What community representation?

               

“Ray, these groups (Save Bright, the BCA and the Chamber Committee) are the only groups in town that people are able to have a voice through. You dengirate them as if they are inconsequential. They are not. And the effort you make to belittle them proves that. Keep it up BCA, Save Bright and Chamber. Bright is well worth fighting for!!!”

Then why don’t they have inter-active websites, Roy?

The above comment was made here late last night by “Roy Hardy” (an alias, I presume) under the previous post Time to move on … or out! Roy is possibly a member of one of the above groups and is clearly annoyed that I would have the temerity to question and query the groups’ methods, motives and lack of public debate and openness. 

Notably though, ”Roy” had no comment to make on the more central - and only - issues those groups (who are clearly inter-connected) have recently raised, being the proposed planning overlays for Bright and the controversial Cittaslow proposal, the very things I’m writing about. I’ve already responded to “Roy” under the same post but I think it’s worth looking at the 3 groups and why they SHOULD be queried and questioned:

Bright Chamber of Commerce committee:

Look at the recent debacle. Their President, Wayne Phillips, was forced to step down following his extremely negative & damaging comments about Bright reported in the Herald-Sun. The remaining committee members went ‘to ground’ and refused to comment, even to the Border Mail and the Bright Observer. Brad Worrall (the BM journalist) told me that he pleaded with them to make some kind of comment to ‘clear the air’ but they refused.

After a few weeks they released a press statement that totally ignored the crisis in confidence created by Phillips and, instead, spoke about ‘Cittaslow’ and how they want the community to get behind that idea – without explaining why, or how it would benefit Bright’s economy. They’ve placed two ads in the paper inviting the public to a so-called Cittaslow discussion night out at a Porepunkah winery later this month - at a cost of $30 each!

A committe member has recently started up a ‘community information’ website, in which the Cittaslow proposal is given a mighty big amount of space – all propaganda. The website topics though are “not for discussion” and the comments section is switched off.

But, Cittaslow is a European-based politically motivated anti-development & anti-commercial socialist movement. It is very anti-progress. Yet the Chamber is advocating Bright becomes an official Cittaslow ’slow town’ – i.e. one that rejects normal commercialism and ‘drops out’ of the mainstream.

I don’t think that’s good representation or advocacy for Bright, which is a 100% normal commercial tourist town.

Save Bright:

Well, need I explain? Wayne Phillips is the principal officer and ‘economic spokesperson’ for this anti-development, anti-commercial group that started up in January of last year. A position that totally conflicted with his role as Chamber President. They held up the most important development ever proposed for Bright for over 12 months with a sheer propaganda campaign. They would not enter into open debate of the issues. They have very few members & supporters. VCAT dismissed ALL of their objections out of hand, yet they have still refused to acknowledge that they just might have been wrong and, instead, have merely placed a few ’sour grapes’ letters in the papers, blaming the council and lack of community support.

That says it all about Save Bright, who should just go away.

Bright Citizens Association: 

This little known group is almost a closed shop. Or I should say, it is only open to those who share their “let’s keep Bright as it is” mission. They now claim to hold public quarterly meetings, although a letter explaining that was published AFTER the only such meeting they have held. There is no phone listing for this group, nor does it have a website. In this day & age it is astounding that a so-called “citizens group” that purports to represent the community would not have an interactive website where issues could be discussed and opinions aired.

The group has met privately and, last year, a small number of them approached (privately) the Alpine council in an attempt to have planning restrictions (overlays) incorporated into the Bright Future Project document and for that to then be drafted into the planning scheme. They still want that, yet they have NOT consulted the wider community about these proposals.

Then recently, the BCA together with the Chamber of Commerce committee and some Save Bright people, again went behind the community’s back and gave the Alpine council the false impression that there was “considerable community interest in Bright becoming an official Cittaslow – a “slow-town”.

Now the secretary has written to the local paper urging the community to “start lobbying” for these changes, without explaining what they are. The letter also referred to the upcoming council elections and inferred that we should elect councillors who agree with their narrow views, to get their ideas adopted no doubt.

Summary:

The 3 groups clearly have one thing, at least, in common. They are all opposed to development & growth. And, as I said above, in a town like Bright that means they are anti-progress. I believe their ideas are potentially disastrous for the economic sustainability of Bright. Anyway, Roy can claim I’m ”denigrating” the 3 groups if he likes, but I am merely doing two things here:

1. I’m presenting the counter-arguments.

2. I’m trying to get these groups, who consist of a mere few dozen people at most, to openly debate their  rather radical proposals that they want to impose on the entire town. 

It’s an uphill battle but I won’t be silenced by the likes of “Roy”. (I wonder if he writes ‘hate mail’ too?)

Maybe the chamber committee members should dissolve the chamber? Let’s face it, most businesses have dropped out in light of the chamber’s anti-development, anti-progress views.

Those chamber members advocating Cittaslow could then join their ‘mates’ at Save Bright and the BCA and form a new group. They’d need an appropriate name though, something like this:

Bright Citizens Against Development Society 

… i.e. the Bright CADS. At least that name might more accurately describe their position and attitudes.