Freo's View

FREMANTLE’S SLOW ONE PLANET PROJECTS

Posted in cars, city of fremantle, environment, parklet by freoview on January 11, 2017

A report in the West Australian yesterday that the sales of electric cars in Australia has dropped by 90 per cent made me wonder what is happening with the Fremantle solar charging station as part of the RAC electric highway.

Sales of electric vehicles in Australia have always been very low so the One Planet $ 50,000 investment by the City of Fremantle appears to be money not well spent, as only a handful of drivers would use the charger.  The charging station at the Esplanade was supposed to start early last year but I have since been told by staff that the City is looking for another location for it.

Another One Planet project, the solar parklet near the Lenny the Ox cafe at Wray Avenue, is also very slow. The last I heard from the project manager was that it would start in December last year but that has not eventuated.

Roel Loopers

27 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. freoishome said, on January 19, 2017 at 8:18 am

    I agree BigJulie. It is the CoF process that needs attention.
    Paul

  2. bigjulie said, on January 18, 2017 at 7:11 pm

    The design should have been drawn up and tenders called. Simple.

    That is how government money should be spent so to avoid any conflict of interest.

  3. Lionel said, on January 18, 2017 at 4:52 pm

    Paul you seem to live in an alternate reality. Best of luck in your bubble.

  4. freoview said, on January 18, 2017 at 3:32 pm

    I don’t need to be asked by anyone before I write a blog post Paul. I merely mentioned the parklet project was delayed and you and Lionel are having a big discussion about it.

    I am more concerned about the very large sum of money the City of Fremantle wants to spend on a solar car charging station for electric cars that will cost $ 50,000 when the already very low sale of electric cars has dropped by 90% according to the West Australian. The parklet was just a side issue I mention in the One Planet context.

    Roel

  5. freoishome said, on January 18, 2017 at 3:07 pm

    Lionel. So the issue you outline about the use of ratepayer money is with the CoF not the proponent. Thanks for clarifying that for everyone. If you need to whinge about it, whinge to CoF.

    The crowdfunding is not a ratepayer issue, none of anyone’s business except the Proponent and his crowd funding group. I don’t think either you or Roel, have expressed a position where you have been asked by the Crowdfunding Admin to take this up publically with the proponent. I doubt they would seek that method of issue resolution, I suspect the Crowdfunding admin have processes for dealing with issues and complaints themselves!

    Lionel, I think you should, in your words ‘man up’ and take this up with the Council officers. Your inappropriate bleating about this, ie, to the proponent, sounds like a baby crying!
    Paul

  6. Lionel said, on January 17, 2017 at 10:52 pm

    Paul why don’t you have a look at http://www.fremantle.wa.gov.au/oneplanetfreomatch

    There is no contract, the CoF simply donated half the money – welcome to the half-baked world of crowdfunding using ratepayers money. The CoF have no recourse if this is not built. They have no control over the project and they can not make any demands of the project creator. They, like everyone else who donated, must simply trust him to do what he promised.

    For the record Jean Paul, I am sure you will build the parklet. I don’t agree with my rates paying for it but it doesn’t mean I think you up to something nefarious. I do think you should man up and explain to everyone why it is so delayed and you should probably stop acting like a big baby.

  7. Suzanne said, on January 17, 2017 at 6:21 pm

    Spot on Roel.
    This bloke appears to be living in the Oscar favorite….LALALand.

  8. freoishome said, on January 17, 2017 at 2:12 pm

    The proponent has a contract with the CoF. If the City hasn’t created the type of contract you think should exist, then obviously anyone, as a ratepayer, can only take that up with the City. If the proponent isn’t living up to the contract, then again a ratepayer can only take it up with the City. As ratepayers we don’t have a direct role with all contractors and service providers. I think there are also quite tight limitations on what the Councillors can do directly, once it becomes a contract.
    Does anyone have any feedback from having taken this up withe City? I don’t want to put that on you Roel; there are others here who ought to be capable of that.
    Paul

  9. freoview said, on January 17, 2017 at 9:00 am

    The person who had the idea of the parklet and is organising it sent me a private message on Facebook that I should stop attacking him and the City of Fremantle. I have done no such thing, merely mentioned the project was delayed and did not even mention his name.

    When I wanted to respond via Facebook I received a message that my message had been blocked. Very childish attitude indeed.

    The organiser said the steel frame is now being fabricated and that once he has talked to all the tradies he will announce on the parklet Facebook page what will happen. He said he is full-time employed so the project took longer than expected.

    Totally fine, but why not communicate that to the people who paid money through crowd funding and City of Fremantle ratepayers?

    It’s not a big deal that there is a delay but to have the egotistic attitude that no one should question what goes on is very immature JPH!

    Roel

  10. Lionel said, on January 17, 2017 at 8:24 am

    So in your world any contractor or supplier to the CoF is immune to questioning from the community.

  11. freoishome said, on January 16, 2017 at 1:47 pm

    The point is Roel, that if that was the contract the CoF negotiated, then that is what we have to live with as a community, or get the CoF to make the changes. It is not a contract between the community and the proponent. If the proponent holds all the cards, all the flexibility, etc, then bigger fool the CoF for having constructed such a contract, don’t blame the proponent. If he is in breach of the contract then take it up with CoF, it is their job to deal with contract breaches, not the community’s.
    Paul

  12. freoview said, on January 16, 2017 at 11:57 am

    The proponent, not CoF, manages the project and money, as far as I am aware, Paul, so surely it is not a big deal for people to ask questions about the time line, why it took so long, etc.

    Roel

  13. freoishome said, on January 16, 2017 at 11:17 am

    I completely agree for the need for transparency about CoF actions. But this is different. This gentleman has a formal agreement with CoF, not with us. Where should the transparency focus be?
    The CoF is managing this situation, so isn’t that the place to begin?
    I feel that if this involved a company of some significance, then interrogation becomes impersonal. But in cases for projects such as this, the city is dealing directly with a person, and if the community has concerns, it should by getting the Council to listen to the community, and either put their minds at rest that they are on top of it, or they are not. If, they aren’t and cannot find a way around it, then sprouking public action might be appropriate.
    Is the CoF fully involved with this particular project? Are they happy about its progress?
    Paul

  14. bigjulie said, on January 16, 2017 at 8:24 am

    To call written comment “negativity” is in fact a manifestation of the very disease the complainant is wishing to eliminate.

    If I say the Council toilet is ugly then yes, it is negative only because the reverse positive would have had me saying the toilet was beautiful or of fine architectural merit. I would contend my assessment as “fair comment’ of a neutral nature. Every ugly baby has a mother who loves it. So too, an architect may consider his latest monstrosity a marvel of cosmic harmony or a visual cornucopia of intersecting mathematics. My suspicion is that many architects don’t actually try to be innovative like Gaudi, Hector Guimard or Frank Lloyd Wright – designers who sprang from a new assumption. We get the Google Sketch Up facade that just drops off their pen or mouse at midnight. Different height to the adjacent buildings, verandah height and width not matching, tilt up concrete with some conventional bond brickwork, caravan windows and a roof suitable to a shearing shed.

    Roel does a great job moderating; even YouTube has horrid comments which usually degenerate into people calling each other Nazis, morons or deviants.

    I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It
    http://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/06/01/defend-say/

    The hot topic this year will be free speech and the Human Rights Commission is now web posting submissions on that subject. The citizen must “man up” to hearing things they may not wish to hear. The rot started when we banned David Irving and other speakers from touring our country because Big Brother felt we needed protection from their controversial words. I say let them in and then let them hang by their own tongue.

  15. freoview said, on January 16, 2017 at 12:33 am

    I think the community has the right to transparency where public money is concerned and I don’t believe Jean-Paul should be evasive about it and say he does not like this blog because it supports negativity.
    Fact is that the parklet was going to start in November, then December and JP told me last week that the construction had started but I have driven by three times this week and saw no sign of it.

    Roel

  16. Lionel said, on January 15, 2017 at 11:34 pm

    How is it a personal question Paul? This is public money being spent on a public space. As the providers of this money we have a right to know the answer.

    You know what I find boring – self appointed moral police who think questioning how hard earned tax dollars are spent amounts to vilification. I would rather my money went to almost anything else other than providing a solar powered seat for the latte drinking hipsters. Homeless? Disenfranchised? Needy? Poor? Nah, lets make a safe space for isheep to feel good about themselves while they post selfies. F*$k right off.

  17. freoishome said, on January 15, 2017 at 3:44 pm

    Blog posts are absolutely not the place for personal comments and judgements about others you know nothing about. Tackling the ball is ok, but not the player. Even tackling the ball gets very boring when the same negative comments are being made by the same people about the same topics! Demanding that people reply publicly to your personal questions is out of order.
    Paul

  18. Rob said, on January 15, 2017 at 12:09 pm

    Lionel is absolutely right in asking the question. Don’t be offended JP. Sites like this usually moderate themselves through comment and discussion, as I am doing agreeing with Lionel.

  19. Suzanne said, on January 15, 2017 at 8:41 am

    Lionel is correct.
    Show us the money JP….

    …..or at least the park I have reluctantly
    contributed to, courtesy of my magnanimous Council.

  20. Lionel said, on January 14, 2017 at 7:35 pm

    Sorry your feeling were hurt Jean-Paul. It’s great that you are trying to do something for the community but don’t get too high and mighty, its hardly coming out of your pocket and you can’t be working that hard on it if it has taken over a year and still hasn’t started – you can build a house in less time.

    Why can’t you publicly tell us why it has taken so long to build this thing? That seems pretty cowardly considering the community is paying for it.

  21. freoview said, on January 14, 2017 at 2:41 pm

    This blog does not “support negative commentary” Jean-Paul but I try not to censor the comments so the negative comments I receive, as do all social media sites, is not something I support but in fact dislike.

    On several occasions of the seven years life of this blog I have asked people to be more positive with their comments, to not make personal attacks, etc. but unfortunately there are many keyboard heroes out there who love the power of the internet and write nasty stuff mainly. I seriously considered last year to stop with the blog because of it.

    To make it clear to you JP and everyone else; I do not support or encourage negative comments but I accept that people do have the right to voice their opinion and concerns about things that happen in Fremantle!

    Roel

  22. Jean-Paul Horré said, on January 14, 2017 at 1:55 pm

    Lionel, there are a variety of reasons this Parklet has been delayed but it is in the process now of being built. I will happily explain the reasons to you if you would contact me directly as I have invited you to do so in the past at jeanpaulhorre@gmail.com

    I would also like to point out that saying nasty things about people on a blog commentary does not benefit anyone. It is cowardly. I am an Australian citizen and a ratepayer and I have lived here in Fremantle for 8 years. I am working hard to provide a positive thing for the greater community to enjoy.

    I will not comment again on this blog as I find it a place that supports negative commentary more than the positive.

  23. Lionel said, on January 11, 2017 at 5:48 pm

    Yes, I said this from the start. There needs to be some accountability here. The mayor and Jean-Paul have said time and time again this is about to be installed but it never happens. Why didn’t the CoF demand an outcome within a timeframe? What are the reasons for the delay?

  24. freoview said, on January 11, 2017 at 3:55 pm

    $ 28,000 for a parklet is an awful lot of money for a very small space.

    Roel

  25. Lionel said, on January 11, 2017 at 1:44 pm

    Looks like we are both wrong – the CoF tipped in $14k and the rest ($14k+) was crowd funded. Either way it stinks, especially if you were one of those people who also donated.

  26. freoview said, on January 11, 2017 at 1:36 pm

    It is my understanding that the proponents raised $ 10,000 through crowd funding and the CoF match that amount, Lionel, so the total to construct the parklet is $ 20,000 of which CoF paid half.

    Roel

  27. Lionel said, on January 11, 2017 at 10:16 am

    The solar powered parklet is such a joke. Over a year later and still nothing. The CoF has pissed away 20k of our rates – that money could have been spent on something useful or even just sat in the bank earning interest, instead if funds some ageing hipster from the USA to travel around the world.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: