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...
No comments:
Post a Comment