Margot Giblin
Council should be careful with its wishes.
THE LAST ITEM on the agenda at last Monday night’s open Council meeting, put up by Zucco, asked for a report that provides Council ‘with the options to acquire Princes Wharf No.1 from the Government’.
Councilor Cocker expressed concern at the wording saying it suggested Council had already decided it wanted to buy the shed.
He was howled down.
The general manager supported the howlers by saying that ‘options’ meant both for and against. Pros and cons would naturally be thoroughly canvassed.
Councilor Elise Archer, with reference to her legal background, confirmed that ‘options’ meant just that. She didn’t, with respect, see what Cocker was concerned about.
Zucco, in closing debate, was equally dismissive of Cocker’s worries, repeating that this was a report only, on arguments for and against acquisition.
Zucco doesn’t seem to have got that across to The Mercury which headlined its article Shed Purchase on Council’s Wish List.
(27.11.07)
Council should be careful with its wishes.
The meeting between Council and the State Government on the shed’s future was described as ‘favourable’ by Zucco.
Divesting itself of a dusty, asbestos ridden, shabby old shed might well appeal.
What if the state government says take it?
How much would it cost to demolish and replace the building with something worthy of the site?
How would Council recoup the expenditure involved in building a new structure and stay true to its expressed desire, which matches that of the State Government, to have the site designated for public use only?
Does it envisage the Fun Run paying premium rent?
The Wooden Boat Festival?
A winter market?
What will fill it on every other day of the year?
