going below just down here and reading this 'response', but do be prepared for the second sentence...(it's like lying in the backyard man, staring at the night sky, listening to a whole Pink Floyd album, whilst wangin' hard on 'shrooms-Ed)...I'll take your word for that...(yeah, it's like a transcendental freak-out man, and like Council's just taking you along for the ride, they're takin' ya' out there man, over the midnight rainbow, and leavin' ya' there, and nuthin' is real, and everything is talked about......sorry, what was the question?-Ed)...nevermind...and so here's the MGCC response that I received just after 0900hrs this morn, 14th February 2023...***

Dear Mr Fletcher,

Thank you for your email dated 9 February 2023 in relation to the publication of notices relating to information and briefing sessions.

I appreciate the detail with which you have presented your views, however the Council Administration does not share your interpretation and commentary on the practical application of the relevant statutory provisions relating to the publication of these notices.

I will not be responding to the further questions you have posed as they infer some deficiency in Council's process, whereas the notices Council publishes on it's website exceed the legislative publication requirements.

You may of course engage your own further advice in relation to these queries at your own arrangement and cost should you seek to do so.

Your communication has been distributed to the CEO and General Manager City Infrastructure as requested. If you wish to distribute it to Elected Members their contact details (email addresses) are publicly available on the Council website.

 Kind Regards

***...okay, so my letter was actually about various concerns/questions all relating to a single issue, that MGCC 'secret' meeting 7th March 2023, and most specifically why  a 'single line item' notification for that meeting was titled, "Update Hastings Cunningham Reserve and Public Housing"...

Sentence 2:...Tada!...told ya'...what that says is, 'Council disagree with your "interpretation" of the Local Government Act requirements'...(what it says is 'Council reject the premise of your questions'-Ed)...indeed, pretty much...at best it says "We disagree, now here's a specifically legislatively jargon-laden word salad masquerading as a sentence"...(you would say that-Ed)...no not me, them! they're sayin' it!...(oh, right-Ed)...keep up...and furthermore, S2 ain't a whole long way from just sayin' 'you are wrong, we are right'...(well you did make some very specific and detailed statements about the LGAct, and then ask questions about those issues-Ed)...well I like to think I did, sure...

S3: How is it appropriate for a Council to refuse to answer any questions, and specifically, somehow try to justify that by declaring the questions "infer some deficiency"...(how in the living shreck do ya' contact Council about an issue, and not "infer some deficiency"-Ed)...well I guess if you contact them to say nice things...jokes aside, read my letter and then gauge that against this response... 

S4: Better Get A Lawyer Son:...this is not exactly a direct 'Legal Threat', but it's definitely sayin' 'if you want answers then get your own legal advice...(well who all else's advice are ya' gunna get on specific points of Law, other than a lawyers'?-Ed)...exactly, or spend years trying to get a response maybe from a local politician/Minister/Departmental Head/whatevs...(yeah good luck with that-Ed)...

S5: Stuff you Mr Fletcher, contact them yourself...anyone?...Ed?...(nope, you've covered it nicely-Ed)...

Kind Regards:...(bam!!! cop that! comes in with a devastating "I appreciate", then leaves with "Kind Regards"; brutal-Ed)...yeah. it's arguably the second greatest 2-Word Sentence in the history of noise...(yep, the 'words' say nice things sure enough, but there's an expletive-heavy white noise goin' on behind those words-Ed)...beautifully put sir, if we do say so ourselves...

(And just a quick reminder, were it needed, 'Ed' is not an actual person...'Ed' is a confected literary device used to simulate a conversation, try to joke around a bit, debate contrasting points, etc, stuff that engages dear availees, rather than just lecturing at y'all...this has been an 'Ed' talk-Ed) 

In fact, the whole 'response' has got a real 'expletive-laden vibe' to it...(it does doesn't it...I reckon if you take that 'stuff you' that ya' mentioned, yeah, and crank that up to a Force 'F'-you, and apply that in a few places-Ed)...wow, it works...I mean, if you take literally any part of this 'response' and drop in a few choice 'F' nuggets, it all still makes perfect sense...(but just with a much greater sense of Realism-Ed)...

All jokes aside, I can't help feeling that we've forgotten something vital here, something critical...(ummmm-Ed)...there's something.........(errrr-Ed)...not helping...(welll, errr, what about this then?-Ed)...ah! my correspondence to MGCC, what they then done 'respond' to, yes, this is it, well done...

I have been trying to get actual answers to numerous but specific and detailed issues...this letter is self-explanatory, and MGCCs' 'response' is above...***

Please distribute copies of this letter to;

Mayor, Councillors, the CEO, and the General Manager City Infrastructure.

Dear Council,

Re: “Update Hastings Cunningham Reserve Area and Public Housing”

Meeting 7^th March 2023

I refer to my correspondence dated Friday February 3, 2023, and your email response received 4.59pm on Tuesday 7^th February 2023.

For ease of comparison, I have included your email:

The March 7, 2023 briefing is  a briefing in relation to the land nearby to Hastings Cunningham Reserve which are State Government land parcels  which Council is working with Department of Infrastructure and Transport to gain access to (as per the January 30 press release) and adjoin Hastings Cunningham and the rail lands area. 

 The briefing will also cover a separate matter relating to Public housing, to reiterate which is not on Hastings Cunningham reserve, which is community land. For future reference Council from time to time discusses several subject matters in one briefing session. 

 Both items in the March 7, 2023 briefing contain correspondence from the state that is currently confidential (as determined by the state) and therefore the briefing will not be open to the public.

 For information about council’s recreation areas please consult the  Sport, Recreation and Open Space strategy which provides a comprehensive analysis of open spaces in our City and Council’s intentions.

Thank you for your enquiry. End Email

As I understand it, it is a legislative requirement that when Council is planning an Information/Briefing Session, that the meeting and the relevant public notifications deal with each single matter as a 'single line item', ie, each matter requires a separate meeting and notification.

This 'single line item' requirement is particularly important when a meeting is to be held 'In-confidence', ie, the public are denied attending that meeting, because Council must specifically identify each and every legislative justification for that exclusion, and as per each individual matter.

You are stating here that you have not just a) placed two allegedly unrelated matters on only the one notification, and b) set those matters for only one meeting, but also c) that the meeting is actually not about the site identified, that it actually relates to multiple separate unidentified sites somewhere “nearby”.

This appears to be several breaches of the legislated requirements, compounded by the fact that in doing so, Council have also failed to meet your responsibilities to comprehensively address every justification for excluding the public.

Furthermore, you claim that this is not the first time Council has addressed “several subject matters” at a single meeting, and would apparently intend to do so again.

Please identify to me where Council have previously conducted, or intends to conduct, meetings covering multiple matters and with the relevant notification, etc.

When Council says “...confidential (as determined by the state)” are you referring to Councils' legislative responsibilities under the Local Government Act, or saying that the State government has deemed “confidential” just that specific correspondence relating to those sites “nearby”?

Your response raises many more questions.

1. If the notice refers to specific sites “nearby”, why does it not refer specifically to those individual sites by name or lot number, etc? with each meeting about each site then requiring individual notification?

2. Is it appropriate for Council to have a meeting where-in you are discussing muliple different sites without actually identifying any of them? let alone in the requisite manner?

3. Why has Council not followed the legislative requirements to plan and conduct these allegedly separate matters, HC Reserve and Public Housing, as 'single line item' meetings and use single notifications?

In the notification Council has posted, it directly states “the matter to be discussed is”, being the singular, not as Council is now stating 'the matters to be discussed are'.

As Council is aware, there has been widespread community concern ever since Council posted this 'single line item' notification about a meeting that identifies 'Hastings Cunningham Reserve and Housing' as a single matter.

Yours,

***...and likely there'll be yet more correspondence to come...

But here's a teaser; it appears that only 1, that's 'one' of the dozen various clubs and organisations using Hastings Cunningham Reserve has an actual 'Lease' with MGCC, the rest are all on 'Licenses'...and there's a big difference...(and someone should explain that difference to Mr Coombes of the SE Street Machine Club-Ed)...well I'm sure he's researched it thoroughly, like we have, before making public statements of "fact" on the subject...(well obviously he hasn't, researched it that is-Ed)...yeah, I was being facetious, you know? sarcasm?...(well okay, I just never know with you...honestly, you're just about the most Brutally Passive-Aggressive Introverted Narcissist I know-Ed)..."just about"? how many BPAINs do you know?!...

Tomorrow: Something Special And Different, But Actually Probably More HCReserve

(I'm really starting to resent that bloody Reserve-Ed)...well reserve your resentment for those responsible, the Reserve deserves our support...(oh whatevs!-Ed)...and there are of course multiple other recent posts about HCR and MGCCs' related actions, here on TMGI Blog...enjoy...

I am Nick Fletcher and this is my blog...cheers and laters...

A Development Issue As It Pertains To Hastings Cunningham Reserve

Howdy dear availees...it's now a week since I started this post, and whilst it is related to our recent tomes on the Hastings Cunningham Reserve, it refers to all of Mt Gambiers' precious few 'open spaces'...this exchange is actually from The Mount Gambier Independent Facebook page...

This is a super-short post 'cos I wanted to just use this one exchange as the sole focus...it relates to HCR in many ways, but also relates directly to all of the parks and reserves in the City area...basically,  retaining precious open spaces and how that relates to appropriate development...(I'm sure many availees are already aware of many of the issues raised below, not least of all the efforts to stop The Marketplace that were made by various "vested interests" in Mt Gambier City Council and/or the Mt Gambier Chamber of Commerce and/or the District Council of Grant-Ed)...indeed Ed, much was the shenaniganigging done that fine morn...(nice one, but more a series of morns really, just to be accurate-Ed)...well, okay,  just to be accurate, down the years and on multiple issues, I've heard literally the same refrain, a litany of "vested interests aligned with and/or in Council" stories......and in that context I'm confident to support everything that's in the statement/response below...

This is also an excellent exercise in how rumours can very quickly and very easily go very completely ass-about...(and how often the facts are what's actually interesting-Ed)...well quite...the content of the "rumors" mentioned below are slightly irritating but not unexpected behaviour re what MGCC has supposedly done and why, etc, but the very polite response to that mis-held belief, about what's actually happened, now that's somethin' you can get ya' teeth into...(yep, that good ol' reality, that's layers-upon-layers of home-spun chunky goodness right there-Ed)...it'll sure-as-heck cure what ails ya'...(you mean in a 'the truth will set you free' kinda' way?-Ed)...yeah sure, like that...

This is from, I wanna' say, like, the 4th Feb...(forgot to date it when you cut-'n'-pasted it?-Ed)...yeahhhh, but it's likely still on TMGI Facebook...(yeah, it was actually 1st Feb 2023, just checked it-Ed)...cheers...so here 'tis...***

• Nev Moody

  Have heard rumors that Council has had a consultant tell them there is too much green space in Mt. Gambier.

  I wonder what that consultants breif was.

  Consultants tend to provide what they are asked for, makes getting paid easier.
• 
  
• Reply
Wayne Philp
Nev Moody that rumour might be getting confused with a consultant that council engaged in the hope of preventing retail development outside of the CBD before the Market Place on Penola Road was approved . I was directly involved in what that was all about with the proposal to develop the Market Place shopping precinct that’s now on Penola Road at the Northern Gateway of Mount Gambier.
The City council engaged an independent consultant to consider the CBD and the retail / commercial fabric of the city . Much to the disappointment of those who had considerable influence over council, who tried to stop that development on Penola Road, the independent consultant said that there was a lack of open and green space on the CBD . They said the it was valuable as community space / use and shouldn’t be wasted. Not only did it not help the vested interests trying to protect those interests in the CBD, it had the opposite effect and justified retail / commercial development on the city fringes.
Regardless of what that consultant said at that time, now that the retail / commercial development has taken place outside of the CBD and the threats by particular vested interests of damage to the business and community fabric of the city has been proven to be false, this highlights the value of open and green space in the CBD and central zones inside residential development.
With unlimited land on the city outskirts and much residential development in that land now, it should highlight the value of open and green space inside the city proper. There is now no justification to build out those rare patches of land, especially when they are effectively owned by the community.
Cramming more development on rare open space in the city proper is a waste of land that, with the residential development that surrounds it, is best used for community use. The variety of community uses with these limited open / green spaces aren’t difficult to understand or see potentials of. To deny the value of these open / green spaces would be completely disingenuous by anyone, especially council and elected politicians who control or influence it.
What has now happened with the release of constrictions on retail / commercial development outside of the CBD, is the ability in the CBD and city proper to have orderly planning that considers and runs with quality of life development that also includes sustainable development. Now that retail / commercial development is on the city fringes and residential development is taking place around that, there is no reason to cram inappropriate development inside the CBD or city proper.
Regarding the abundance of land around the city, there is no need to cram any development in a way that inhibits quality of life abs sustainable development in and around the city. Open and green space community use land should be a priority because the value and need for that is obvious .

***....again, those dear availees who are aware of the many "vested interests" as quoted here-in, and of the many, many instances of impropriety like Insider Trading, Nepotism, Malfeasance, etc, as committed by their local Council, they fully understand why it would cause such a panic in Mt Gambier when Mt Gambier City Council posts a 'single-line item' notification for a meeting titled "Update Hastings Cunningham Reserve Area and Public Housing"...(and even those people not reading TMGI at all, I'm sure they were equally concerned-Ed)...and that's my point exactly Ed...

These "rumours" about MGCC trying for development near/adjacent to HCR, along the Rail Lands and/or on vacant sites nearby, etc, etc, have been circulating for roughly a year as I've been aware of them...(and that slightly more recent stuff about Apollo soccer club possibly expanding onto the closed tennis courts site, etc, all those aligned rumours have ebbed and flowed-Ed)...yes they have...(and recently that train of "rumours" swerved madly offa' the tracks, and ploughed through the Rail Lands fence right onto HCR itself-Ed)...yes those damned rumours did...as best I can figure out, what's thus far passed-off as "rumours", is actually a series of several truths, themselves not all specifically connected, but we'll cover that in the next post or two...(sounds fascinating-Ed)...as it stands, and as proven by the sudden and visceral response when I first posted about 'HCR and Housing', there was clearly wide-spread community concern about MGCCs' conduct, and long before I posted...

A community that does not trust their Council; that is fertile ground for "rumours".  

A majority of that mistrust is generated by MGCCs' extraordinarily secretive conduct re the massive cost blow-out of the Wulanda Hub project.

So next post we'll get into "Rumours" and 'facts' and specifically as it all relates to HCR...Mt Gambiers' precious open spaces continue to be at risk, and even HCR is not immune from that...

Tomorrow: Like We Said, More HCR

I am Nick Fletcher, that's Ed...(ciao-Ed)...and this here's the blog what we done do...cheers and laters...

The Border Watch Article - "Parkland Not On The Market"

Howdy dear availees, I was alerted this fine Monday morn to an article as printed in The Border Watch newspaper, Friday 3rd February 2023, titled "Parkland not on the market"...as soon as I was $3.50 lighter by way of  purchasing said publication, I done read what it got to say, and then I posted this (just below) on TMGI Facebook page...(and it's now Tuesday 'cos I just got sick of doing this stuff, all day yet again, all day yesterday)...***

Apologies, but I've only just read the article,
"Parkland not on the market."
from The Border Watch, Friday 3rd February 2023, page 5
It refers to "rumours" and "speculation" and "scaremongering" that "made waves on-line" and quotes a Mr Coombe saying "some person" and then "the person".
Prior to this article, it's already being put to me that I am being publicly identified as "the person" because of what I wrote here and on TMGI the blog.
The article states;
"The rumours related to a future in-confidence meeting ...on March 7, titled Hastings Cunningham Reserve Area and Public Housing, which sparked on-line concern..."
It then states that;
"Council has since clarified it has not intention of selling..."
The facts about that meeting, as I've explained many times, are not "rumours", and the article does not explain why MGCC is having that meeting or why it's "in-confidence" (closed to public).
The article quotes Mr Coombe repeatedly, before then printing MGCCs' unsigned partial denial from their website, which appears to be the source of the 'clarification' referred to above.
As it reads, TBW has;
1) identified issues as "rumours" but not explained the 'truth/facts';
2) spoken to and then quoted only one person;
3) has not spoken to "the person" being identified as the source;
4) apparently not actually spoken directly to MGCC about this.
No-one from MGCC is quoted here.
Every 'statement' attributed to MGCC in this article can be taken from that unsigned 'denial' on their website, as repeated there-in.
This is going to require another long-form blog post, and I'll try to include the full article.
I'll post a link here asap, give me a few hours to unpack this.
Cheers, Nick

 ***...I was going to put here, a copy of the eerily similar letter I've just now emailed to The Border Watch...(that letter looks like you've just cut-'n'-pasted our stuff from Facebook and then padded it out a bit-Ed)...well sure, "our stuff"...(which is what you've been criticising others for doing, eg, MGCC and TBW-Ed)...yes, they have been lazily just copying stuff into and/or from that slippery pseudo-denial...(and that's where you learned to do it, right?-Ed)...well no, but when you have very limited resources like here at TMGI, then it just makes sense...(but when you've got a 'Media Officer' and/or are an actual journo, then something a li'l more professional and thorough is required?-Ed)...my thoughts exactly...(so where's this letter then?...mmhm, okay, mmm, I like this bit, aha, yes, hmmmmm-Ed)...and?...(they're not going to print that-Ed)...maybe they will, maybe they won't, and in almost any other context I'd give them the chance to print before I publish anything at all about it...(but we don't have any time to schreck-about with this, that meeting's only 4 weeks away-Ed)...precisely, so I won't publish my exact letter to TBW just yet, but even if TBW prints it in full, that's only addressing a small part of only some of the many issues as we've covered/explained them here on TMGI Blog and as above... 

So, that letter to TBW aside, let us dissect paragraph by paragraph the TBW article, as copied here...apologies for the 'wide' formatting but it's the only way to make the article readable...it's "Parkland not on the market" by Charlotte Varcoe...

 

This article is not a definitive statement from Mt Gambier City Council, nor does it contain one...TBW appears to have not actually interviewed anyone at MGCC, eg, there is no specific quote from MGCC...(let alone from the Mayor and/or CEO-Ed)...yep, and the quotes attributed to MGCC in the last 4 paragraphs are just direct copies of Councils' on-line and unsigned pseudo-denial about "intention"...even TBW's "clarified" statement in Par4 appears to be derived from that online unsigned pseudo-denial...this article is effectively TBWs' opinion, as based on interviewing a single person...

If you follow the 'denial/clarification' thread back through the hyperbole and "rumours", etc, and get on the Responsibility Trail, that trail leads to no-one...MGCCs' only response has been that anonymous and very non-committal denial on-line...it appears that no-one at MGCC is definably responsible, no-one from MGCC has been interviewed, no-one from MGCC has publicly commented...

Par 1) First word, Rumours, is language used to sensationalise and/or denigrate/discredit the subject matter...why not use 'public discussion' or 'allegations'?..."refuted" is a sweeping statement that deliberately exaggerates the very limited sample base, eg, it is not insulting to say that whatever these 3 gentlemen believe and/or do not believe, what they know and/or don't know, what they have and/or haven't heard, for the strict purposes of factual journalism, this article is based on 3 people's opinions, as representatives from only 2 clubs...(and only directly quoting one man-Ed)...

To be really pedantic, and an absolute grammar knob, the "both" could be applied in 2 ways, and it's all down to a 'comma'...firstly, without the 'comma', "both" means 'the groups and Council'...but chuck a comma just after groups, and "both" is referring to just the 2 community groups, ie, 'by both community groups, and the local Council.'...that's why poor grammar and/or sloppy journalism can be so critical...another example, leaving the "Update" off the front of the meeting title in Par3... 

Par2) Actually, this is reasonably correct..(damn-Ed)...although, there's no mention of the preexisting and pervasive public distrust of MGCC, due in no small part to both Council's massive overspend and related obsessive secrecy on the Wulanda Hub...(or that these sell-off "rumours" were circulating on-and-off, since early 2022, relating to different sites adjacent to HCR, but recently shifted focus specifically to HCR-Ed)...good point...

It appears that the specific 'HCR Sell-off Rumour' is directly related to MGCCs' Information/Briefing Session Notification, "Update HCR Area and Public Housing".

I did not 'start' any of these "rumours", but after becoming aware of the issues, I have tried to thoroughly research before finally saying/printing anything.

Par3) TBW confirms that there is an "in-confidence meeting" and that it's titled "Hastings Cunningham Reserve Area and Public Housing"...(why has TBW failed to print the critical first word of that title, ie "Update", indicating that there has been previous official discussion of this 'Single Item'?-Ed)...don't know, but indeed it is a critical word to delete, and for the reason you've stated...

Par4) As referred to above, this 'clarification' appears to be taken from MGCC's denial on their website, and as quoted at the end of the article...

Par5) Is the first of several paragraphs quoting Mr Coombe...(well it's Mr Coombe from here to the fourth last paragraph-Ed)...indeed...as above, it's been put to me that I'm publicly considered "the person", and it seems a fair presumption for all of us to make 'cos I cannot find where anyone else specifically raised this issue...

I appreciate that Mr Coombe likely is concerned for his members, as are the other chaps pictured, and I don't know if he's referring to me specifically, etc, but his opinions are not fact, they are opinions, and some statements he's made as "fact" are arguably 'not facts'...for example, stating that Council "cannot/can't" sell HCR...Council can sell the land, or can easily move to facilitate that sale...(and there's the 'consultation' issue where he says 'It isn't true 'cos I haven't heard from Council', etc-Ed)...yep, as we've previously posted all over TMGI, the MGCC Meeting Notification makes specific reference to "a proposal to prepare or amend an instrument", eg, changing land rezoning...(yes, and it also states that this process/meeting has to occur prior to public consultation-Ed)...indeed, and just 'cos it's quicker, here's that notification, again...***   

Civic Centre, 10 Watson Terrace
Mount Gambier SA 5290
PO Box 56
Mount Gambier SA 5290
Telephone 08 87212555
Facsimile 08 87249791
city@mountgambier.sa.gov.au
mountgambier.sa.gov.au
Reference: AF22/549
MAYOR
COUNCILLORS
CITY OF MOUNT GAMBIER
Members
1. The Chief Executive Officer, Sarah Philpott has arranged an information/briefing session of
the Council to be held in the Council Chamber, Level 4, Civic Centre, 10 Watson Terrace,
Mount Gambier on Tuesday, 7 March 2023 at 6:00 PM to discuss the following matter/s:
Update Hastings Cunningham Reserve Area and
Public Housing 7 March 2023, 6:00 PM
2. The session described above will not be held at a place open to the public as the matter to
be discussed is of a confidential nature within the ambit of section 90(3) of the Local
Government Act 1999 being:
(j) information the disclosure of which:
(i) would divulge information provided on a confidential basis by or to a Minister of
the Crown, or another public authority or official (not being an employee of the
council, or a person engaged by the council); and
(ii) would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest;
(m) information relating to a proposal to prepare or amend a designated instrument under
Part 5 Division 2 of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 before the
draft instrument or amendment is released for public consultation under that Act;

***...if Council don't already have the direct ability to sell HCR, they are literally only ever a coupla' short signatures away from having that power...and MGCC cannot go to "public consultation" until after they've finalised whatevs "draft instrument or amendment"...(and anyways, it would be far easier for MGCC to make decisions and commit to a course of action and then sign documents, etc, then announce it all as a done deal, and deal with the fall-out of that, rather than deal with irate Ratepayers protesting some pending decision and/or development-Ed)...yep, and despite being assured that it wouldn't happen, weren't MGCC tenants booted from at least one of the buildings Council demolished to accommodate the Hub?...  

And of course the last 4 paragraphs/sentences of the TBW article are just that anonymous MGCC pseudo-denial...

So I know this post is a little disjointed and repetitive, but I've now spent effectively a full day writing and re-writing this...(and all that checking and cross referencing and further attempted researching and whatnot what you done do-Ed)...indeed...if there's stuff in that Facebook post I haven't covered/expanded on, that stuff just stands as written, or please, dear availeee, there's always the recent posts on these issues here on TMGI...

Ultimately, this TBW article is effectively a single persons' opinion, and both Mr Coombe and TBW seem far more concerned with 'The Rumours Person' than they do with the fact that MGCC is having a secret meeting titled, "Update Hastings Cunningham Reserve Area and Public Housing"...

(It's like they've walked onto a stage, and have had to squeeze past the elephant, and have then turned and pointed at the elephant, and said 'hey, there's an elephant', but then turned back to the crowd and said, 'now, how's about those awful elephant rumours, let's talk about those rumours'-Ed)...whilst there's an elephant standing right behind them...(exactly, it's just like a good ol' panto, you know, a pantomime, all the actors saying 'what elephant? I can't see any elephant', whilst the crowd merrily chants "it's behind you, it's behind you", and the actors pretend to look and pretend to not see, 'noooo, we don't see any elephant'...'it's behind you, it's behind you'...ad naseum-Ed)...fabulous stuff, Update Hastings Cunningham Reserve Area and Public Housing The Musical...

In closing, and whilst it is absolutely no fault of his, but why is Mr Coombe being presented as the ultimate authority on these critical issues, when MGCC Mayor Martin and/or CEO Philpott should be explaining exactly what that meeting refers to if it's not as written, 'HCR and Housing'? 

Given this is being discussed so widely, and now also publicly by Mt Gambier City Council via their social media, Mayor Martin and CEO Philpott can thoroughly explain what's happening, and do so without breaching any alleged "in-confidence" issues.

Tomorrow: ICAC Transcript Stuff Or Just More HCR

I am Nick Fletcher and this is my blog...cheers and laters...

Further Reviewing The Hastings Cunningham Reserve And Public Housing

Howdy dear availees, and I know we here at TMGI have been bangin' on about this for several posts now, but it is a critical and time-sensitive issue...I revisit/revise this every day, and this post is fairly much sortta' how I process each and every issue relative to this topic...(and clearly we ain't the only ones concerned-Ed)...well indeed, so let's start there...

Ain't Going To Happen, Stupid Idea, What A Stupid Thing To Say:..and as contradictory as it may sound, we here at TMGI absolutely concur...(100%-Ed)...and we did a whole post about it just recently...(albeit a fairly facetious post-Ed)...yeah, but you know how we at least try to engage with dear availees with attempted humour and all that...(so that was what? satire was it?-Ed)...anyhoos, each and every time we go through this, our genuine base belief remains constant...(that "it's a ludicrous and disastrous idea'"?-Ed)...yeah, that... and every time it's the same result, after going through everything covered in previous posts and/or below, this remains our base belief...no sarcasm, not 'satire', it is clearly a ludicrous and disastrous idea...individually, no single issue challenges this base belief, and even collectively they don't totally erase it...(well there is one single issue-Ed)...ah yes, and we'll get to that...

Above terms also used either individually or as various combos of 'responses' we've received on Facebook...(but no 'Comments' on this 'ere blog yet-Ed)...indeed, but we don't often get many comments here on the blog...(whatevs, we've always copped our fair share of abuse, usually 'anonymous'-Ed)...yeah, true, but this issue seems to have struck a chord, it's different, so whilst some don't entirely agree with what we here at TMGI have been sayin', they clearly share our concerns...(and most especially on the 3 issues, starting with MGCCs' extraordinary list of 'Confidential Meetings and/or Decisions'-Ed)...yep, that's a biggie...(which is directly related to a separate issue, the actual 'Final Cost' of the Wulanda Hub-Ed)...where-in MGCC states it's $62million, and using MGCCs' own Budget costings it's closer to $80m...(and 'allegedly' much nearer $100m-Ed)...sure, but $80m, provable using MGCCs' own figures, MGCC has budgeted $80m...(and in a context where MGCC has 'buried' most if not actually all other Hub-related facts and figures-Ed)...and hence the layers of distrust build...

TMGI Is Spreading Malicious Rumours:...as I've previously 'fessed-up to, the rumour about MGCC trying to buy-up land along in the Rail Easement area near HCR, has been circulating for I'd reckon at least a year...(along with sporadic rumours about MGCC plans for those vacant rail and depot sites adjacent to the Rail Easement-Ed)...yep, all stuff near HCR, but not HCR itself...(yeah, and I hear talk that those sites my be heavily contaminated due to their industrial history-Ed)...fair point, but a few weeks back that rumour became about Hastings Cunningham Reserve itself...someone raised it with me, and so I had a bit of a gander...didn't have to go far before finding that there was actually a MGCC meeting planned about 'HCR and Housing', and when I looked at the meeting notification, it states "HCR Area'...     

After I publicly raised this issue on Facebook and this 'ere blog, in less than a week there has been enough concern voiced by Mt Gambier citizens (Ratepayers) that MGCC felt obliged to post an official albeit unsigned denial (attached below) on their website and social media on Monday 30th Jan 2023...(and in that denial, MGCC does acknowledge that they have indeed been looking to 'acquire' land along the Rail Easement that adjoins HCRs' Northern boundary-Ed)...yes they do, so what was otherwise just another rumour, MGCC has confirmed that as fact...also, we note use of the term "no intention of selling" as being a pseudo-denial that is a long way from stating that they 1) haven't considered the sale and/or 2) will not ever sell, and/or 3) may develop the site outside of actually specifically "selling" it, eg, a 99-year lease or similar...(like what was done with the Forestry Sell-off, selling "3 Rotations", which in reality is effectively a century of private ownership of the SE Forestry Estate-Ed)...exactly like that Ed...  

'Area' Refers To Adjacent Vacant Sites:...I do agree that it's possible to perhaps have confused/conflated MGCCs' plans for other vacant semi-industrial sites, eg, former rail and depot sites near HCR,with the actual HCR...(yeah, fair call, but then these 'sites' would be mentioned specifically by name in MGCCs' official 'Information/Briefing Sessions' or identified in Minutes of other Meetings-Ed)...indeed, and that's not what's happening...whatevs is happening on/with those sites, and how that has and/or hasn't been publicised, all that's very important but not a factor in this case, 'cos there's still the issue of the MGCC Info Meeting that is notified for 7th March 2023 that is about HCR...and in that notification MGCC uses 'HCR Area'...if it where other sites to be discussed at that meeting, each individual site would need to be identified...(and isn't that what the legislation demands?-Ed)...as I understand, yes, each individual issue/topic is considered (by legislation) to be a 'single line item'...heck, they might even have ta' do separate meetings/notifications for each site...but I can only find one such notification, and it goes like this...***

Information/Briefing Session (7th March 6pm)

Update Hastings Cunningham Reserve Area And Public Housing

 (Closed To Public)

***...which, as a 'single line item', states that MGCC is having a 'secret meeting' about 'Housing and HCR'...(by legislative definition, it states that meeting is about 'housing on HCR'-Ed)...this refers to any and all 'areas' that define Hastings Cunningham Reserve, ie, all open spaces/clubs/facilities combined...as explained, if this was about any other area/sites, they would have to be individually identified...

Furthermore, Closed To Public is 'justified' with the following statement...ah, shreck it, here's the full notice again...we've highlighted the topic bit...***

Civic Centre, 10 Watson Terrace
Mount Gambier SA 5290
PO Box 56
Mount Gambier SA 5290
Telephone 08 87212555
Facsimile 08 87249791
city@mountgambier.sa.gov.au
mountgambier.sa.gov.au
Reference: AF22/549
MAYOR
COUNCILLORS
CITY OF MOUNT GAMBIER
Members
1. The Chief Executive Officer, Sarah Philpott has arranged an information/briefing session of
the Council to be held in the Council Chamber, Level 4, Civic Centre, 10 Watson Terrace,
Mount Gambier on Tuesday, 7 March 2023 at 6:00 PM to discuss the following matter/s:
Update Hastings Cunningham Reserve Area and
Public Housing 7 March 2023, 6:00 PM
2. The session described above will not be held at a place open to the public as the matter to
be discussed is of a confidential nature within the ambit of section 90(3) of the Local
Government Act 1999 being:
(j) information the disclosure of which:
(i) would divulge information provided on a confidential basis by or to a Minister of
the Crown, or another public authority or official (not being an employee of the
council, or a person engaged by the council); and
(ii) would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest;
(m) information relating to a proposal to prepare or amend a designated instrument under
Part 5 Division 2 of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 before the
draft instrument or amendment is released for public consultation under that Act;

***...but that reasoning in particular is extremely concerning...when MGCC is denying the public access, when it's a 'secret meeting' and the legislation quoted to justify that 'ban' is relating to "Planning, Development and Infrastructure", that's a massive red flag...(and uses terms like "prepare or amend a designated instrument", eg, development zoning, etc, that's more flags-Ed)...and finally "before (release) for public consultation"...and it is very clearly not "contrary to the public interest" for the public/Ratepayers to be informed right from the beginning and at every stage of the process, especially where new and/or amended instruments are involved...(and most especially where it all relates to a public reserve-Ed)...and that's why this 'secret meeting about HCR and Housing' is so important...

But, as we've repeatedly acknowledged, here's MGCCs' official denial as posted on their website and other Social Media on Monday 30 January 2023, and below that the original bit from MGCCs' Sport, Recreation and Open Space Strategy (SROSS) page 31...***... 

Hastings Cunningham Reserve not for sale
30 January 2023

 

The City of Mount Gambier has no intention of selling Hastings Cunningham Reserve. For some time, the Council has been enquiring with the Department for Infrastructure and Transport about the acquisition of the rail lands adjacent to Hastings Cunningham Reserve, to link the reserve with the popular Mount Gambier Rail Trail.

To reiterate, the City of Mount Gambier has no intention of selling Hastings Cunningham reserve which is community land. Rather, there is a desire to improve the reserve per the endorsed Sport, Recreation and Open Spaces Strategy, which states the need to develop a master plan for Hastings Cunningham Reserve in partnership with site users. This plan will provide a coordinated and strategic planning approach to the provision and development of sport and recreation infrastructure, ensuring it is fit for purpose and meets the community's needs.

***...and here's the SROSS statement re HCR...*** 

Hastings Cunningham Reserve
• Develop a master plan for the site in partnership with site users, that will provide a coordinated and strategic planning approach to the provision and development of sport and recreation infrastructure ensuring it is fit for purpose and meets the needs of the community.

***...I note that this same statement is used in the SROSS for several other sites, eg, Don McDonnell Reserve, Frew Pk, Corriedale Pk...the HCR 'plan' is given a 'High' priority, meaning a time-frame of '0-2 years'...just for the record, here's 2 of my latest Facebook posts trying to cover/explain some of these issues... ***

To clarify any confusion about the notification re Mt Gambier City Councils' Information/Briefing Meeting set for 7th March.

This notification is available to view on Council's website.

It is a legislative requirement that each notification refers to a single 'line item'.

All other notifications for 2023 refer to a single item.

Therefore, when MGCC posts a notification titled;

"Update Hastings Cunningham Reserve Area and Public Housing"

that is a single item/issue.

That notification is about 'Public Housing' and HCR as one issue.

That is about housing on HCR.

MGCCs' related denial, also available on their website under 'News', is a slickly manipulative sidestep of the issue.

Saying "has no intention" is not "will never", it is not a guarantee that the sale of HCR will not happen. 'Intentions' change.

References to 'investment in sport infrastructure' does not specifically identify HCR as the site where that 'investment' will occur.

I also note that that denial is a verbatim quote of the statement re HCR on pg 31 of MGCCs' Sport Recreation and Open Space Strategy (SROSS).

The SROSS is also on MGCCS' website under Strategic Documents.

I hope this helps.

***...and the second one...***

Regarding Mt Gambier City Councils' official denial on their website, stating they have "no intention" to sell Hastings Cunningham Reserve.

In this denial they have confirmed they are attempting to acquire land along the Rail Trail to link that with HCR.

This was part of the 'rumour' starting early 2022 that I've previously referred to, namely, MGCC was planning to develop housing along the Rail Trail and on vacant sites at the Old Rail Roundhouse, Councils' old depot, and several other adjacent sites.

It has been put to me that I am misinterpreting this activity re the vacant site development by Council when I state that MGCC wants to sell HCR.

Fair call, but obviously, it can be both things.

It can all be correct.

If MGCC is not going to sell HCR, and I have confused this with the acquisition activity above, then I have 3 questions;

1) I'm literally the only person stating this, and only to a limited number of people.

So why did MGCC feel compelled to try and officially 'deny' it?

2) Why hasn't Council officially notified me about my error and asked me to retract it?

3) Even if the housing development activity refers to land not on HCR, and land acquired is for access to HCR, why is MGCC having a 'Special Meeting' on 7th March titled;

"Update Hasting Cunningham Reserve Area and Public Housing"

And question 4) why is that meeting closed to the public?

***...so we have been tryin' to deal with this thoroughly yet briefly, but it does require a more detailed and robust discussion...(like what we just gone and done-Ed)...yes, just like that...

I note there was an interview on ABC South East Radio the other morning about 'Housing Availability in Regional/Rural Areas'...there have been a few similar discussions recently...(and fair enough, especially renting has gone nutso-Ed)...indeed, but I thought the language in this discussion was quite specific and was particularly relevant to this HCR issue...issues like 'housing  pressure', 'affordable housing and social housing plans', 'student accommodation'...also 'regional planning process', 'recreational spaces', 'industry development'...(all fair enough-Ed)...sure, but there was also a lotta' talk about "In-fill of city areas" and how people, especially those moving-in from major cities, they want "different housing...closer to city...walk to cafes"...and sure, this should be looked at, but very, very carefully...it must not compromise any current Open/Reserve/Recreation area...

As many already know, only a few years back a qualified professional was engaged to conduct a formal review of Mt Gambiers' 'Open/Recreational Spaces', but, unfortunately for 'The Engagers' the final report concluded the opposite to what they had wanted, it said there's very little 'Open Space' in Mt Gambier so what there is shouldn't be built on...               

In conclusion, and deadset, I......(we-Ed)...'we' have gone over and over this, and researched it as best we can, etc, and asked advice, etc, etc...(and listened to people who've disagreed or had other opinions-Ed)...and in and out and over and back, and we just can't get past that secret Info Meeting...and that is the single issue that over-rides everything else...

We've also taken some very specific 'official' actions to try and clarify just exactly what is happening, especially as it pertains to that 'secret meeting'...we'll keep y'all posted, literally...

Tomorrow: My ICAC Testimony Part IV

I am Nick Fletcher and this is my blog, and I hope this post helps...cheers and laters...