Pyrmont Water Police Site to serve broad Community Needs

When eCouncillor campaigned for the City Council elections in 2003/4 my running mate Rachel Creek was a resident of Pyrmont Point. Rachel was keen for us to be involved with the community battle to prevent the former water police site at the end of Harris Street from becoming more of the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority's over development of the Pyrmont Penninsular. Early in the campaign (before the amalgamation) we met community activist Marcelle Hoff from the Friends of Pyrmont Point who was destined to become one of my colleagues on the new Council. Without hesitation I committed the Liberals to opposing the sale and development of this open space and supported the creation of a world class foreshore urban parkland.

Tonight the Council will endorse a masterplan for the new park at the former water Police site. This will bring to a conclusion the successful process of acquisition and extensive community consultation about the park's future. The local community, staff and consultants are to be congratulated on the excellent level of engagement in this process. Calls, faxes and emails are still arriving as various points of view are being promoted up to the 11th hour. Consultation is an interesting concept. Many believe it means the result wil incorporate every single view expressed in the consultation process or that a consensus or compromise will result. Those not happy with the outcome will argue the consultation process was ignored or flawed and those satisfied will stand by the process.

Community consultation such as that undertaken for the water police site delivers up to the Council the catchment of local and user views. Professional independent local government staff, landscape architects, engineers and consultants pull this process together into a report for the Council. Tonight is the stage where the Councillors - elected by 130,000 people from across the city, bring to the table their input to the process. Often at community consultation forums and workshops the Councillors are asked not to make input but to merely observe, taking into account that their obligation to the process is to shape and interpret the outcome at the Council chamber.

And so tonight 10 Councillors will debate the final plans for the controversial site and bring to the table the broader city perspective and responsibilities.

I am impressed with the recommendation from Council's staff. (Full report with attachments here). The contentious issues in the master plan are well described in the letter to today's Sydney Morning Herald. Balancing a well organised campaign against certain controversial elements of the masterplan are residents and users in support of the proposals. The points of contention is summary are:

• inclusion of a community use building under the cliff face between in the south western corner.
• the central shoreline walk through the park.
• relocation of the existing children's playground.
• access stairs from Pirrama Road to the cliff top of Pyrmont.

Some of the controversy unintentionally reflects the age old debate about what is a park? Some - such as the SMH letter writer have a more traditional Capability Brown view of open space (Capability Brown landscaped the great 19th century English estates with romantic grand rivers and vistas) versus others (including eCouncillor) who have a philosophy for urban parkland spaces attuned to the great 20th century landscape architect Roberto Burle Marx combining a built form understanding the urban environment creating a lyrical landscape of human scale and use. Some call this style 'over engineered' and others 'urban scale'.

I feel the masterplan for Pyrmont Point park balances the two philosophies without too many compromises. Significant open spaces lined with fig trees and eucalyptus plantings allow ample green vistas to the water whilst steps and pathways mark the historical alignment of the shoreline and permit transition from the hard built forms of the surrounding neighbourhoods.

The inclusion of the community building and related stairs is a point of difference where Councillors should be taking into account the broader needs of the community, value for community investment and longer term strategic planning. Again the concept of well scaled built form between the narrowed and realigned road and the cliff face with flat roof-top gardens and contemporary connecting stairs joining through two levels to the parkland below is an exciting response to the built environment and the parkland forshore below. Very Burle Marx. eCouncillor supports the community space because the responsible expenditure of tens of millions of dollars from across the City of Sydney ratepayers into this site needs to be a sustainable community investment. A future community use for this remote but strategic corner is an appropriate return for the broader community across the city and allows the site to cater for a larger cross section of community members - whether youth, elderly, multi-cultural, arts or others user groups. The stairs connecting via the roof of this building to the park below from the cliff above will provide another appropriate element of human and urban scale whilst at the same time improving the permiability and access for the community to and from the many homes and streets above.

Much emmotive debate has centred on the relocation of the children's playground. On a recent site inspection the case was made for the new location based on closer proximity to the proposed pavilion with toilets and sheltered seating. Moving the play equipment away from the waters edge has some demonstrated safety benefits. In many ways relocating the play equipment area to the more urban designed elements of the space and in turn opening up the point area to green space and uninterrupted water vistas is an appropriate balanced landscape design response and a logical amendment to the park after the addition of the new space and in effect the amalgamation of the parklands at Pyrmont.

No doubt the future of this important new urban parkland will continue to arouse impassioned public debate - not just between landscape philosophers.

Farrelley adjudicates on Moore & Sartor brawl.

eCouncillor has not always agreed with SMH writer Elizabeth Farrelly. Her assessment of the CUB/CSPC conflict published today (see below) is a concise outline of the events of the past few days and months. Whilst the government will not dare smack the political hornet nest by sacking the City Council again. If they do pull off a win in the March state election a case is clearly being put together by Clover's arch nemesis Frank Sartor for another State government intervention.

Once-bullied Sartor grows up and becomes a bully
Elizabeth FarrellyJune 14, 2006

IT'S that dumb-and-dumber feeling you get when someone grabs your hand and makes you slap yourself, hard, in the face. It's how the City of Sydney council must be feeling right now.
Last Wednesday, after 18 months of haggling with Foster's over a "voluntary planning agreement" on the Carlton and United Breweries site on Broadway, and moments from a joint announcement, the council found itself formally asking the planning minister to step in and take over. Uh, please, sir, kick me.
Say what? Why would it do that? Threats? Coercion? Ventriloquism? Well yes, actually.
The story starts here. Since 1991, all serious council planning decisions have been made not by the council but by the Central Sydney Planning Committee.
Four of the committee's seven members - a carefully appointed majority - take marching orders directly from the state but its decisions are still, legally, those of the council. This is a lie, but it's a legally stipulated lie, designed for market consumption.
What market? Us. Most of us regard most development with something between shock and horror. At the same time, and especially if we don't have to look, we want construction, jobs and economic growth.
The committee is designed to schmooze this electoral paradox, ensuring that the council wears the blame (who in God's name approved that?!) while the state gets both control and credit for growth, such as it is.
It's smart, but it's not honest. An honest system - or planning minister - would have said, two years ago when the CUB process was rebooted after the mayoral elections, "this site is way too lucrative for you local government pissants, so the state will annexe it to Redfern-Waterloo, though it is patently not Redfern-Waterloo, so we can exact developer levies under the ever-flexible Redfern-Waterloo Authority Act. To placate the developer, a major party contributor, we must of course raise heights and densities well past what is reasonable, while loosening energy-saving targets for those same, high-energy developments. You understand. It's simple dollar arithmetic."
But that isn't what the minister, Frank Sartor, said. Instead, he told Parliament: "The second untruth I need to correct is the notion that [the Redfern-Waterloo Act] is a cash-grab by the Government. As if we would try to redevelop Eveleigh or Waterloo as a cash grab!"
As if. Now, the Government proposes 18 storeys for Eveleigh-Waterloo and more than 33 for the CUB site, while in the same breath halving Basix requirements for residential towers. Cash grabbing, back scratching and bullying in a single, practised move.

Bullying? It's that old playground graduation from bullied to bully. Like when, in 2000, Bob Carr invited the then lord mayor Sartor to adopt the cash-starved Museum of Contemporary Art. He waited until the council had spent 18 months and $100,000-odd on a proposal before deciding, at the last moment, to resume MCA funding after all.
Now it's Minister Sartor who waits, while the council lavishes energy on CUB, before pulling the rug at the last moment. As an exercise in humiliation it works, every time.
The council - surprise - couldn't win. Eighteen months ago, when Clover Moore's administration was new, CUB's then preferred developer, Australand, walked out citing "delay and uncertainty".
Now Foster's, as the site owner, pleads likewise. But look closely and you'll see who's been playing funny buggers.
The delay, as a process run by the Central Sydney Planning Committee, has actually been in government control all along. Uncertainty, under the minister, can only increase, since the move takes the CUB site from known and agreed limits (a 100-metre height limit and 4:1 ratio between built area and site area) to a situation that is wholly up for grabs.
As for the assertion by Foster's that "it's been a very difficult process" dealing with the council, consider this sequence of events.
Last July, the council wrote to the Planning Department requesting clarification on developer contributions for the CUB site. No response.
In January, the council sent the minister its draft plan and, in February, answered his queries on it. No response.
Negotiations on the voluntary planning agreement commenced, and by May 16 there was in-principle agreement. Emails from Geoff Donahue, communications director for Foster's, to the council, dated May 26 and May 30, confirm that Foster's was happy with the agreement and ready for a public announcement "on Monday".
Meanwhile, however, on May 25, Sartor faxed a letter to Moore. "I am advised," it said, "that a draft VPA has not been agreed on to-date despite lengthy negotiations." The letter threatened to declare the CUB site state significant, wresting it from planning committee control.
This forced Moore to call a special meeting of the planning committee. There, on June 7, the four Government members revolted without warning, using their majority to request ministerial intervention. It was, in the words of one councillor, Shayne Mallard, sheer "political bastardry".
The irony is that the product may be fine. Certainly it's the right site. If there's any block in the state positively begging for high-rise, high-density residential development, it's this one: southern CBD, huge site, major arterial, nearby UTS tower, public transport centre of the universe.
It's the process that sucks. Whether the main push is anti-local government, anti-Clover, ancient Frank-versus-Clover rivalry or the old ALP anti-women-in-politics-other-than-nodding-dogs, hardly matters.
From the public interest viewpoint, the test will be how high the towers, how much car parking (despite proximity to Central Station) and how many dollars flow from here to the otherwise unfunded Redfern-Waterloo Authority. By then, though, it'll be too late to cry foul.
Elizabeth Farrelly writes on planning and architecture issues for the Herald.

Frank and Clover fight but Inner City will be the Loser

eCouncillor was elected (by draw from the hat) to the powerful Central Sydney Sydney Planning Committee (read about the CSPC here) last September as the first appointee not endorsed by either the Lord Mayor or Planning Minister of the day. So it is that I am in the unique position to sniff out political motivations and ambush from either side. The 11th hour intervention by NSW Labor Planning Minister Frank Sartor (a former Lord Mayor and chair of the CSPC himself) to effectively take state control over the most lucrative development site in Sydney (valued at up to $1 billion) has all the hallmarks of a political fix designed to humiliate the Council and help-out the fraying state finances.

Sartor's letter to the lot Mayor and CSPC (undated but faxed 25 May) undermines the Council's complex negotiations on the public domain benefits from the massive development ( read Frank's letter to Clover here). The letter was marked CC Councillors John McInerney and Shane (sic) Mallard - but strangely my (Liberal) office never received a copy.

The CSPC held an Extraordinary meeting this week to consider its response to the Minister's letter (see agenda) and consider Clover Moore's response (see Clover Moore's letter to Frank Sartor). I sat through the hand ringing and polite talk from the government CSPC representatives for half an hour waiting patiently for someone to point out how outrageous this intervention was. In the end after one of Clover's familiar read on the record monologues, I had had enough. I spoke on the whole issue attacking the 'offensive letter' from Sartor as an act of political 'bastardry' and accused him of arrogantly taking the controls off the CSPC and Council so he can force in a gross overdevelopment and rip out as much money he can for the state budget. Leaving a legacy of over-development for the City of Sydney to clean up and live with.

My motion that :"The CSPC calls upon the Minister for Planning Frank Sartor to withdraw his letter addressed to the Lord Mayor on 25 May 2006 and indicate to Fosters and CSPC that he does not intend to use his powers under section 3A of the EP&A Act to call in the CUB development site, and to direct CSPC, Council and Fosters to conclude the Voluntary Planning Agreement."

The motion was moved Mallard and seconded John McInerney (a Clover Moore independent) and lost 3 to 4 (Council vs government). The final recommendation reaffirmed the CSPC support for the current draft controls agreed to in December and the development values they set out. This was passed unanimously and put the CSPC position on the record for the Minister and State Department of Planning. The CSPC then moved an additional motion then referring the whole project to the Minister for a final determination. That referral clause was disputed by myself as running up the white flag and surrendering to 'bully boy tactics'. It was passed by the CSPC with the 4 government votes to 3 Councillors against.

The CSPC and Council is very distressed about this shabby unprecedented treatment and the local community (Chippendale) are very concerned and angry. They fear further over-development and loss of the hard fought public benefits.

The questions that arise from this affair are:

• how long ago did the Minister start talking with Fosters about his concerns? (Answer - seems like months now).
• Why didn't the Director General of the Department of Planning who is a member of the CSPC offer to mediate this dispute prior to the current situation with public stand-off between Sartor and Moore? (Answer - because Sartor wanted a confrontation with his old nemesis Clover Moore).
• why was the CSPC not advised by the State government about increased levies on the project? (Answer - because the cash crisis for the Redfern waterloo Authority has only grown more evident as developers fail to show interest in the 'Redfern renewal').
• what level of additional development is the Minister considering in return for higher cash levies? (Answer - a 'flexible' level according to the Minister)
• how will the Minister take into account community feedback on the site? (Answer - seems not much as one of his key CSPC representative is not attending the community consultation promoted below).

Clover Moore does not escape this free of responsibility:

• How have the two jobs as Lord Mayor and MP for Bligh (both cover the CUB/Chippendale area) benefited the community? (Answer - seems not at all).

Council Calls Community Meeting:

Urgent Update on
Carlton and United Breweries Site

An urgent meeting has been called by Council to update the community on significant events surrounding the future of the Carlton and United Breweries (CUB) site.

7.30 pm, Thursday 15 June 2006
Medina Executive Sydney Central, in the Royal Mail Room
2 Lee Street Sydney (adjacent to Central Station)

The Minister for Planning, Frank Sartor, has written to the Lord Mayor at the eleventh hour seeking increased Floor Space Ratio (FSR) controls for the CUB site and last minute inclusion of the Redfern Waterloo Authority (RWA) affordable housing levy in the draft Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) that the City was almost finished negotiating with Fosters, the site owner.

The Minister's late intervention threatens to increase height and density on the site; to derail negotiations on the VPA; and to compromise the community benefits for residents, including the proposed 5,000 square metre public park and $2.5 million community centre.

The City of Sydney and Central Sydney Planning Committee (CSPC) signed off on planning controls for the site in December last year, with an agreed FSR range of 3.5:1 to of 4:1. The absolute upper end of the range is conditional on achieving high standards of amenity, heritage, design excellence, parkland and sustainability. The draft controls were developed to balance the owner's rights with environmental constraints and community benefits.

Over the past six months, the City has worked with the site's owners to complete a VPA to secure all public benefits. This process is occurring for the fist time under new planning legislation and the Council and CSPC agreed that the draft VPA be publicly exhibited with the draft planning controls.

The Minister's last minute intervention has caused uncertainty and resulted in the site's owner backing away from an agreement that was about to be signed. The City had received RWA advice that the State Government would separately negotiate an affordable housing levy. While that levy was expected to be around three per cent of the development value, it now appears a higher level is proposed, compromising the VPA and the intended public benefits.

This looks like the Cross City Tunnel all over again if the Government seeking up front fees in exchange for controls that benefit the developer but are contrary to the public interest.

SMH coverage below:

Slum city fears as Sartor grabs massive project
Sherrill Nixon Urban Affairs EditorJune 9, 2006

THE Minister for Planning, Frank Sartor, is set to take control of the city's biggest residential project, igniting fears he will allow enormous apartment blocks that will become Sydney's future slums.
The Lord Mayor of Sydney, Clover Moore, and Chippendale residents say Mr Sartor's last-minute intervention in the $800 million Carlton and United Breweries site is a blatant grab for more cash from the eventual developers.
They fear he will approve much larger apartment blocks on the Broadway site than the City of Sydney Council was prepared to accept, in exchange for higher developer levies which would be used to fund affordable housing in the Redfern-Waterloo area.
"The Government is looking for money here and you are just looking at the slums of the future," Cr Moore said.
The 5.7-hectare development, approximately the size of four city blocks, is expected to house about 3000 people in 1800 apartments - tripling the population of Chippendale.
It has been the subject of two years of difficult negotiations between the council and the site's owner, Foster's.
The huge blow to Cr Moore and her council came on Wednesday night at an extraordinary meeting of the Central Sydney Planning Committee.
The committee, comprising four government and three council appointees, considers city developments worth more than $50 million.
The meeting was called to respond to a letter from Mr Sartor, expressing concern at how long it had taken the council and Foster's to agree on a range of planning issues. In the letter, Mr Sartor also directed the council and Foster's to negotiate the affordable housing levy - a matter both parties, and the Central Sydney Planning Committee, had believed would be negotiated separately.
Cr Moore described the letter, which arrived just days before the council and the company were due to sign an agreement, as a "bolt from the blue".
At Wednesday's meeting, the government appointees used their majority vote to ask Mr Sartor to "call in" the development and assume planning control. Neil Bird, the deputy chairman of Landcom, told the meeting he did not believe the council and Foster's could come to an agreement following Mr Sartor's intervention.
"I think it's better to act professionally and request the minister use his powers," Mr Bird said.
Cr Moore, the Liberal councillor Shayne Mallard and the Moore-aligned councillor John McInerney opposed the motion, in a rare split vote.

"The fact is that the minister's intervention is nothing but political bastardry in my mind. It is designed to harm you [Cr Moore], it is designed to harm the council," Cr Mallard said.

But the committee passed a unanimous motion affirming its support for planning controls approved in December that restrict the highest buildings on the site to 100 metres, or approximately 33 storeys, and provide for a 5000-square metre park, child-care centre and community centre on the site.
Chippendale resident groups fear Mr Sartor's takeover would jeopardise those community facilities, destroy the heritage values of the site and lead to higher-density development.
Lindsay Charles, from the Friends of the Carlton United Site group, said that local residents believed the development allowed by the council was already too large.
"We have got the CBD on one side of us. If we have got this [development] directly behind us or we are just simply never going to see the sun again," Ms Charles said.
A Foster's spokesman, Troy Hey, said the company believed it was possible to have a higher-density development while retaining the community facilities.
He welcomed the likely takeover by Mr Sartor as a way of providing more certainty for Foster's, but conceded it meant going over a lot of ground that had already been the subject of negotiations with the council.
A spokeswoman for Mr Sartor, Zoe Allebone, said the minister would seek advice about whether to assume control of the development, but believed doing so could cut six to 12 months off the approval process.

Moore and Sartor trade blows over city brewery site

Sherrill Nixon Urban Affairs EditorJune 10, 2006

THE Lord Mayor of Sydney, Clover Moore, has sought assurances from the State Government that money raised from the development of the Carlton & United Breweries site on Broadway will be spent on affordable housing in Redfern.
Cr Moore called on the Planning Minister, Frank Sartor, to "come clean" on how much money the Government would raise through an affordable-housing levy on the developer and how it would be spent.
The two leaders spent the day trading insults as Mr Sartor took advice about whether to assume planning control of the $800 million residential development.
More than two years of negotiations between the City of Sydney and the site's owner, Foster's, reached an impasse this month when Mr Sartor criticised the way the council had handled the talks and told the parties to negotiate the levy.
Residents and the council fear Mr Sartor will allow bigger apartment blocks to be built on the site in exchange for a larger developer contribution, at the expense of community facilities such as parkland.
"How can the minister claim to provide a balanced outcome for the community when he is ignoring expert advice and advocating for an increase in the size of the development which will see his Government reap a cash bonanza?" Cr Moore asked.
Mr Sartor said he had a record of guaranteeing quality public facilities and it was a "simple untruth" to suggest the development would be worse if he took over planning control.
"The Lord Mayor should concentrate on her administration," he said. "She's had two general managers and she should concentrate on doing her job better."
Mr Sartor also said the council was not capable of addressing the architectural quality of the apartment blocks or affordable housing, and promised that the levy - which is expected to raise about $30 million - would be spent appropriately.

and today's SMH letters..

Developers the only winners in towering mess

John Marsden Condolence Motion

The Late John Marsden - Condolences Motion 5 June 2006

The Council notes with sadness the death of solicitor John Marsden AM, and acknowledges his significant contribution to the community in the areas of human rights, civil liberties, gay and lesbian law reform and the legal profession. Council expresses its condolences to John's family and colleagues at Marsdens Law Group.

Motion moved by Councillor Shayne Mallard:

At John Marsden's epic funeral held at Campbelltown on Saturday, John wrote his own brief eulogy as the introduction to the glossy 24 page Eucharist program, "I have been described as tough, arrogant, noisy, outrageous, over the top, mega ego - but a tenacious fighter for what I want and what I think is right. "

Typical John Marsden.

Michael Knight said that Marsden's enemies described him as 'Offensive, rude, arrogant, abusive and a bully' and that all his friends agreed with that description.

John Marsden was either loathed or loved. As controversial in death as he was in life. John would have liked that too.

I do not want to dwell on the commentary about John's so called 'flaws'. Few published words about them have been balanced and too many have been cowardly. I will leave it to the distant historians perhaps not yet born to assess John's contribution to our times more objectively.

Instead, I stand here tonight as a good friend of the late John Marsden asking this Council to join with me in acknowledging the tremendous dedication and commitment to our vast and diverse community made by John during his 64 year life and to convey our thanks and condolences to John's family and also his colleagues. I particularly want to acknowledge John's sister Jane in the public gallery tonight.

Justice Michael Kirby described one's curriculum vitae and awards as the 'froth and bubble' of life. He went on to acknowledge the two key pillars of John Marsden's life - courage to himself and kindness to those worse off.

But tonight I do want to take a few minutes to acknowledge the 'froth and bubble' of John's life, because as we go through our own lives it is that froth and bubble - that work we do for our communities - that sustain and nourish so many of us. And local government seems so much about the froth and bubble of our daily toil.

John's life had a lot of Kirby's froth and bubble. It was calculated he devoted 140 volunteer years to roles with many community organisations spread across this city.

In the back of John's funeral program is reprinted his CV. Four pages of tight script detailing his work for various communities and awards presented by them in tributes during his lifetime. Let me outline a few:

From 1981 until recent years very active in the Law Society of NSW including a distinguished year as the NSW President.

He was the state president for the Council for Civil Liberties for 6 years and made a life member.

He was a director of various charities and community causes including Odyssey House and the magnificent Campbelltown City Art Gallery.

Member, director and life member of various sports bodies in his beloved Campbelltown.

He campaigned for many causes such as Aboriginal reconciliation and refugee support.

And of course he was awarded an Order of Australia.

But aside from Phillip Street - the Law, and Macquarie Street - Civil Liberties, the area that John worked most to support our City of Sydney was Oxford Street for Gay and Lesbian law reform.

Stretching from his decision as a closeted gay man to drive in to the city and help the first Mardi Gras marches - known as the 78's who had been locked up by Police in Darlinghurst gaol - John's courage for the causes of Gay and Lesbian law reforms and equality were untiring:

20 years as honary solicitor for the gay and lesbian Counselling Service

24 years as honary solicitor for the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras

Life Member of PRIDE

Foundation and Life member of the Gay and Lesbian Business Association

Elected to both the Mardi Gras and PRIDE Halls of Fame.

John is also remembered for his work with HIV AIDS organisations including as a board member of the AIDS Trust.

And when private reflective moments would take John he would recall the hundreds of AIDS funerals he attended, friends he buried and the estates he administered during the darkest days of the AIDS plague that ravaged the Sydney gay community.

This Council should acknowledge JoMarsdenden, flaws and all. As Confucius said - 'better a diamond with flaws than a pebble with none'.

He was generous to a fault, passionate about his causes, overwhelmingly driven by the pursuit of equality and justice in our society.

Colourful, larger than life. I think that sadly we shall not see the likes of John Marsden again in our lifetime.

To John's wonderful family - particularly his sister Jane and his brother Jim, I convey my and Jesper's heart felt sympathy and sadness at your loss.

To his colleagues at Marsden's Law Group I also want to convey the Council's sympathy and respect.

Motion passed unanimously.

Clover misses the point on Light Rail tour

News today that Clover Moore will not lead an important study tour of US light rail systems organised by Professor Ed Blakely. eCouncillor readers will recall my recent post on Blakely's address to the SGLBA (read it here). The 'junket' as Clover's spin puts it could have been organised at no cost to the Sydney rate payers with invitations extended by US host cities and Sydney business community support. There is more to business leadership in this city than fancy silver service 'business round table' lunches in the Lord Mayor's private reception room. Read my letter to the Editor following the Telegraph article below:

Mayors' US transport trip

EXCLUSIVE By LILLIAN SALEH, Urban Affairs Reporter
June 02, 2006

DELEGATES from three Sydney councils will head to the US tomorrow to find out what we already know – our transport system is ailing and in urgent need of an upgrade.
Ratepayers will pay $16,000 for the Mayor of Canterbury and Leichhardt's environment management director to criss-cross several US states for a week.
Parramatta's Mayor will join them but his costs will be covered by a scholarship.
The tour will be led by Sydney University Professor Ed Blakely, who until recently headed the State Government's metropolitan strategy reference panel.

Canterbury Mayor Robert Furolo, Parramatta Mayor David Borger and Leichhardt Council director of environment and community management Leta Webb will join Mr Blakely as they tour San Francisco, San Jose, Oakland, Pleasant Hill, Portland, Denver, Dallas and Washington DC.

They will study cities which have embraced a transit oriented development approach to planning, which involves designing developments around better public transport systems.
Mr Blakely said the delegates would investigate how some US cities had successfully been revitalised by improving light and heavy rail networks and reducing reliance on cars.
He defended the tour and said it was vital local councils kept up with world practice. "Most reporters wouldn't want to do this much work," he said.
"The issue here is you can't be a leader without knowledge. We are part of the world and we need to know what's going on."

Sydney Lord Mayor Clover Moore – who is a big fan of light rail and discussed the idea of the tour with Mr Blakely several months ago – yesterday said she declined his invitation because she did not believe in spending ratepayers' money on "junkets".

"Clover doesn't go on junkets," a spokesman said. All three councillors denied the trip was a junket.
Leichhardt Council delegate Leta Webb said the study tour would prove invaluable when putting together the area's new local environment plan.
"This is a highly structured activity. I know there are some study tours that involve councillors going on a holiday . . . but this is not one of those," she said.
Parramatta Mayor David Borger, who initially withdrew from the tour because his wife is pregnant, will go after securing a Sydney University scholarship.
Mr Borger, who is studying for a masters degree in urban planning, is considered a future key local government figure.


The Daily Telegraph

To the Letters Editor

Dear Editor

Clover Moore is not leading an important study tour of US capital city light rail systems because she has to stay in Sydney for Parliament and not because she 'does not go on junkets' (Mayors' US transport trip 2/06/06). The distinguished urban planning Professor Ed Blakely recently told a recent Sydney business association dinner that Clover Moore could lead the study tour at no cost to the ratepayers and that her second job as a state MP is distracting her from focusing on running the City of Sydney. Professor Blakely told the audience that she should decide which job she wants and quit the other.

When parliament is in recess Clover Moore packs her bags for her fair share of 'junkets' including trips to Japan, stop overs in Singapore and a fun night at the opening ceremony of the Commonwealth games in Melbourne - all on ratepayer's money. Most reasonable people do not begrudge her these perks as they are essential in representing our city. However, advocating a $1.5 billion light rail system for Sydney (financed by debt) and not participating in an independent study tour of similar systems overseas, is actually a lack of leadership for our global city and demonstrates yet again that MP and Lord Mayor are conflicting jobs.


Shayne Mallard
Councillor
City of Sydney