Letters
Compliance, unlawful dwellings and the homeless I would like to thank The Echo for its thoughtful consultation before tipping its bucket on councillors over our growing homeless problem. (Editorial 31/3 – The Scouring of the Shire). The claim that councillors initiated a ‘very high-priority hunt for unlawful rural housing’ is both insulting and wrong. The ‘high-priority’ adopted was a routine endorsement of priorities that Council has maintained for many years. It is one of six standard high priorities and gives council staff the backing they may need to address dangerous (mainly fire) situations or instances where gross environmental damage is being caused. (Council would be potentially liable for loss of life or injury resulting from fire or accidents in unapproved buildings of which they were aware.) A briefing/meeting with compliance staff last year resulted in councillors being told of the dilemma its officers faced. They were aware of numerous cases of gross exploitation of the homeless by landlords who provided sub-standard accommodation at gouging prices but were reluctant to act because of the housing crisis. The outcome was that a report to council would be provided (not received but now due on April 9). The Mayor also raised the matter in a letter to the Premier and had a meeting with the then Planning Minister, Frank Sartor. In the meantime a low-key approach was supposed to be followed with only formal complaints initiating limited action. The recent instances of compliance staff getting so much publicity cannot be commented on openly by councillors this being in the province of the General Manager. However, I suspect that the mandatory following-up of complaints has given great scope for some to pursue their own agendas. Meanwhile we have former community activist Fast
■
Bucks, now vigorously pushing his own agenda (which has some merit), being given carte blanche by The Echo to disseminate dodgy information (councillors’ rights to files and relationship with staff) in what I suspect is a classical case of attack being the best form of defence. It would have been beneficial to all had The Echo thought to speak with councillors before pulling the trigger (even the Byron News makes some attempt), now we are in the position where, dripping with poo, we will be cast as recalcitrants endeavouring to justify our heartless actions. Homelessness is a terrible and growing problem in our society and has reached the proportions where more than token measures are being forced on state and federal agencies. Councils are relatively powerless in this regard but Byron Shire has done far more than most with our initiatives being used as models for others and we plan to do more. Pursuing and intimidating those already suffering from the crisis is not on our agenda. The Echo doesn’t get out of the office much of late but could I suggest that an investigation into exploitation of the homeless in the shire would be a more productive activity than dumping on the usual target. Cr Tom Tabart
Brunswick Heads ■ The Echo made no claim that councillors ‘initiated’ a hunt, but that they ‘endorsed’ the compliance team’s ‘very high priority’, as can be seen in Council’s own minutes. It may be a standard priority, as Cr Tabart says, but it seems the ‘low-key approach’ has not been followed lately. Cr Tabart is right: under changes to the Local Government Act councillors face onerous restrictions as to what they can say about staff performance and to what documents they can view. And subject as we are to defamation law, The Echo by no stretch of
12 April 7, 2009 The Byron Shire Echo
the imagination has given Fast the only way to achieve demoBuck$ carte blanche. – Ed lition or removal would be by a vote of the elected Council to ■ ‘Not many would disagree specifically set aside the policy with Graeme Faulkner’s recent in a particular case. Mr Faulkner next suggests letter.’ I for one disagree. Some have lived there for that people ‘choose not to’ go 20 years and the roof has not through the correct developfallen in. It seems to me yet ment process. Excuse me, but another attack on those who as almost all rural land carries are most vulnerable and can- a prohibition against more than one dwelling, there is in fact no not defend themselves. Holiday letting in residential correct process for extra self areas is also clearly unlawful – contained accommodation. where is the priority campaign Council’s endless procrastithere? Is it again, as always, one nation over the Rural Settlelaw for the wealthy and anoth- ment Strategy means that this er one for the rest? It also says a situation is likely to continue lot for the councillors’ altruism indefinitely. Meanwhile, the with which they are so amply immutable law of prohibition endowed before the election, applies: market demand will so soon forgotten after the find a way. Mr Faulkner goes on to deny election. If one slips through who is not so forgetful then a that staff intentionally entered monumental smear campaign a property while aware that a landowner had refused entry. ensues to get rid of him. What is the point of elec- Evidently a padlocked gate cartions anyway, nothing changes. ries a message too subtle for Control and power is more im- his staff. However, I’ve been thinkportant than compassion. The building regulations comprise ing more about the Complia massive volume, it would be ance Priorities Program which very easy to find something il- the staff put before the elected legal to get rid of people you do Council last December. In this not like, that is, anybody below document rural illegal dwella certain income, but remark- ings were given a ‘very high ably flexible if it comes to a DA priority’. (In fairness to elected for a tourist resort, a mansion councillors it should be pointed out that this category was for the rich or a subdivision. Naval Pols buried among many others: it Byron Bay was not selected by them for special attention.) Urban illegal ■ The GM’s defence of Council’s dwellings and illegal tourist acperformance over compliance commodation (holiday letting) (Letters, March 31) contains were omitted altogether. some interesting propositions. Now the record shows that Mr Faulkner’s first is that illegal the elected Councillors acdwellings must be removed in cepted the staff recommendafairness to those who obtain tion without amendment. In planning permission. other words it was the staff Hang on a minute; Council’s who omitted holiday letting clear policy (ie the expressed and urban illegal dwellings will of the elected Council) is from the recommendation. that it is not the illegality as The councillors, lumbered with such which is unacceptable, a crowded agenda, no doubt but the environmental impacts. failed to notice. The key two-fold question Accordingly, if there are no adverse impacts such as health arising is this: why did the staff and fire risks, or nuisance to need a priorities list and why neighbours, then staff surely did they need to get it endorsed have no business talking about by the elected Council? Coundemolition or removal. Indeed cil acts only on the receipt of a complaint and Council is legally obliged to investigate each and every complaint. In other words it is the volume of complaints which should determine the priority. A formal priorities program therefore seems to mean that staff purport to know in advance what future complaints will be about; for example, there will be none about urban illegal dwellings and holiday letting, so let’s forget about those, but there will be plenty about rural dwellings so let’s give them priority. Clearly this is crap. I note that as a consequence of this vote the staff now would be able to wave the priorities list in the faces of rural fringe dwellers and use it to imply that the previous policy is now obsolete, and that the elected Council wants them
out with a very high priority. They would also be able to wave it around in a court of law as evidence of Council’s intent in the event of a prosecution. Indeed Mr Faulkner has unwitttingly conceded as much where he says: ‘According to our compliance priority program, advertising signs are a low priority. Presently Council staff only attended to complaints where signs appear to be recently installed ....’ I doubt if any of the elected councillors had the remotest awareness of these ramifications when they raised their hands in December. It seems to me they were unaware that they were effectively changing Council policy – without the inconvenience of inviting public consultation. This would be a particularly sweet victory for local profiteers. By leaving urban accommodation irregularities unimpeded, the rental income and therefore the value of urban properties would continue to increase while the persecution of rural fringe dwellers has not only the effect of reducing accommodation supply but, from what I’ve seen so far, of harassing greenish voters. I am a reluctant conspiracy theorist, and I certainly do not accuse the council staff of either the initiative or the sophistication to dream up such a scenario. However there are plenty of well-connected consultants and lawyers out there who plan cunningly for the long-term benefit of their wealthier clients. Fast Buck$
Coorabell Perhaps the Editorial had a preconceived agenda and didn’t want the facts to get in the way of a good story. Compliance – Council’s very high priorities are fire safety, building works causing environmental harm, dangerous and uncontrolled dogs, wandering livestock, fire safety in industrial estates and unlawful rural housing. Unlawful rural housing Council is most concerned about relates to fire, safety and
■
continued from page 11
to provide a natural balance where pests are kept in check. There is no need for expensive pesticides, fertilisers or machinery which are oil price sensitive. This insulates families against turmoil in economic and financial markets. And there is Cuba, also with a communist history, where much was learnt when it was forced to cope when its oil supply decimated overnight. It’s an example for moving forward in food production and community spirit. We have much to learn from
on-site sewage management, facts not mentioned in the editorial nor other articles on this subject, but relevant to the cases published in The Echo (17.03.09 p.7). There is a lot more information about the two local landlords planning to ‘stage public events’ (17.03.09 p.7) that would provide readers a more informed and balanced view of their cases and be of considerable interest, that was not published. Last week’s editorial reporting voting patterns was incorrect. I reserved the 2009 compliance priorities item for debate for two reasons. 1. Because I wanted to speak about Council’s ‘Protocol for Dealing with Homeless People’ (which was Annexure 23 to this agenda item) and call for Council to act with more compassion in its dealing with the homeless, and 2. Because I wanted a stronger stand taken on another very high priority – dangerous and uncontrolled dogs. This motion, seconded by Cr Barham, was put to the vote and declared lost (perhaps due to inclusion of dangerous dogs). A further motion was put by Cr Staples seconded by Cr Cameron to endorse the 2009 compliance program and was carried unanimously (08864). Check Council’s audio transcript of the meeting to verify this account and the call for compassion for the homeless. Landlords exploiting the homeless are another matter. Another story not covered by The Echo (or Byron Shire News) was Council’s unanimous resolution at last week’s Strategic Planning Meeting (Item 5.4) to get cracking on the reports and actions required to set up a caravan park for affordable housing in Mullumbimby on 6.8ha of Council land within walking distance of shops, an idea the previous Council, and particularly former Cr John Lazarus, tried to get happening. I have taken this on as a special interest in this term of Council. Hopefully there will be more to come. Shalom. Cr Patrick Morrisey
Goonengerry others and we have an ideal climate and community, innovative and receptive to new ideas. Our area has the potential to be an example to follow. Many people here are short on cash, whether they are retired or have young families. To grow just $20 or $100 worth of food per week can have a significant impact. It is partial economic security. There is much to learn from a community garden or permaculture. It is amazing how much can be grown in just a tiny plot. Friends can team up and work in each other’s gardens continued opposite
www.echo.net.au