Shocked and saddened. Disappointed and disgusted. All this and more when I heard the sudden announcement late last week that the Anglican Church had sold Montgomery Park at Coningham.
You would have heard it first, briefly, on ABC Radio News on Friday. The Mercury? Not a word (yet it was their Sunday Tasmanian last month reporting concerns about the uncertain future of the park’s little chapel together with the uncertain fate of the park itself).
As with so many aspects of this park saga, there are unanswered questions arising from the “sale agreement” (settlement July 1). No buyer’s name given. No price disclosed (but try $1.5 million, short of the $1.8m the church had originally envisaged).
First question: why the abrupt announcement when reliable information was the intention was to sell by calling for Expressions of Interest (EOI) in the property next month? EOIs are the path they usually tread in disposing of substantial properties, which Montgomery Park is, and Holy Trinity Church was.
Surely not a fluttering in the church dovecots over the attention which has been given to the issue, notably from Mission Afloat getting the order of the marine boot after being so long at the park?
The media statement on the sale was dated last Thursday (no excuse then Mercury for missing it on Friday. Even following up the ABC for Saturday’s edition might have sufficed. Unfortunately not – its readers were left uninformed).
The statement quoted Bishop John Harrower several times, after repeating an earlier excuse that getting rid of the park was the church synod’s decision. But the bishop had me blinking when he said the campsite needed “very expensive upgrading and maintenance to bring it to 21st Century standards. Conningham too, is no longer the secluded get-away it was in the 1950s, but an outer suburb of Hobart, no longer as suitable for a campsite.”
Pardon? An “outer suburb of Hobart”? Where did that come from?
And on “upgrading and maintenance” can they explain if there had been any application to the Tasmanian Community Fund for a grant, and if not, why not? Other campsites, churches, and other church-associated operations have done well from the fund’s rounds of grants.
Oh, by the way – the spelling is “Coningham”.
Still the bishop did realise the camp’s history goes a long way back, which was something that seemed to elude the church’s Vicar-General, Chris Jones, when the ABC tapped him for comment after the media release failed to mention buyer and price. He said that the “campsite was held for a number of years”. From the late 1940s rates a big number in years!
The media statement made no mention of what’s going to happen to the chapel. The bishop said last month it wouldn’t be sold unless it is “used as a church”. So perhaps the buyer – who will be getting all the various large buildings on the site – can tell us what he intends doing with the chapel.
“Oh, for heaven’s sake!” was my reaction when I was reflecting on the various Montgomery Park comments from the church people. But it’s also left me with a sense of loss, and lamenting that more people haven’t shown a willingness to speak out. Precious little heard from the pollies. Voices missing from the school representatives who sent children to the Mission Afloat camps – and saw them return very happy to the classroom.
As the young man (mentioned recently on this website) shouted from the grandstand at Huonville during a footy match: “I went to a camp at Mission Afloat. It was awesome!”
I’ll leave this quote for readers to think about, from what is regarded as the greatest classic of Japanese literature, The Tale of Genji, by Lady Murasaki, completed in the early years of the 11th century; it was a timeless exploration of human motives and passions:
“There are those who carry forbearance too far, and affecting not to notice wrongs which cry out for redress seem to be paragons of misused fidelity”.
