02 June 2011

You can't please all the people all the time

Political move
Eastern Courier 1/6/11
I BELIEVE I speak for many
when I declare my delight at
the decision to stop all works
at the beautiful and peaceful
Orphanage Park.
However I have been left
gobsmacked at the blatant
politicking by Cr Boisvert.
Cr Boisvert is quoted (Our
park saved, Eastern Courier
Messenger, May 4) as saying
"the residents like the park the
way it is" and adds how important
it is that "elected members
listen to the wishes of the
community". These comments
come on the back of many
months of Cr Boisvert fighting
for exactly the opposite!
Perhaps Cr Boisvert should
have been a little more transparent
and prefaced her comments
by admitting that she
was not in favour of preserving
the creek and that it was
only through the persistence
and perseverance of the Orphanage
Park Concerned Residents
Group (OPCRG ) and its
supporters that she was finally
persuaded to rethink her position.
We can thank elected members
of the new council for
being strong enough to admit
the errors of previous council
members and stop this redevelopment.
I think we should be open
and honest with our feedback
to all residents and steps
should be undertaken to ensure
that in future, public consultation
is open and conducive
to discussion with all
parties rather than closed and
fraught with tensions.
Ultimately though, in this
case, the best possible result
for the people of Unley, by the
people of Unley has been
Chairman OPCRG

It's just as well I published the very pleasant letter earlier. I received this week a letter that I can only describe as nasty and inaccurate from the same people that wrote this letter to the Eastern Courier, their letter was at least publishable. And it is that we see in something what we wish to see. When being interviewed for the earlier article in the paper it was quite clear that the new reporter did not have a lot of knowledge about the ongoing issue that had been the redevelopment of Orphanage Park. I was very careful with my comments and did say exactly what was quoted, and in doing so I was also careful to not use the word I to imply that the end result was something I had achieved or worked towards. Having done extensive door knocking near OP in my ward and in Unley Park the majority of people I spoke to (and the many emails I received) supported the view that a small area should be laid back and the creeks banks should be restored where they had been severely eroded. In saying this I have listened to every request that the group made to me as a group or as individuals. In doing this many aspects of the design were changed over time. To be accused of not listening to the people or politicking is absurd. The elections are over, I have listened and acted on every request that I have received in this matter. I made decisions based on what I believe the majority of my constituents wanted. I, like most people, respond better to praise and collaborative thought than hostility.


  1. I still believe that the creek should have been redeveloped as planned. To not do so detracts from the wonderful work that has been done to the park. The trees are all exotics, some dead, the walls of the creek are dangerous, and the planned improvements would have been a great benefit to the park. Maybe the plans can be shelved and implemented again in a couple of years' time. The vast majority of people wanted these improvements to go ahead and I think it was just a small number of people with "influence" that got this knocked back.

  2. Jennie,

    If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen

  3. Councillor Boisvert – stop wasting your valuable time on inane comments such as this.I would imagine that the original plan was proposed by professional council planners and landscape designers? Now – only time will tell whether the current outcome and action is short sighted and lacks vision compared with the original plan. The previous Council made a decision on what was placed before it. It does not necessarily mean that the council was wrong in its decision because it did not agree with a number of residents.Perhaps it was visionary and could see future, long term benefits for the greater population rather than focusing on short term ones for a smaller number of people.