SHFA Misinformation and Untruths re Water Police Site, Pyrmont Point

On 19 November 2003 a story "Harbour body faces protesters" on the proposed multi-storey development of the NSW water police site by the Sydney Harbour Foreshores Authority appeared in the Australian Financial Review .

This story shows the blatant misinformation and untruths that SHFA presents to the media and the public as facts.

It appears that Dr Lang is attempting to portray the growing community opposition to SHFA's plan to turn public land on Pyrmont Point into a multi storey development as a campaign by an ill informed group of dissidents aided by people from other parts of Sydney "who have their own agenda."

The statements made by Dr Rob Lang, SHFA's Chief Executive Officer, are quoted below, along with the facts of the matter, which are all verifiable.

Statement: "The latest troubles seemed to stem from new local residents, especially from Jackson 's Landing and from outsiders...who have their own agenda"

Untruth and wishful thinking! The facts are that this is not an issue pursued by a small group with its "own agenda." SHFA's plans are opposed by highly-regarded and well-informed individuals and organisations across Sydney, and beyond. The following have publicly declared their support for keeping the land as a community resource providing usable, public open space:

Ian Kiernan (Clean up Australia)
Jack Mundey (green ban legend)
Sydney Lord Mayor Lucy Turnbull
Deputy Lord Mayor Dixie Coulton
Sydney councillors Fabian Marsden and Robert Ho
Leichhardt councillors, Maire Sheehan and Hall Greenland
Peter Collins, former NSW Liberals leader and Sydney Council mayoral candidate
Chris Harris, Greens Sydney Council mayoral candidate
Sydney Council
Leichhardt Council
Willoughby Council
Justice Barry O'Keefe, Chairman National trust
Protectors of Public Lands
Lee Rhiannon, Leader, NSW Greens
Sylvia Hale, Greens Legislative Councillor
Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans, Leader NSW Democrats
CFMEU (NSW Division)
Shirley Fitzgerald, Sydney Council historian and author
John McInerney, former Chief Planner, Sydney Council
Pyrmont-Ultimo Chamber of Commerce

Hardly a small group of ill-informed malcontents!

Another fact . At the time of the Australian Financial Review story, Friends of Pyrmont Point had presented a petition signed by 6,050 concerned people from all over Sydney , to Upper House member, Sylvia Hale. This has since been handed to Lower House Independent Clover Moore . The number of signatories is now around 8,000.

At a meeting with Friends of Pyrmont Point on 20 November, the minister responsible for SHFA, Craig Knowles, agreed to put a hold on SHFA's development application, which would otherwise have been tabled in the first week of December. The Minister is hardly likely to have put a hold on SHFA's DA if the opposition to the sell off came from a small group of misinformed individuals. Perhaps Dr Lang thinks his Minister is also misinformed!

Statement: " Long-term residents in particular appreciated the transformation of the former industrial wasteland into the fast evolving living vibrant community"

Untruth! Where is his evidence?

As outlined above, the facts points to widespread public support for the Water Police site to be kept as a resource for the local and wider Sydney community.

Here are some more facts . A poll of was held of long-term and more recent residents who attended SHFA's "information evening" showing SHFA's plans for the Pyrmont area on 18 November 2003 . Two people voted for "SHFA's plans for multi-storey development of the Water Police site." There were 104 votes from across the community for the preference to "Retain the land as public open space for community use." This is the fact Dr Lang should have been stating.

Furthermore, a public meeting of residents from all across the spectrum that same evening unanimously passed a four-part resolution which was passed on to Minister Knowles at the meeting Friends of Pyrmont Point had with him on 20 November:

That, given the actions and behaviour of the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority in relation to development in the Ultimo/Pyrmont area, this community has no trust or confidence in the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority.

That the Ultimo/Pyrmont community rejects the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority's plans for the former Water Police site on Elizabeth Macarthur Bay

That the land on Elizabeth Macarthur Bay be retained as public open space for use by the community.

That this public open space be managed by the Sydney City Council for the benefit of the community.

Pyrmont is, indeed, evolving a "living, vibrant community" but not for the reasons claimed by Dr Lang. One key issue uniting the community is its distrust and lack of confidence in SHFA.

Statement: (about the CFMEU's interim green ban on the Water Police site) "I don't think they're in receipt of all the facts."

The CFMEU is well aware of all the facts. Before applying the CFMEU's only green ban in more than two years, representatives of Friends of Pyrmont Point were subjected to a detailed cross examination by around 40 delegates at their state conference. Then the Union set up a sub-committee to further examine the issue in more detail for nearly a week. This examination included more cross examination, independent enquiries of SHFA, the office of the local member (Sandra Nori) and visits to the site.

After more examination the NSW Labor Council endorsed the CFMEU green ban. To state that the CFMEU was not in receipt of all the facts is a blatant insult to the integrity and decision-making processes of the CFMEU.

A key factor in the Union 's decision was its conclusion that SHFA's plans were widely opposed by the community, especially its long-term and more socially disadvantaged residents.

The facts confirm that the decision to impose the interim green ban was not taken lightly.

Statement: " The number of apartments had been cut to 87"

Misinformation! Dr Lang left out the key words "a minimum of" before the number "87." At least SHFA's less senior staff have been honest enough to acknowledge that they are planning at least 87 apartments. They acknowledge that the final number could be higher.

Typically, just about all developments in the area have exceeded the original approved building envelope, usually by at least two storeys. There is no certainty of the final number of units that SHFA will pack in to the site, given half a chance.

Statement: ".and residents had been widely consulted"

Misinformation! Consultation is defined as "a conference for discussion or the seeking of advice." SHFA does not do this. SHFA's method of consultation is to letter drop information on what it intends to do. It's so-called "information sessions" do the same thing.

SHFA's consultation processes, which were accepted initially in good faith, are now cynically regarded as a sham, and a token "tick the box" exercise designed to show that consultation has occurred. SHFA dictates the agenda of the process from start to finish. For example, the option for retention of the Water Police site as a community resource providing usable public open space was never presented by SHFA. The only options presented were for differing multi storey developments, all directed towards a pre-determined financial outcome.

The Auditor -General's report of November 2003 on Disposal of Sydney Harbour Foreshore Land, page 4 states:

"While there is considerable emphasis on public consultation following preparation by the proponent of a master plan and a development application, there is less emphasis on consultation at the initial decision to either redevelop a site or develop as public space."

The Auditor-General's assessment of public consultation concerning the future of the harbour foreshore should be preferred to Dr Lang's public relations "spin."

Statement: "The final design concept, selected by competition and won by Sydney architects Engelen Moore, had more open space than the residents had wanted."

Where is the evidence? Dr Lang must think residents are very gullible if they want less open space than they can get!

The fact is that SHFA's architectural competition leading to SHFA's selection of Engelen Moore has been publicly discredited as a sham by those who took part in it.

The amount of open space in a development is easily manipulated. In the case of the Water Police site the percentage of so-called open space seems to rise in direct proportion to the level of public opposition to SHFA's development plans. The increasing ratio of "open space" has apparently been achieved by raising the height of planned buildings, from 8 to 14 storeys, in one case.

Debate about the amount of open space sidesteps the central question: "Where is the justification for handing over public foreshore land to developers for short term profit at the long-term cost to the community?"