Parallel realities: Conversations with Council staff

COMMENT

When we first arrived at Fitzroy Gardens several weekends ago to take petitions, the market manager kicked us out of the markets area on the grounds that the Markets did not want to be seen opposing Council, whom he saw as their landlords.

I pointed out that Council represented residents and existed on our rates and other income, therefore we had a perfect right to occupy our own public space. No go.

I had recently witnessed a similar dispute in the Chinatown Markets in which the Police were called to evict a paying long-term stallholder. Police heard the politics involved and declined to act. The market manager then called Council. A Ranger arrived and immediately threatened the stallholder with a $300 fine if she didn’t move, with no regard to the rights and wrongs of the dispute.

So in our case, we moved.

Last Saturday, to our surprise, Council itself had set up an unscheduled stall at the markets to present their view of the Fitzroy Gardens redevelopment alonside the scheduled public rally held in front of the Post Office.

I asked why they were allowed space and was told Council had gone through the proper channels and paid the stallholders’ fee.

“So Council is spending our money to oppose us,” I said.

“We’re not opposing you,” said a Council staffer. “We’re here to present a balanced view.”

“No, that’s what we are doing,” I said, thinking of the multi-million dollar publicity machine that Council runs, which in the previous few days had been letterboxing and shop-dropping quality colour-printed letters from Clover Moore around the area opposing our position. The residents meanwhile were distributing black-and-white photocopies.

The topic got around to the trees in the Gardens. The staffer told me only four were going. I replied that Council’s own tree map showed, by contrast, that the majority were going – more like 40 trees.

The staffer replied that no such document existed. This is when an eerie sense returned that I occupied a different world to Council staff, as if the Kent Street tower they work in is a gateway to another universe and a different reality.

So we produced the Council tree map, which clearly showed that most of the trees in the Gardens were to be destroyed or removed. The title read: “Tree location plan showing trees to be removed and transplanted.”

“Oh but that’s only a consultative document,” was the reply.

“It doesn’t say that,” I replied. “But it stands to reason that if you are going to remove all the convict-brick hexagonal planters, and most of the trees are in planters, then the trees have to go.”

Right behind the tent was a grove of seven large palms, in such a planter, that were marked for pulping on the map. I pointed out that seven was already more than four.

“Oh yes, that didn’t include the palms – 11 of them will go,” was the reply.

Now their first assertion of four trees would make sense if a palm tree wasn’t a tree, but as Bill Clinton found when he was claiming that oral sex – the second word of which is ‘sex’ – wasn’t sex, it can be proved that a palm tree is a ‘tree’. At least in this universe.

Clover Moore, not present because of her ankle injury, was running the latest Council line that the City would “respect” the heritage of the Gardens and “maintain” the trees.

“Recent false claims that we will remove most of the trees in Fitzroy Gardens are simply not true,” reads a tautology in her e-news. Uh-huh.

“There is no threat to the beautiful fig trees,” Ms Moore continues.

However, Council’s own Arborist Report shows the ancient Hills Fig in the centre of the Gardens is under threat with: “Excavations for footings of new seat wall within roots zone. May result in some root severance damage leading to an adverse impact. Moderate only construction tolerance.”

In case you were thinking this might be just a “consultative document”, Tony Sims, a tree man working with Friends of Fitzroy Gardens, explains it better. There is now a ring of understorey palms around the fig, in one of the convict-brick planter boxes Council wants to demolish. Mr Sims says they have deep tap roots, while the fig has shallow spreading roots, just like its branches. If they pull out the deep palm roots from among the fig roots, the exposed and damaged fig roots could pick up fungal infections, to which those trees are prone. Council staff disputed this on the grounds that the palms had been planted later than the fig tree.

Another council staffer was heard saying indignantly, “we’ve been consulting on this for four years.”

Ms Moore takes up this pet theme, writing: “Local residents prioritised refreshing and renewing Fitzroy Gardens during our extensive consultation to develop the City East Local Action Plan.”

But the Action Plan said only “refresh”, which cannot be interpreted as ‘demolition and redevelopment’. But Ms Moore’s words are an advance on recent Council spin which used only “renew”, a word that can mean demolition. It’s interesting to see how the slippery weasel words keep evolving as Council monitors their opposition. But staff have still not responded to requests from Councillors and media to release a full transcript of residents’ comments at those Action Plan meetings.

Perhaps they got lost in another universe.

by Michael Gormly