VIDEO EXPIRED!
(Jacobs’ pitch – for Parliament? Using Canning residents as fodder?)
Last night on Today/Tonight increasingly irksome City of Canning councillor, and recently pre-selected Liberal candidate for the seat of Cannington, Jesse Jacobs, spoke to camera about “taking care of residents” over a tree issue that has gone on for a long time in Canning Vale.
Transcript at bottom
Yet just months before he’d voted against helping the same residents featured in their call to remove the trees:-
As the motion to Council above will show#, considerable deliberation and councillor suggestions went in to assessment of the request over the gum trees, but ultimately it was decided not to act on that which is “structurally sound and healthy”.
Jump forward and as the residents of the troubled street again submitted a petition to remove the trees it was to find Council had added a clause to its tree policy to the effect they won’t be removed unless they’re dangerous, damaging, dying or dead – and that if City staff reject a request for removal residents can’t take it on to Council for deliberation.**
Jacobs seemed OK with the detailed look in to these particular residents’ request originally, and Council’s subsequent decision. Certainly he didn’t vote against it.
Now, however, he objects to the same residents’ inability to take the matter back to Council.
You have to wonder at the gall of refusing to at least vote against the decision not to help these residents in some way, then turn up when they were able to secure media interest. What is Jacobs doing in Canning Vale anyway? Its a million miles from the area he’s supposed to represent.
Jesse Jacobs – angered the Mayor when he didn’t turn up for the Aged Care review facilities tour, is said to not always turn up for strategic briefings to Council, doesn’t mind hopping a plane to attend conferences at ratepayers’ expense but seems to have a problem turning up at community events within his own ward.
Are we going to see more of this sort of thing as the state election nears? Have media, will represent? You decide….
Extract, Today/Tonight: Jesse Jacobs:-
Jacobs: “Some councillors were saying we’ve got to look at the[tree issue as a] bigger picture, [that this issue] is a minor issue [and] what I say back to that is if you aren’t looking after the residents, you have missed the bigger picture”
Today/Tonight: “Canning councillor Jesse Jacobs voted against the new clause – he thinks its shirking responsibility”
Jacobs: “I was voted in to represent electors, I’m not voted in by trees, we’re the Council, this is what we get paid to do. If we’re not looking after the residents, what are we there to do?”
*Image from The West Australian article “Don’t say save the trees in Canning Vale – residents want giant gums gone”, full article to be found on Yahoo as published 21 Sept 2016
[Video expired!] https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/32689827/dont-say-save-the-trees-in-canning-vale-residents-want-giant-gums-gone/#page1
Original story from Today/Tonight, produced 21 Sept 2016
#Resolution of Council, IE-017-16 Tree Report – 33 Geranium Place Canning Vale, Ordinary Council Meeting, 19 April 2016
**Extracted from “Calls to axe troubled trees”, Canning Times, 13 Sept 2016.
Canning Accountability 
Every situation should be judged on its merits Its sad that Neither of the Nicholson Ward Councilors, who co incidentally don’t even live in the area( no local knowledge or apparent sympathy) turned up to advise. My understanding from past Council experience,is that if 6 Councilors vote against Policy,then it overrides it. Council ,when put on Notice should then be totally responsible for any further damage caused to ratepayers property.Instead of stonewalling Ratepayers and remembering that Ratepayers of the Canning Vale area in Canning pay extra in RATES (levy) for the extra upkeep of verges and POS in the area they should alleviate the problem where they can. You could take 1 Tree out and replant 2 in the City as an offset, You wouldn’t have to remove every Street Tree just because some didn’t like it but Xouncil should investigate instigating a Policy that systematically looks at Trees causing damage and have Budget line that accounts for it. From my past experience ,individual tree items should still come before Council for deliberation remembering that it’s Ratepayer money is responsible for Councils and Councilors existence and they should give Due Consideration to their concerns instead of putting in new regulations and conditional clauses that stifle the Democratic Process.
LikeLike
Oh yes, of course, I’d forgotten about that – Canning Vale residents pay an additional area rate to maintain their verges that the rest of Canning residents do not.
Interesting you say that “if 6 Councillors vote against the policy then it overrides it” – so I suppose that’s a case of lobbying individual councillors, and then one putting up a motion to get it underway?
LikeLike
That’s right, it only takes 6 fair/like minded Councillors to do that, on a case by case of course. Not Delegating everything to Council officers who generally see things in a Regulatory point of view. I believe one new Councillor apparently asked ,relating to a Tree problem ,why it had to be dealt with in Chamber. Hello!! what did you think you would be doing as a Elected Representative ( added emphasis) My understanding was ,that if a proposal was disallowed under Delegation, then the proponent had the right to ask that it then be put before Council for Due Consideration.
LikeLike
“Due consideration” – that used to be listed in all Ordinary Council Meeting documents, didn’t it? – meaning the Councillors were asked to sort of testify that they had put all appropriate effort in to absorbing what was in the motions put to them, something like that? Wonder why it was removed, it still says it on the powerful DAPs (Development Assessment Panels) Agendas, and Canning councillors agree to be bound by this expectation at that point.
LikeLike