News 
 Local News 
 News 
 General 
 OPINION: Newcastle City Council and the Laman Street figs 

OPINION: Newcastle City Council and the Laman Street figs

20 Nov, 2011 12:07 PM
Nothing fights like a cornered cat. Except Newcastle City Council trying to prevent an independent analysis of its claims that the Laman Street figs are unsafe.

Ever had to catch a feral cat?

I did, once.

I cornered it under our house, threw a blanket over it and wrestled it into a box.

Damn thing was a raging, twisting, spitting ball of muscle and hate, just trying to sink its teeth into me and rake me with its claws.

Got me, too. Bit my thumb so it bled and I had to get a tetanus needle.

Nothing fights like a cornered cat.

Except Newcastle City Council trying to prevent an independent analysis of its claims that the Laman Street figs are unsafe.

The council’s twists and turns, and the amount of muscle – in the form of ratepayers’ money thrown into the fight – makes that feral beast I wrestled seem like, well, a pussy cat.

Yeah, yeah, I know. They’ve already got blah blah blah experts saying blah blah that the trees are a traffic hazard and therefore have to be cut down, in line with what appears to me to have been the council’s decades-old ambition to let the world have a clear view of the facade of the 1957 civic cultural centre.

Except I, and about 10,000 other people, have got a few nagging little doubts.

Sorry about that.

It’s like if I had a heritage building that I personally hated but other people loved. Imagine I’d been bleating in the press for decades about how bad that rotten awful building was, and how nice it would be if it was demolished.

I kept trying to flatten it, but whenever I brought the topic up I got thwarted by those horrible greenies and heritage types who everybody knows are the only reason nothing good ever happens around here.

So then one day I turned up with a bundle of reports that said my building was a deadly danger to small children and innocent young mothers and I called in the demolishers.

Do you think you might tap me on the shoulder and tell me you want an independent report?

Nah, course not. Didn’t think so.

Specially because I’d phoned my insurance company and asked how they liked providing cover now I had all these reports. They said ‘‘No way, Jose’’.

Actually, they offered to pay for an independent report, but then it was my turn to say “No way”.

You wouldn’t want to expose me to the risk of “reputational damage” would you?

Like, if it turned out my building was actually not too bad after all.

I wouldn’t like that too much. Embarrassing.

But that’s just a hypothetical “what if?” scenario about me and an imaginary building that everybody knew I’d been trying to get rid of for years.

That’s not Newcastle City Council.

The real reason Newcastle City Council has been willing to spend many, many, many times the amount of money fighting to prevent an independent assessment of the Laman Street fig trees that it would have cost to have that assessment done can’t be to do with any fear of “reputational damage”, no matter what any councillor might say.

You can be sure that the council would just love to get this all sorted out in the open and clear for all to see.

But, hang it, they just can’t because it mightn’t be legal.

And once again they’ve got a bundle of reports to back them up on that.

And just like with the figs themselves, the bundles of reports that other people have got saying the exact opposite are obviously just dead wrong.

So, the council won’t vote on a motion to invite the Premier of NSW to provide an independent assessment of the fig trees because, gosh darn it, it’s got a legal opinion that says it wouldn’t be legal to debate that possibility.

Illegal? Ooohhh, golly. I can see the queue around the block to sue the civic leaders if they illegally voted to get an independent assessment of a controversial council matter.

Yessir, it was hunky-dory, gold-plated 100per cent legal and lovely when the council organisation completely ignored a vote by councillors in December 2010 to keep the trees and make Laman Street one-way.

They legally ignored it for more than three months so it was totally kosher and better than good when a vote in the opposite direction was put forward and won.

It was cool and good and right and proper to ignore and delay a vote to keep the figs. But now it is scandalously illegal to delay the big chop. Because, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, and legal advice, blah, blah.

And it is 24-carat local government best practice to spend $1million of other people’s money to avoid having to spend a fraction of that – or maybe nothing at all – just making sure the trees are honestly truly the deadly threat to life on earth that council says they are.

Bring me back my feral cat; I want to have another wrestle with an opponent I understand.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Got it Greg.

There are serious people starting to rail against Council and some staff and I am starting to think their way.

Methinks next years elections may have a clean out.

Posted by savio, 20/11/2011 6:45:33 AM, on The Herald
Greg Ray -this is spot on, as have all your articles on this crazy situation. The admin and select councillors say the trees are unsafe, they are very sure of their position. So if they are so sure then why fight and fight an independent assessment? Why say no to the insurance company wanting to do further testing and willing to pick up the tab? Why say no to an offer by a local resident to fund further testing? Why why why? Guess Bob Cook's words sum it up "have to avoid "reputational risk" of the administration and arborists ...... Newcastle wake up and see what this really is about.
Posted by Beth, 20/11/2011 6:57:24 AM, on The Herald
this article is absolutely spot on.
Posted by Hill Resident, 20/11/2011 7:27:13 AM, on The Herald
Spot on Greg ... and Laman Street is not the only issue that Council is acting like a Feral Cat about..

Laman Street symbolises what the Community is ralling about in all other areas of the LGA. The old saying " you cant fight City Hall " is true when you are a small group of volunteers who care about their community, NCC will tie you up in paperwork to the point of exhaustion. For those in the Community that are also struggling on a day to day basis to receive fair and equitable outcomes they ( SOF ) are a symbol of fighting the good fight.


Posted by chaos, 20/11/2011 7:50:44 AM, on The Herald
excellent effort at lampooning a ludicrous and absurd situation.

Absurd and ludicrous because they bought it on to themselves to be seen in this light.

"stupid is as stupid does" are words that come to light from a fictional source - but you couldnt make this situation up if you tried.

No we will not be subject to scrutiny - why not ? because obviously we think we are beyond scrutiny.

Reputation damage ? The statement leaves me breathless as its totally a name for the story that you couldnt make up if you tried.

Come on you comedy writers -there is years of good material here!

Posted by Master Sgnt Bilko, 20/11/2011 7:53:20 AM, on The Herald
Greg, have you ever thought of running for Mayor or at least council. The current incumbents need felling. Er has anyone got any report on the legality of this course of action?
Posted by Garry P, 20/11/2011 7:54:49 AM, on The Herald
Should be more articles like this!!! This is great journalism for what has happened here.But who knows about the power cable and pipe ? not many, the real information counts and I do feel there has been a miscarriage of justice why? to this stage only about 0.0000025% know the real information. It's not hard to tell the truth, the real reason for the hold is a immensely powerful cable and a pipe that is why the underground roots had to be cut because they had to layed along this street why the hold up with this info is it Top Secret? even the fig party seem in to think it is the airial roots?
Posted by P.K., 20/11/2011 8:11:52 AM, on The Herald
Amazing Greg how your opinions are those of SOF and Tate. A conflict of interest being published by your employer? Why don't you also present the other side of the story as a good journalist would?
Posted by Nccratepayer, 20/11/2011 8:17:21 AM, on The Herald
Mr Ray's pieces seem to have some significant omissions. He talks about the petition, but fails to note that its preamble contains a falsehood that the NCC decision was based on the advice of a sole arborist. This is not a matter of opinion and can be verified at the SoF website. He ignores the reasons for the tree assessment-"sentinel" events related to the failure of other trees in the area which prompted the investigation. This is in the reports available on the NCC website. He refers to bundles of reports that other people have saying the exact opposite. Where are they Mr Ray?


Posted by Directeur Sportif, 20/11/2011 8:42:32 AM, on The Herald
In my opinion, Mr Ray also seems to be suggesting that the councillors should have ignored the legal advice of the GM and unlawfully voted on matters in contravention of the Local Government Act. The validity of this advice is still subject to a hearing in the Land & Environment Court as a result of the SoF injunction. Had a vote taken place, and it was later deemed unlawful, not only would the result be invalid and Council possibly subject to legal action.
Posted by Directeur Sportif, 20/11/2011 8:43:31 AM, on The Herald
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15  |  next >
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
15 November, 2011

Most popular articles


 
 
 


Newcastle Herald







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...