An abridged version of the following post was puiblished in the Newcastle Herald (page 9) on 1 July 2009 under the heading "Community use best future for post office".
At the 2008 Local Government elections, I advocated as a candidate, Newcastle Greens policy to call on the State Government to acquire the former Newcastle Post Office and transfer it (with sufficient refurbishment funding) to either the University (who had expressed an interest in the building before their financial crisis) or Newcastle Historic Reserve Trust (NHRT), who manage the adjacent Lock Up cultural centre in the former 1860s-90s police station complex. I believe these options still represent the best future for the building. No doubt Greens Cr Michael Osborne will pursue this policy.
Either The university, as part of their planned expansion into the inner-city; or the Lock Up would make excellent new owners or lessees. Whether the State or Commonwealth government (perhaps jointly)funds its purchase doesn’t matter. But Council should not provide funding.
Interestingly, Cr Aaron Buman has recently called for Council to acquire the building, at an estimated cost of about $10M, which is its market value, given that it has development approval for a reception centre/pub. Add to that, there would be very considerable stabilisation and refurbishment costs.
His call was very inconsistent, given that he recently wouldn’t support the art gallery extension (about $10 M) because he believed Council can’t afford it. In addition the Buman team tried to halt the museum project because of a cost overrun of only $1.5M. Newcastle City Council can’t afford to acquire the Post Office and has no viable or strategic use for it.
Further, Cr Tate’s off-the cuff commitment (H, 30/6) to ask his financially stressed council to consider a contribution, only a few days after approving next year’s budget is unacceptable and inconsistent as well.
In the past he has been very critical of initiatives that divert from the approved budget, no matter how small.
Council has no financial obligation in this matter, but that shouldn’t prevent it from giving strong moral support on behalf of the community and to lobby for state and federal government funding for purchase and conversion to a genuine community use.
Certainly the Post Office building is not appropriate for library or art galley use, as advocated by Buman as well. The long overdue library and gallery extension should be constructed but must integrate with the existing facilities on Council- owned land behind Laman, Queen and Darby Streets.
Cr Tate claims to have always supported transfer of the Post Office to NHRT. What was his response to requests for support for a NHRT submission to the Federal Government, which requested the transfer of the building for a peppercorn rent when the Commonwealth sold it back in 2002?
The NHRT has an excellent record for management of and innovation at the Lock up (and its predecessor, the Hunter Heritage Centre). It’s a great pity that the Post Office wasn’t integrated with the Lock Up years ago. The community should seize the chance to make good that lost opportunity now.
The state of the building and inaction by successive Planning Ministers, despite its listing on the State Heritage Register since 2000, is an illustration of how heritage protection in this state is a paper tiger. It also illustrates, in my view, the alarming lack of interest in heritage issues by this State Government. They have stood by while the building is demolished by neglect.
Developer Shaun Ngu’s financial problems at last provide us with an opportunity to give Newcastle Post Office the kind of sympathetic future use that should be demanded for this much loved heritage icon. It should not on-sold to another speculator for a yet another CBD pub.
Let’s see some urgent commitment and action from our MPs, Jodi McKay and Sharon Grierson.
Keith Parsons.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Thursday, June 25, 2009
BUMAN'S CHAMBER ANTICS
Following is a letter to the Herald in reponse to a letter from Aaron Buman:"Buman learned a Green lesson", published on 25 June 2009.
Cr Buman asserted (H, 25/6) that he never walked out on a debate. These are the facts:
He often left meetings before debates began. On occasions his notices of motion had to be deferred because he had already left (without excusing himself).
Ironically, he often told me he thought debates were unnecessary because councillors all came in with a closed mind on issues, as he did. He rarely participated in any debate.
He often went walkabout for 15 to 30 minutes if public briefings didn’t interest him or he didn’t regard them as important, even though community members, consultants or staff had been waiting for hours to give presentations. He could be found him lying on the lounge in the Lord Mayor’s Reception Area. I recall him once leaving because he predicted the decision after debate wouldn’t meet with his approval.
As for hacks, are his anonymous “advisors” (as he called them) hacks? I’m aware of one ALP Right Wing party hack who Buman admitted to me was a close advisor.
There’s a story to be written about the real Cr Buman that I believe belies his public image.
Keith Parsons.
Cr Buman asserted (H, 25/6) that he never walked out on a debate. These are the facts:
He often left meetings before debates began. On occasions his notices of motion had to be deferred because he had already left (without excusing himself).
Ironically, he often told me he thought debates were unnecessary because councillors all came in with a closed mind on issues, as he did. He rarely participated in any debate.
He often went walkabout for 15 to 30 minutes if public briefings didn’t interest him or he didn’t regard them as important, even though community members, consultants or staff had been waiting for hours to give presentations. He could be found him lying on the lounge in the Lord Mayor’s Reception Area. I recall him once leaving because he predicted the decision after debate wouldn’t meet with his approval.
As for hacks, are his anonymous “advisors” (as he called them) hacks? I’m aware of one ALP Right Wing party hack who Buman admitted to me was a close advisor.
There’s a story to be written about the real Cr Buman that I believe belies his public image.
Keith Parsons.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
TATE'S BIASED AND INCOMPETENT CHAIRING (AGAIN)
The following blog has been sent as a letter to the Newcastle Herald today (22 June 2009) in support of a published latter by John Sutton:
John Sutton’s criticisms of Cr Buman and the conservative block that now controls Newcastle Council are completely justified.
As former councillors with over 16 years collective experience, we are well placed to comment.
I believe Cr Buman’s behaviour was characteristic. However, it also reflects on the leadership and the apparent level of understanding of Council’s Code of Meeting Practice by Lord Mayor John Tate, who has 28 years of councillor experience, including 10 years in the chair.
It was absolutely inexcusable to allow Cr Buman to include his irrelevant motion as an addendum. In my experience incompetent and biased rulings and filibustering on issues Cr Tate didn’t support were hallmarks of the past two terms.
This is not a minor, esoteric matter about meeting procedure. Tate’s and Buman’s actions were a major abuse of local democracy.
Keith Parsons.
John Sutton’s criticisms of Cr Buman and the conservative block that now controls Newcastle Council are completely justified.
As former councillors with over 16 years collective experience, we are well placed to comment.
I believe Cr Buman’s behaviour was characteristic. However, it also reflects on the leadership and the apparent level of understanding of Council’s Code of Meeting Practice by Lord Mayor John Tate, who has 28 years of councillor experience, including 10 years in the chair.
It was absolutely inexcusable to allow Cr Buman to include his irrelevant motion as an addendum. In my experience incompetent and biased rulings and filibustering on issues Cr Tate didn’t support were hallmarks of the past two terms.
This is not a minor, esoteric matter about meeting procedure. Tate’s and Buman’s actions were a major abuse of local democracy.
Keith Parsons.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
MCCLOY'S AND GRUGEON'S "VISION" FOR NEWCASTLE CBD
The following is an unpublished letter to the Newcastle Herald:
Geoff McCloy wears a “Rip up the rail” T-shirt, endorses a plan to halt all rail at Wickham, while complaining that we’re not getting light rail into the CBD like Brisbane (H, 13/6).He also hates heritage and other planning guidelines being “shoved down our throats”.
His and Hilton Grugeon’s vision for the CBD is qualified by their clear conflict of interest as major property owners and developers.
They needn’t worry too much about heritage restrictions, given the Planning Minister’s dismemberment of heritage protection legislation and recent decisions, whereby a clear councillor majority have voted against CBD heritage protection and planning standards .
Major CBD problems over the past two decades have been largely the result of speculators who buy cheaply, gain development approval and then sit on empty buildings or vacant land for many years, waiting to on-sell to another speculator.
Add to that, the (often absentee) landlords who would rather see small business go broke or move away rather than impose reasonable rents.Have McCloy or Grugeon ever criticised this ? How about the peak bodies like Hunter Business Chamber, Australian Property Council and Urban Development Institute?
After all, their constituency is responsible.Have any of the above condemned or even mildly criticised the owners of the development-approved former Post Office for letting the building rot since 2002?
Keith Parsons. 18 June 2009
Geoff McCloy wears a “Rip up the rail” T-shirt, endorses a plan to halt all rail at Wickham, while complaining that we’re not getting light rail into the CBD like Brisbane (H, 13/6).He also hates heritage and other planning guidelines being “shoved down our throats”.
His and Hilton Grugeon’s vision for the CBD is qualified by their clear conflict of interest as major property owners and developers.
They needn’t worry too much about heritage restrictions, given the Planning Minister’s dismemberment of heritage protection legislation and recent decisions, whereby a clear councillor majority have voted against CBD heritage protection and planning standards .
Major CBD problems over the past two decades have been largely the result of speculators who buy cheaply, gain development approval and then sit on empty buildings or vacant land for many years, waiting to on-sell to another speculator.
Add to that, the (often absentee) landlords who would rather see small business go broke or move away rather than impose reasonable rents.Have McCloy or Grugeon ever criticised this ? How about the peak bodies like Hunter Business Chamber, Australian Property Council and Urban Development Institute?
After all, their constituency is responsible.Have any of the above condemned or even mildly criticised the owners of the development-approved former Post Office for letting the building rot since 2002?
Keith Parsons. 18 June 2009
Thursday, June 11, 2009
HUNTER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PLAYS PSEUDO PLANNER TO "JUSTIFY" REMOVING RAIL LINE TO NEWCASTLE STATION
Below is an unpublished letter to the Sydney Morning Herald on the Newcastle CBD rail issue:
While cities across the world are spending billions to reinstate rail lines into their CBDs ,Newcastle, or more precisely, the Hunter Development Corporation,( a state owned real estate business ), Premier Rees, and local property speculators want to get rid of the rail line into the city’s heart. What will we be getting? In the past the local big end of town have called for (uneconomic)light rail to replace heavy rail. Even that’s off the agenda now. It’s to be a “green corridor”, a narrow pedestrian and cycle path between the back ends of buildings. Even the local cycleways movement says it’s unwanted and unnecessary. The property/business lobby call the line a “barrier”.The answer, promoted by local community organisation “Save Our Rail” is a narrowed 2 line rail corridor , with visually improved new infrastructure, decent landscaping, new digitalised signalling to shorten delays at crossings, and more at-grade pedestrian crossings for better access to the harbour. It’s simple, logical and relatively inexpensive but it doesn’t accord with the real agenda of the Government and property lobby. This unwanted white elephant “green corridor” will inevitably become a future "greenfield" site for another row of high-rise: a genuine barrier between city and harbour.
While cities across the world are spending billions to reinstate rail lines into their CBDs ,Newcastle, or more precisely, the Hunter Development Corporation,( a state owned real estate business ), Premier Rees, and local property speculators want to get rid of the rail line into the city’s heart. What will we be getting? In the past the local big end of town have called for (uneconomic)light rail to replace heavy rail. Even that’s off the agenda now. It’s to be a “green corridor”, a narrow pedestrian and cycle path between the back ends of buildings. Even the local cycleways movement says it’s unwanted and unnecessary. The property/business lobby call the line a “barrier”.The answer, promoted by local community organisation “Save Our Rail” is a narrowed 2 line rail corridor , with visually improved new infrastructure, decent landscaping, new digitalised signalling to shorten delays at crossings, and more at-grade pedestrian crossings for better access to the harbour. It’s simple, logical and relatively inexpensive but it doesn’t accord with the real agenda of the Government and property lobby. This unwanted white elephant “green corridor” will inevitably become a future "greenfield" site for another row of high-rise: a genuine barrier between city and harbour.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)