20141223 A letter from Council (Click pic to read.)
A while after presenting my submission to Council, I received this acknowledging letter from a council officer. It's interesting to deconstruct it.
"I note after carefully reading your submission that you have made a number of unhelpful, baseless allegations against both councillors and staff suggesting corrupt or unethical conduct."
If he has some specific and valid complaints, I'd expect him to detail them. That he doesn't, announces right from the start that he's merely complaining that I accuse everyone in Bankstown Council in favor of the development plan, of being corrupt, stupid clowns. I accuse them of cooperating without question with a distinctly evil and corrupt policy of the Federal and State governments, to maintain immigration at a very high level solely for the purpose of pumping up real estate values, thus enriching their own pockets with no thought of the true national interest.
Frankly, I don't care if he has a problem with that. It's not legally possible to slander a government organization, so I can call them exactly what I think they are. I'm certain this person knows that perfectly well.
Now, why did he even bother to write these words, when there's utterly no 'helpfull' point in doing so? The next part is the key.
"In accordance with the Council's Code of Conduct I would request that you provide me with any evidence or documentation that supports your allegations so that I may consider referring your complaint to the Police, Independent Commission against Corruption, NSW Ombudsman or the Office of the Local Government. Alternaticely, you may wish to contact these external agencies with your complaints."
"The code of conduct" (by which he has to be seen to act) no doubt requires him to act on any knowledge he has of impropriety.
Setting aside that I have not named any specific persons of the council and made specific allegations against them, in my opinion his letter is an arse-covering exercise with the aim of being seen to make efforts to pursue specific impropriety, if I have such details.
Now he's made the effort, no one can accuse him of agreeing with me by his silence — implying that he already knows of some such specific details. If he did, of course he'd pass it on to the police and other relevant autorities.
OK, that's fine. There's no significant information content in the letter other than that he's formally denied knowing of anything untoward, such as developers having been informed of the proposed zoning changes some years before the citizens of Bankstown.
Naturally he doesn't bother to discuss any of my points regarding the true nature and intention of immigration policy and hence the total logical invalidity of the Sydney population projections. Thinking about larger issues is not his job, and by the complete absense of such discussion he demonstrates complete disinterest in such things. Good little policy drone.
He finishes off with some advice to me about how I should proceed. But frankly, when I want his advice I'll... no never mind, I do not want his advice under any circumstances. If at some time I believe I have enough for an official complaint, I will proceed in my own fashion. And certainly would not be informing Council officers of such formal actions beforehand.
20150211 'Fit for the Future'Yesterday in the evening I received a phone call. It was from a survey group, seeking public opinion regarding a State Government initiative called "Fit for the Future."
This was the first I'd heard of it.
I engaged, and went through the questions with the caller. It turned out to be quite an interesting illustration of the kind of treatment local councils can expect from State Government. With friends like these...
In essense, "fit for the future" is a State Govt. push to eliminate many local councils, amalgamating them into larger entities. The questions of the survey gave away the general level of dishonesty and cooercion involved, since all questions were slanted to encourage responders to agree that it seemed like a good idea to eliminate many local councils. There were whole series of 'facts' presented as setups for the questions, constructed to 'prove' that amalgamation was the only sensible choice.
The caller claimed the survey was being conducted on behalf of Bankstown Council, but I seriously doubt that was true. Since the entire object of the survey was obviously to get responders to agree that Bankstown Council should be amalgamated with Canterbury Council.
Google: "fit for the future" amalgamating local councils
http://www.fitforthefuture.nsw.gov.au/
http://www.fitforthefuture.nsw.gov.au/faq-page
http://www.leichhardt.nsw.gov.au/Community-Issues/Council-Amalgamation-Risk
"The criteria for being 'Fit for the Future' has been designed to make councils fail and it has been noted that not even the City of Sydney would be able to meet the “Fit for the Future” criteria set by the State Government."
My position was, that I absolutely do not trust government at any level to admit their true motives for any initiative. Regardless of the inevitable pretense of acting in the public's interest, it's always about concentrating more power in fewer hands. So I strongly opposed amalgamation of local councils. Despite that I'm aware Australia is seriously over-governed, in that our 'total cost of government vs size of population' ratio is at the very high end of the global scale.
Yes, I'd like to see less, smaller and weaker government in Australia. But programs like 'Fit for the Future' are not the way to get there. More useful paths would involve things like direct electronic democracy, citizen initiated legislation (able to override legislature law), outright disbandment of many layers of centralist government and bureaucracy, and plain erasure of vast swathes of existing law and regulation. In general, a 'decomplexification' of society. Simplify!
It's absurd to be futzing around with rubbish like 'Fit for the Future', when there are far more urgent and critical needs unaddressed, such as the need for 'truth in reporting' enforcement laws, rollback of corporate personhood powers, and addressing the need for fundamental banking and currency system changes, to eliminate the stranglehold of private banking elites on the creation from nothing, and lending at interest of the nation's essential currency. Not to mention the folly of money backed by nothing whatsoever, thus allowing infinite money printing and the associated inevitable economic instability.
In politics there are few, if any coincidences. That the State government brings up this amalgamation of local councils threat now, just as local councils are in the process of implementing the State Government's mandated rezoning plans, to pack far more people into higher density housing - that's no coincidence. I'd say it's the threat side of this program.
"Nice local council you've got there, it would be a shame if it was suddenly completely eliminated. By the way, did you pass those rezonings yet? Hurry it up, won't you?"
It's ironic isn't it? The name "Fit for the Future" chosen by State Government, applying to Local Government. When neither Local, State or even Federal Government structures in Australia are in any way fit to to guide our nation's voyage into the future.
20150218 Articles in the TorchClick for large image. (Includes another article on the rezoning topic.)
Oh well, it was worth a try. Given that this local newspaper is apparently funded to some extent by the Council, I would never expect it to be strongly critical of the Council. Or to be helpful to someone who is.
On 20150122 I'd sent the Torch (via their online contact form) the following:
I have some input related to your Bankstown-Canterbury Torch article "Village faces destruction" on Wed Jan 21, about the State Government's 'Sydney Metropolitan Strategy and the resulting rezonings in Bankstown council districts.
My home on Maclaurin Av East Hills is one of those in the 'red zone' - soon to be rezoned 4 storey high-density residential, if Bankstown council goes ahead with their plans. I am extremely unhappy about the proposed changes. In response to Council's plans, I wrote a lengthy submission, and submitted it by the Dec 5th deadline.
In my researches for that submission, I discovered that the entire basis on which the State Government rests their claims that Sydney *must* plan for greatly increased population, are both false and deliberately misleading.
My response to Council included that research and my comments. I have placed them all online via my web site.
The URL is: http://everist.org/no-rezone
The Torch is free to publish that URL, and any of the site content if you wish.
In your article you mention a meeting between Cameron Murphy and 'concerned residents' last Friday. I would have liked to be present but did not hear of the meeting. Do you know of any co-ordinating group I can join, by which I could be informed of such meetings in future?
Best regards,
Guy Dunphy
On 20150210 I received a brief reply from Mick Roberts (Torch Snr Journalist.)
1. Why do you think the zoning changes would be bad for Padstow?
2. How would they impact the suburb?
Regards,
Mick Roberts
Sen Journalist
Bankstown Canterbury Torch
You do realise it's not just Padstow? Nine areas across Bankstown municipality, and also the same thing going on in EVERY area of Sydney.
>We are doing a story for next week's Torch on the proposed zoning changes.
>Can you email me a brief quote I could use in my story?
How about:
----
The predicted huge population increase is purely the result of Federal immigration policy. There's nothing 'inevitable' about it. The true purpose of maintaining very high immigration levels is to continue pumping real estate prices higher. With their rezonings, Bankstown Council is naively cooperating with a distinctly evil and corrupt policy of the Federal and State governments, to enrich their own and one-percenter pockets. None of this is in the national interest, and none of it is good for Bankstown, Padstow, and East Hills.
--
By forcing widespread rezonings right across Sydney, the State Government is tearing up the property rights of thousands of homeowners. Effectively it's a mass population relocation edict. The kind of behaviour one would only expect from a Communist dictatorship.
----
Or is that too long?
Btw, I'm not sure you'd want to, but I'd be happy if you'd print the url http://everist.org/no-rezone in your article.
Yes, I know, the site includes my name and address. And is verging on libelous in places.
Considering the government is literally going to destroy my home anyway, what have I got to lose?
Incidentally, I'd appreciate contact details of any groups you've come across, who are organizing to oppose the rezonings.
I don't know of any as yet. Naturally I'd like to join any that exist.
>Would you be prepared to be photographed in one of Padstow's streets for the story?
Sure. I'm a 59 year old guy with a gray beard. Also unfortunately, a recently lost front tooth, that I won't be able to get fixed for a while. So no 'wide smile' photos.
>1. Why do you think the zoning changes would be bad for Padstow?
Heh. Have you seen the plans? http://everist.org/doc/base/devel_plan/at_risk/at_risk.htm
I suppose it depends on whether you think massive areas of 3 and 4 storey high-density housing is a good thing.
Personally, I think it's a crime against humanity. Especially when it's a result of a deliberate policy to increase the nation's population so much, and for no good reason.
>2. How would they impact the suburb?
"The suburb" is an abstract concept. What's real, is how people live. Though it's been eroded a lot in recent decades, I think most Australians still hold an ideal of owning a block of land with a yard, garden, and space for kids to play.
This kind of large scale rezoning proposed (right across Sydney) makes a serious dent in the proportion of properties that can provide that standard of living.
Regards,
Guy Dunphy
So, an arrangement was made for a meeting in Panania. I'd thought it was to be an interview format, but it turned out to be just a photoshoot, no interview at all. And that's how that article came to be.
Notably:
Here's the Torch article text for reference. Online source here: http://www.localnewsplus.com.au/story.php?ID=70907.
BANKSTOWN City Council's rezonings, proposed for areas across the municipality, will not only destroy the character of many suburbs, but will also reduce the standard of living.
East Hills resident Guy Dunphy has reacted angrily to the State Government's Sydney Metropolitan Strategy, which aims to accommodate an extra 22,000 residents in Bankstown by 2036.
Mr Dunphy's East Hills home sits in one of the council's proposed 'red zones' - earmarked for four storey, high-density residential redevelopment.
"I suppose it depends on whether you think massive areas of three and four storey high-density housing is a good thing," he said.
"Personally, I think it's a crime against humanity. Especially when it's a result of a deliberate policy to increase the nation's population so much, and for no good reason."
Mr Dunphy said most Australians still hold an ideal of owning a block of land with a yard, garden, and space for children to play.
"This kind of large scale rezoning proposed - right across Sydney - makes a serious dent in the proportion of properties that can provide that standard of living."
The council has received hundreds of submissions from residents raising concerns about additional high rise developments in centers such as Greenacre, Padstow, Panania, Revesby and East Hills.