Letters June 2016

By Dan Hutton on June 14, 2016 in People

I Can’t Read it

Hi Beast,

Why does The Beast bother publishing and distributing a magazine for residents in the Eastern Suburbs that is too much of an effort to read because of the tiny font?

My copy goes straight into the bin as I can’t be bothered reading it and I have excellent eyesight correction with my new spectacles. I would imagine many of the other residents would have a similar view.

Kind regards,
Chris

Jesus Wouldn’t Approve

Hello,

I am writing to discuss the St Catherine’s $63 million development. I understand the development is to include a ‘world class’ 500-seat theatre. I am wondering whether the school plans to incorporate parking on site for the extra visitors to the theatre? With the approved theatre and the Dame Joan Sutherland theatre, there will be total seating of 750 people. I assume the school will have theatre nights, speech nights, and other special performances. I hear there will be 120 events per year in total. Where are people expected to park while these events are in session?

The Eastern Suburbs has issues with traffic and parking. The area is filled to the brim. Perhaps the school can think about its future with a separate campus elsewhere, like Alexandria. The school as it is could be the junior school (Primary to Year 10), and move the senior school offsite, or vice versa. Something needs to be done with the current land-locked situation. Maybe the school can buy the nursing home (which is adjacent), and demolish that, and use it as a car park. The traffic, on a daily basis, especially in the mornings and afternoon in Waverley and surrounding Randwick/Clovelly, is chaos. It doesn’t help that many other schools are in the vicinity. I guess it’s not the school’s fault for the parking woes. It could be the cotton-balled kids who have to be driven to and from school. I do see kids using public transport, but I also see many arrive in big SUVs. So my point is, with the current parking and traffic problems, why on Earth didn’t the state government panel think about the parking and traffic situation, especially when there are already issues with it.

I notice the school is also building an aquatic and research centre. I guess the girls need the pool for their water polo training. But does the school really need all of this? Currently St Catherine’s has the best facilities a public high school would kill for. They also have the best programs and extra-curricular activities. I guess the $27,000 per year, per child, and that doesn’t include the extras, is well spent. But is it? And as they are a Christian school, I don’t think Jesus would approve.

Christian Sachs, Waverley

We’re All Doomed

Yesterday we cried for the dead and rightly so. Today the government tells us we are half a trillion in debt and we need to spend 50 billion on submarines. How many billions around the world are spent on so-called defence? Imagine how many hungry and displaced people not only in Australia, but around the world could benefit from these billions. I say to each country, destroy your weapons of mass destruction, you hypocrites. Stop producing more than two children per family, as soon, if not already, it will be too late. Instead the governments of the world do nothing. There is no doubt that one day we will all suffer as a consequence of the stupidity and the actions that are made today.

Perhaps our subs will save us, but by the time they are finished other countries will probably supersede them with better technology. You see it’s a never-ending circle, a circle of hunger and greed that will become desperation. The evil are already planning and are amongst us. The next one will be an apocalypse of death and destruction like never seen before. Laugh as you may, but Planet Earth is doomed. We have polluted and fouled the oceans and the atmosphere. Within another 30 years the population will become unbearable; we cannot continue to reproduce at this unsustainable rate. Wait a minute, the governments have the answer – yes, let’s go to Mars!

Constantine Veneris

Salt of the Earth

Thanks Beast. I really appreciated being able to read the story about Mal Ward and his two boys. I like the ‘regular Joe’ as much as ‘celebrity types’ stories. Look forward to more like that in the future.

Regards,
Rachel, Bondi

Randwick’s Roosters Sponsorship a Cock-Up

Hi Beast,

As one of the last remaining locals in the Eastern Suburbs who still regularly attends rugby league matches, I was one of the 300 or so people at the Sydney Roosters versus Newcastle Knights April fixture. Rather than a Roosters win being the most unfortunate incident of the night, I was confused by the sponsorship of Isaac Liu by Randwick City Council. I need some urgent clarification from our mayor on why our council is sponsoring professional footballers. I have difficulty with the sponsorship for two reasons. The first is why a Roosters player was sponsored rather than a South Sydney player – wasn’t it voted recently that Randwick Council is predominately represented by South Sydney, except for the small area between Alison Road (Randwick/Coogee) and Boundary Street (Clovelly)? As I grappled with the true boundary between the two clubs it led me to the second reason I have difficulty with the sponsorship, realising how ridiculous it is that the rates we the people pay are redistributed into professional sport. Now I do not know the value of the sponsorship and it is probably not very much in the grand scheme of things, but I cannot figure out why a council is putting public money into professional sport. So I leave the question to our publicly elected councillors as to why money is being spent on the sponsorship of a professional footballer. Wouldn’t the money be better spent on erecting a sign reading ‘Thompson’s Bay (Gordon’s Bay)’ at Thommo’s? I am sure our elected representatives can find better ways to spend our money. If not, then maybe it is better that they merge straight away with Waverley Council so we can install more parking metres, raise more revenue and sponsor the whole NRL.

Gus Bennett, Coogee

What’s Yaris is Mine

There’s a Toyota Yaris parked on the end Sir Thomas Mitchel Road that’s been collecting dirt and leaves for what must be a year now. If no one else wants it, I’ll happily give it a nice home and a loving, caring family.

Regards,
John Haire

Resident Rubbish Retrievers Abound

Hi,

Thank you for the article on Cameron Kite and his team (Locals Take Coogee Clean-up Into Their Own Hands, The Beast, May 2016) – what an inspiration. You may also wish to know that there are many local residents who pick up rubbish from the beach and surrounds as they walk along. You can see them any day from early light.

R Wade, Coogee

Where’s Bruce?

We missed Member for Coogee Bruce ‘Knotley’-Smith at the May Day Saving Sydney’s Trees Rally. But the lumberjack was with us in spirit.

So were the hundreds of significant trees that are being slaughtered, along Knotley Parade (previously Anzac Parade).

We now know that culturally important Indigenous artifacts are being shovelled into bags and disposed of by security guards.

So Bruce, it is never too late to give a fig and stand up for what is right. You’re out on the limb of history.

Mark Paskal, Clovelly

The Hidden Cost of the Anzac Spirit

As happens every year, at the end of April my local school celebrated Anzac Day with a few old men bringing guns into the school that my two children (aged 6 and 8) attend. Perhaps as a parent one might wonder about the educational value of guns in schools? And one might also ask what our present day ‘heroes of the Anzac’ have done – or participated in – to be put on stage and celebrated?

During the lifetime of most of today’s Australians, perhaps two occasions stand out. The first was the Vietnam War – a war the Vietnamese rather appropriately call the ‘American War’ – as well as the more recent war in Iraq. On both occasions it was us – and the soldiers now celebrated on Anzac Day – that attacked these two countries.

These countries did not attack us; in fact, they were incapable of doing so. Neither country had weapons of mass destruction. While we attacked them, they had to defend their countries.
Hence the euphemistically named ‘Department of Defence’ in our country is perhaps a stark reminder to read George Orwell again.

So, let’s have a look at what our present day heroes have participated in, and/or, have achieved. In Vietnam, they carpet bombed and poisoned (agent orange) a peasant country back into the stone age while in Iraq they destroyed a functioning country, giving it more than a decade of car bombings, lawlessness, death and violence. On top of that, they turned Iraq into today’s haven for Al-Qaeda and ISIS competing against each other on violence and daily brutalities.

Perhaps most Iraqis might find it hard to agree with former Prime Minister John Howard’s insistence in 2006 (theage.com.au) that “Iraq is a better place today because of the coalition of the willing’s removal of former dictator Saddam Hussein”. Al-Qaeda and ISIS might agree.
Celebrating our Anzac heroes might also serve a more country-specific and internal function. The Anzac spirit might help, as President Eisenhower once said so pointedly, the “military industrial complex” to be seen as legitimate. Even when it comes at the cost of $50 billion for 12 (not 10 or 16!) submarines to defend us against… well, whom? Against Lichtenstein, Mongolia, or perhaps the US state of Montana? Perhaps the number 12 is as senseless as almost any list of ‘attacking’ counties in a world defined by globalisation and free trade.

It just makes no sense to spend $50,000,000,000 (a 5 with 10 zeros!), or 50,000 one-million-dollar houses, on submarines. But the $50 billion also come at another cost.

Let’s listen to President Eisenhower again who said: “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone.

It is spending the sweat of its labourers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children”. The $50 billion are well capable of destroying the hopes and dreams of Australia’s children sitting in deliberately under-funded public schools. Some children might almost be able to see those lovely $50 billion submarines through the school windows of my local school when celebrating our Anzac heroes.

Thomas Klikauer, Coogee

Dump the Speed Bumps

As a regular pedestrian who walks the footpath at the exit of Eastgate car park, I am astounded that I have not yet seen an injured pedestrian at this location. On a number of occasions I have had to jump out of the way of cars that seem to believe they have right of way while crossing the footpath. It is true that lots of cars travel at an uncomfortable speed over the speed humps and then fail to stop at the stop sign immediately before crossing the footpath. Maybe if they obeyed the stop sign the drive over the speed humps would not be so uncomfortable. How fast can a car go in about four metres between the boom gate and the stop sign? What I would like to see is a nice policeman or woman issuing tickets for not stopping at the stop sign. At $319 and three demerit points even I might get grumpy just for failing to stop. The worst that might happen is that Sharon hits a pedestrian, which is unlikely to even scratch the paint on her car.

David, Bondi Junction

Gross Incompetence at Best

Yesterday afternoon I parked the car on Robertson Road, Centennial Park and wandered across the oval with my baby son down to the barricaded site on the corner of Anzac Parade and Alison Road.

Workmen were busily removing a large Moreton Bay fig, lopping off century old branches without ceremony and feeding them into a giant shredder, a hundred years of shade and quiet and blessed cool, green perfection reduced to chips in a matter of minutes.

My son stood there contemplative and unmoving and, despite his tender years, his sombre air revealed that he understood the gravity of what we were witnessing, right there in front of us on that golden, autumnal afternoon.

The quiet air was ripped apart by the buzzing of chainsaws and the two of us sat there in appalled silence. Even the dog was quiet, expressing his horror by lying very still, looking suitably mournful.

The murder of these ancient, majestic wonders and the destruction of the accompanying wildlife, insects and fungi, is nothing short of criminal.

I find it utterly incomprehensible that in a state as rich as NSW, Baird’s government was unable to find a civil engineer, town planner or architect who could conjure up a light rail plan that accommodated this grand avenue of majestic Moreton Bay figs, thus saving them for generations to come.

As the daughter of an architect, I know there is a design solution for every challenging project. Baird’s government approving the removal of the trees instead of pushing for their protection points to gross incompetence at best and a nefarious agenda at worst.

Shame on Premier Baird, shame on this State Government and shame on the majority of the Australian people who remain apathetic and indifferent while our sacred spaces and institutions are desecrated without opposition.

Heidi Blackwell, Bondi Beach

Bike Rules Are Fine

Please note: ‘bleading’ is intentionally misspelt and ‘proven’ is intended.

Over the past two months there has been way too much ‘spin’ and misinformation about the ‘new road rules for bicycles’. All negative commentary is an illogical attempt to shield the poor cyclist from the ‘big bad, oppressive government’ (be still my ‘bleading’ heart). Most misses the point; the media calls them “extreme new laws” (beat up!) and seeks to make a mockery of their intent.

If you ride on the road and on shared paths, get over yourself; know the rules and obey them!
There are three new rules: the 1(1.5)-metre rule (applies to motorists passing cyclists and to cyclists passing pedestrians), overtaking on pedestrian crossings and carrying photo ID; the other changes increase penalties for flagrant disregard for and breaches of existing road rules (anarchists on wheels).

Some say the photo ID rule will discourage low income groups, meaning if they disobey rules or their actions cause injury, loss or damage, they should not be held accountable (get off scot-free) and should be exempt from fines on the grounds of their inability to pay.

Most ‘talkback’ radio commentary is equally irrelevant; the 1-metre rule is not about measuring the passing distance, but about encouraging awareness of the risks of passing too close, as well as practical behaviour in all the circumstances and prevailing conditions.

If there is a passing incident (collision) with a vehicle or pedestrian, then the 1(1.5)-metre rule will likely have been breached unless there are mitigating circumstances.

Carrying photo ID: I chose to do this well before the new rule because if I am unconscious after a collision, I want to be identified so my family can be informed, and I am willing to be held accountable for any injury, loss or damage I cause. An oppressive rule it is not. Ray Rice (Bicycle NSW) says “cyclists are the only group required to carry photo ID”. Not so; all drivers must carry photo ID in the form of their driver’s license. Obviously the terminology is being abused by ‘spinners’ attempting to curry favour with cyclists.

If you cycle and choose not to carry photo ID, you will be the type of person intent on ‘getting away with’ irresponsible and unacceptable behaviour, intent on ‘getting away with’ being held accountable for injury to others and loss or damage to property.

As for the cycling fraternity, they are not united against the new rules, but are split almost 50/50, so when Mr Rice takes a position opposing them, it begs the questions: What is his role and relevance in the debate? Is he an advocate, apologist, champion of the oppressed, voice of the minority? His public ‘spin’, devoid of logic, does nothing to improve the image of cyclists and makes him irrelevant. He should sit down and shut up until he has something sensible to contribute.

In any case, the new rules will be enforced only by warnings and cautions and after 12 months, through penalties. Obviously, penalties will be issued for breaches of the current rules (warning devices, helmets, etc.).

One might be forgiven for believing that recent publicity on new rules would prompt riders to read the current road rules; not to do so will result in fines for their disregard and ‘ignorance is no defence’.

‘Anonymous’ North Bondi (I would too with their mind), (Bike Bells Don’t Work, Letters, April 2016), completely misses the point of its use and almost manages to hide his/her intelligence under a veil of stupid statements in a rant against the NSW Police Service.

Clearly a “bell, horn, or similar warning device” (Rule 258) is designed to alert others (capable of hearing the device) near a rider that a potential hazard is nearby so that a collision might be avoided. Obviously, in an emergency, it is useless, but yelling is one way to alert someone of an impending collision as well as the most used attempt to delay the immediate pain one associates with ‘rider meets terra firma’.

Both parties to a potential collision must take care; the general principle is that the person travelling at the higher speed (rider) should exercise more care. Whilst the party travelling at the lesser speed might not be fined, in a civil damages suit they can be held accountable for their part in the collision (contributory negligence). In the case of a driver who ran over a drunk asleep in the road, the driver was held 30 per cent responsible.

In their quest for self-preservation, a rider must also learn and exercise hazard identification, i.e. scan ahead far enough to ‘be prepared’ (Baden-Powell) for the ‘bozo’ likely to step in front of them, hand always ready to apply the front brake. The back brake will only slow the bike at high speed, but depending upon the weight of rider and bike, might stop a bike at low speed.
If a warning device helps to avoid a collision then it is effective If the rider’s speed is appropriate or they slow to a speed commensurate with the identified hazard ahead, the rider will be able to brake and avoid a collision.

When I come upon pedestrians ahead and they do not respond nor react to the slow ping of my bell, I slow down and pass them in a way that is likely to avoid a collision and which allows me to brake without the ‘handlebar tour’.

Anonymous says it takes two hands to stop a bike. I say riding in a bike lane at 35km/h where pedestrians (or animals) are likely to wander onto the lane, in my opinion, is to ride “negligently, furiously and recklessly” (Rule 245-1), especially if unable to stop and a collision injures a pedestrian (or animal).

In the city, the concentration of people and car doors is higher than in the suburbs. One should ride in the bike lane having consideration for “all the circumstances and the environment” through which the lane traverses. Most bike lanes indicate ‘SLOW’ where appropriate and the rider ought to exercise due care, attention and common sense, none of which would be exercised if one rode at 35km/h as ‘Anonymous’ suggests.

If anyone disagrees, let me know your court date; I’d like to watch as you argue ‘Anonymous’ items 1-4 with the magistrate.

‘Anonymous’ says pedestrians don’t notice bike bells. I say if approaching from behind, a rider has the obligation to do all acts and things necessary to avoid a collision. To plead, as ‘Anonymous’ does, might be an argument against using a bell as a warning device, so fit a horn or “similar” to your bike.

Finally, to contend that two countries (Australia being one) are wrong to mandate the wearing of helmets is like saying that the majority view is always right. History has proven that argument flawed!

Hugh Ellens, Randwick

How do we See Sea Life?

After reading Dan Trotter’s article ‘Sea Life Not See Food’ in the April edition of The Beast, many conversations have been had between those who fish for sport and those who consume seafood.
In modern day Western society, game hunters are seen as barbaric killers, yet game fishermen are pictured as heroes who fight for hours to bring in their kill.

If land life was hooked by the mouth and allowed to run until tired out and then reeled in, it would be deemed outrageous and stamped out as inhumane. Yet committing this offence against a majestic marlin or sneaky snapper is praised as a great fight between man and sea life.

This juxtaposition is indeed an indictment on civilisation’s double standards.

Pedro

The Truth About Waverley Cemetery

To the Editor of The Beast,

Readers of The Beast will have observed over the last year an ongoing difference of opinion between two community groups over Waverley Cemetery.

In one corner we have a small group of near neighbours of the cemetery, the ‘Residents for Waverley Cemetery’. They number somewhere between 50 and 200 people. They are adamantly opposed to new fencing for nighttime security and a pavilion in the cemetery’s eastern gully tip fill area, underneath the current temporary section of the coastal walk. They are also opposed to doing anything to prevent further land slippages in the cemetery, particularly in the unstable gully area, which is traversed on foot by well more than a million coastal walk patrons each year. They favour heritage protection, but reject the need for any measures to prevent vandalism. Instead they deny that vandalism is occurring at all, despite Waverley Council’s own records of over 500 destructive vandalism events since 2000. They also strongly support the findings of Deloitte consultants, hired last year by Waverley Council, who said that Waverley Cemetery has no viable future and recommended that expenditures for infrastructure renewal and maintenance be cut to the bare minimum and that monuments be removed as they age and collapse if they are not heritage significant.

In the other corner we have a large group of over 3,000 people supporting the ‘Save Waverley Cemetery’ campaign, who take a broader view. 20 per cent of these come from the Eastern Suburbs. They favour the development, through broad-based open consultation, of a decent business plan that will maximise the cemetery’s chances of being financially self-sustaining for at least another century and ensure surplus funds for site and heritage conservation. They favour prevention of vandalism, particularly through new secure wrought iron and sandstone fencing to help keep vandals out at night and to provide income through sales of niches in the fence’s sandstone pillars. They favour prevention of risk to visitors and heritage from land collapses (which are occurring in the cemetery at an increasing rate), and improved daytime site and service access. They favour building a pavilion beneath the cemetery’s unstable eastern gully tip fill site for funerals and commemorative functions with café and amenity facilities for both cemetery visitors and recreational walkers. They favour finishing this pavilion with a new memorial roof top garden and double level accessible coastal walking paths in the same place as the current coastal walk. They favour solutions that will leave graves totally undisturbed and that will help raise funds for their conservation and for maintenance of the peaceful experience currently enjoyed by cemetery patrons. And they favour development of a vision for the cemetery that will increase our connection with the cultural heritage of all Australians through educational programs and curation of the fabulous artworks on the site.

Despite their obvious differences, the two groups agree on one thing. They both want the heritage of Waverley Cemetery to be protected. But they differ on the need for actual proactive conservation and part company totally on how to protect the cemetery.

The large group is proposing a plan for site and service sustainability that involves development – yes – but not development that will remove graves or adversely affect heritage. They want development that removes an unstable tip and creates a permanent safe coastal path. They want development, and only development, that is fully consistent with the unique heritage value of the site and that will support service continuity and help finance ongoing grave conservation.
By contrast, the small group is proposing no plan at all and is also rejecting any compromise on the suggestions being made by the larger group.

It is difficult to figure out why the small group is so adamantly opposed to the large group’s suggestions when indeed the small group has put forward no alternative ideas other than to seek a heritage listing that, if approved by the heritage minister, will bring with it increased and very costly obligations for conservation, but little or no funding. But the fact that a pavilion would increase visitation to the cemetery may have something to do with the stubbornness with which the small group of near neighbours has rejected the large group’s proposals and requests for compromise.

The residents have stated that the cemetery merely needs to be “left alone”, and that if we “leave it alone”, the cemetery will be all right and their quiet neighbourhood will be maintained. But the truth is that if we “leave it alone”, as though it’s invulnerable to the ravages of age and vandals, the only possible result is that it will crumble away, which in turn will ultimately lead to developers eyeing it off in ways that neither of the groups want, but which may well tempt future governments.

In the absence of any better ideas than Save Waverley Cemetery’s, some sort of compromise by the ‘Residents’ group is undoubtedly necessary if they really want heritage protection, because the millions that will be needed each year to sustain this heritage won’t magically materialise without a well thought out business plan and heritage sympathetic development.

This is where Waverley Council should come in. They should be leading the community to achieve a plan for genuine and secure long-term sustainability that will maximise and even improve local neighbourhood amenity. It is possible to achieve this sort of win-win. At 16 hectares in land area, Waverley Cemetery is so large that it is entirely possible to create the pavilion and increase visitation (which is absolutely necessary to sustainability) and still retain the peacefulness that comes with living next to and visiting such a large memorial site. Local life and the life of the cemetery itself can both be improved with cooperative and thoughtful planning.

Some of Save Waverley Cemetery’s supporters have said it best. When they signed our petition they made comments like these:

“A historical site of such significance needs to be maintained in the best manner possible. The upgrade is sorely needed.
Some Waverley residents seem to think some areas are their exclusive reserve for their use only, which is just not right. The cemetery needs to be vastly upgraded for the benefit of all.”

“Heritage places like this always need long-term planning like the one that the council has rejected. It would be better to have a funeral there under cover as proposed than drive all that way to the rather unpleasant surrounds of [other cemeteries]. The cemetery is a key Sydney landmark and needs to have every opportunity to survive to its full potential. It’s part of our Sydney heritage and too important a place to be put under threat.”

These are all comments from residents of the Eastern Suburbs – all likely to be voting in the soon to be amalgamated Eastern Suburbs Council. It’s time Waverley Council stopped playing exclusively to the interests of a very small group at the complete expense of the legitimate interests of the much larger Save Waverley Cemetery group and the interests of the cemetery itself. It’s time they showed some leadership in developing a plan that genuinely puts the cemetery first and reflects more fairly the interests of all stakeholders, within and beyond the Eastern Suburbs. Otherwise, it can be guaranteed that the small local ‘Residents’ group will lose the very thing they say they want to protect.

Dr Bronwyn Kelly
Campaign Organiser Save Waverley Cemetery