Charles Sturt council saves the silliest part for last as Crows HQ vote comes down to a NIMBY nailbiter | David Penberthy

This week we saw a chilling insight into the inner workings of local government, and its capacity to be a bulwark against progress, writes David Penberthy.

Can someone please explain the following.

How is it that a council receives feedback confirming 90 per cent of its residents either passionately support or happily support a proposed development, and then very nearly votes to make sure that the development doesn’t go ahead?

The final silly denouement in the Crows/SANFL headquarters saga played out at Charles Sturt Council this Tuesday night.

They almost saved the dopiest moment until last.

And rather than being merely the isolated tale of football’s attempt to grow in this state, and to have facilities every other AFL club takes for granted, what we saw instead was a chilling insight into the inner workings of local government, and its capacity to be a bulwark against progress in the face of overwhelming, demonstrated public support.

I have in my hand a piece of paper documenting the full public response to the Charles Sturt survey on the proposed SANFL move to the old Crows headquarters at West Lakes.

There were 163 responses from residents within the West Development, and they were evenly balanced, with 49 per cent very supportive/somewhat supportive, 50 per cent not supportive/have some reservations and 1 per cent unsure.

Crows stars Sarah Allan, Chelsea Randall and Jordan Dawson with club chairman John Olsen, Premier Peter Malinauskas and officials at the launch of new plans. Picture: Keryn Stevens

There were 972 responses from Charles Sturt residents outside the West Development, of whom a thumping 90 per cent were in support.

Then there were another 685 responses from non-Charles Sturt residents, of whom 655 were very supportive or supportive.

There have been letters to the editor suggesting the council was complicit in a branch-stacking exercise with all those dastardly football clubs revving up their members to jump online and fill in the survey.

Setting aside the fact that in a democracy they have every right to do so, and were completely transparent about contacting their members, let’s for the sake of argument throw those 685 non-Charles Sturt responses in the bin.

That leaves us with nine out of every 10 Charles Sturt residents saying: for crying out loud can we just go ahead and build the thing already.

To which five of the 11 councillors responded – not so fast.

It is something of a miracle that the yes vote prevailed on Wednesday, but by the narrowest of margins, the council voting 6-5 in favour of the SANFL move.

It really is hard to wrap your head around, but less so when you see the comments and correspondence of some of the councillors on the issue.

Former state Attorney-General Mick Atkinson has been keeping track of the fanciful criticisms of the project. Picture: Yuri Kouzmin

If the former Attorney-General Mick Atkinson ever goes on Hard Quiz or Mastermind, his special topic of expertise should be “obsessions and agendas of obscure western suburban Adelaide councillors”.

Atkinson has done an elite job monitoring the Nimby-fuelled stylings of these people as they tried to whip locals into a frenzy about an oval redevelopment which actually affords MORE access to locals under SANFL control than it does with the Crows as tenants.

He turned in a Twitter ridicule masterclass on Thursday with the following tweets exposing the silliness of it all.

“Australian Rules football will still be played at West Lakes after last night’s 6-5 vote at @CharlesSturt,” Atkinson tweeted.

“But not before Councillor Katriona Kinsella put @SANFL & @adelaidecrows on notice that our national game would be eclipsed by soccer as a reason for her nay vote, and Councillor Nicholas LeLacheur told another councillor he had to protect his constituents from the sound of umpires’ whistles and sirens.

“How did they cope between 4 May 1974 and March 2015?”

Atkinson also obtained correspondence showing how members of the very council which had sought public comment on the SANFL proposal was also trying to shut down public comments with which they disagreed.

They weren’t just upset by media commentary around the plan, but the apparent impertinence of elected state politicians daring to offer their views on whether the project should proceed.

This is one of the messages: “I have elected to not read (sic) or listen to any more of this type of media as they are predominantly devoid of facts and very one-sided. It would be refreshing to have some balanced reporting and corrections to these sensationalist comments and journalism. I refuse to get in the sandpit when these arguments are as flimsy as they are and are designed to pressure and demean councillors.”

These people need no external influence when it comes to demeaning themselves.

The really bizarre thing is that this message was sent to the council media guy who is responsible for collating and forwarding public and political opinion to the elected members. In effect the councillors were saying that they only wanted to be provided with copies of opinions they shared. There’s something so perfectly 2024 about that approach.

I took great personal offence – sorry, that’s a typo, I meant personal delight – at their breathless indignation that the worst of the comments were coming from sports people on the AM band.

I mean, what right do the likes of Tim Ginever or Graham Cornes have to express an opinion about the future of SANFL in this state?

Sanity has prevailed but only just and only slightly. And again, we have been reminded that things happen in this state not because of councils, but despite them.

Well done to the Mayor, well done especially to the CEO, who tiptoed their way through this absurd cat-herding exercise to achieve the desired outcome. And by “desired”, I don’t mean the one the footy clubs want, or some columnist or broadcaster wants, but the one which pretty much everyone in Charles Sturt wants, as evidenced by a credible set of numbers which almost a majority on council did their best to oppose.

Originally published as Charles Sturt council saves the silliest part for last as Crows HQ vote comes down to a NIMBY nailbiter | David Penberthy