Opinion, Deborah Kelly writes the Heart of the City Surfers Paradise disbandment should sound warning bells for Gold Coast
THAT the Surfers Paradise Heart of the City Advisory Committee has been suddenly disbanded by council should ring alarm bells for everybody, writes Deborah Kelly. Here’s why.
Opinion
Don't miss out on the headlines from Opinion. Followed categories will be added to My News.
PAUL Weston’s Friday column about the council’s disbanding of the Heart of the City Advisory Committee should be sounding alarm bells for everyone in this city who believes in due process, openness and transparency, compliance with policy and sensible decision-making.
This was yet another council decision made without community consultation or notice to the Surfers Paradise business community, which has always strongly supported the Heart of the City Committee.
To do so for such a seemingly specious reason — that the committee is apparently not reporting its minutes in a timely manner — raises the question as to whether that is really the motivation for shutting this committee down.
The committee had broad terms of reference and the status of an advisory committee — which effectively meant that the council could not easily ignore its recommendations.
Details of the proposed new committee are yet to be released, and, it would seem, its advice may be able to be ignored by council. What is the point of that?
It is noteworthy that this decision comes immediately after the Heart of the City Advisory Committee’s support of Save Surfers Paradise in its court case against the Gold Coast City Council over the sale of the Bruce Bishop car park. In fact, the only point of the evidence out of the hundreds of pages of affidavits filed by Save Surfers Paradise that was challenged by the council at a recent court application hearing related to support given by the Heart of the City Committee in the fight to save the car park.
The court’s decision on the application is still coming, but if Save Surfers Paradise wins that decision it will be due in no small part to the evidence given by the HOC chairman.
In light of those circumstances, it is a reasonable question to ask if the decision to disband the HOC and replace it with another ad hoc body that the council may be able to ignore was retribution for the HOC’s opposition to the car park decision and its support for Save Surfers Paradise.
The council has also shut down an inquiry into the administrative processes that led up to the car park sale decision, made by a Surfers Paradise business owner. It’s specious ground for that decision was the fact that Save Surfers Paradise is contesting the actual decision in the Supreme Court.
On its face, that might seem a reasonable approach but when you drill down, the fact is that the two processes are completely independent and separate: the one by the business owner seeking a review of the report of the officers and CEO to recommend the sale of the car park — a report widely considered to be manifestly deficient and biased towards a particular outcome — and the other a court action by a community group to oppose the actual councillors’ decision itself.
GET A NEW SET OF HEADPHONES WITH YOUR DIGITAL SUBSCRIPTION
Again, it is hard not to form the view that a subterfuge has taken place in order to shut down a legitimate inquiry into the council’s processes.
It is also curious that the Council’s City Place Making Surfers Paradise Master Planning Leaders Workshop series has not proceeded in line with the forecast timetable. Is this another questionable situation?
A further important piece of this mosaic is the current proposal, apparently emanating from the Mayor’s office, to disband Surfers Paradise Alliance.
The feedback that we have received from members of the Surfers Paradise business and residential communities strongly opposes such a move and recognises the invaluable contribution that the Alliance makes to the precinct. Their experience and expertise in events production and management, as well as more general marketing and representation in Surfers Paradise will be lost. Why?
Again, this is another decision taken without consultation with those that support, fund and benefit from the activities of Surfers Paradise Alliance.
It seems a pattern is emerging: major decisions are taken in Surfers Paradise without community consultation, and, in most cases, without any advance notice. The effect of these decisions will be disastrous for Surfers Paradise. The loss of 40 per cent of all carparking in Surfers Paradise will cripple local businesses, cause a loss of jobs and disrupt all activities here. The mayor’s promise to return free parking with a three hour limit on the beachfront, while laudable in itself, is an indicator of how out of touch he is with the parking realities in Surfers Paradise. There are only 246 car parks along the Esplanade, out of a total of just over 4000 total car spaces in the precinct. Removing parking meters from 5% of these spaces will not compensate for a 1640 space loss of affordable parking for families, tourists, workers and business customers. That’s the issue that needs to be addressed in the mayor’s so-called Councillor parking summit.
Paul Weston is quite right: we need sunlight, and we need to understand why Surfers Paradise is under attack by this council. It’s always been the goose that lays the golden egg, and its economic contribution to the entire city is undisputed, so what’s really going on, council?
Join the conversation
‘Way out of order’: Battlelines drawn over Katter’s LNP warning
Queensland’s state election may be weeks away but it seems many have already had enough of the politics. HAVE YOUR SAY
Read more
The one thing Burleigh really doesn’t need
Change is barrelling towards Burleigh at an extraordinary pace – but a recent suggestion could transform the area forever in a way that few will appreciate.
Read more